Racism - Mod Note on 1st Post - Read before posting.

spockety · 01-01-2012 05:43PM

Brain Stroking wrote: »

But you are questioning the procedures whereby the verdict was reached. How can you do that having not seen the full evidence they saw? I'm going to say it again, they saw additional tv footage which we havent seen.
In light of that fact, why adopt the starting position of distrusting the procedure by which the verdict was reached?

It wasn't my starting position. In fact when I first got hold of the report and read it, I was utterly shocked by the first few paragraphs where Evra's case was put forward. I simply couldn't believe what I was reading, that Suarez had said those things, it was sickening. I felt sick in the pit of my stomach, that the indefensible had been defended, what were the club thinking?

It was only when I carried on reading, in the end reading the entire document, that I began to question the merits of the process.

We have not seen the additional TV footage, however it is described in detail in the report, and the findings that the panel took from the TV footage is also clearly detailed. They say that there is nothing in the footage which allows them to gain any further insight into what exactly was said, as there is no direct footage of people's faces/mouths when the conversations as described took place. All they can glean from the footage were body gestures, and confirmation around the timings of sentences and so on.

Again in this thread people are constantly referencing the unaired TV footage as if it is some sort of slam dunk evidence. It is not, and proclamations to that effect belong in the same category as "You are a racist for defending him", "Stop embarrassing yourself", etc.

Brain Stroking · 01-01-2012 05:44PM

spockety wrote: »

And that is exactly what is going to happen to Suarez now. It will be repeated ad nauseum that he has been found guilty of being "a racist".

No. We know Suarez was done for making a racial remark. Whether he is a racist is for anyone who reads the report and considers the case to decide.
Victims victims victims. Pathetic

Crazy Horse 6 · 01-01-2012 05:44PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Again your ignorance of legal priniciples and everyday court matters is evident.

Joe O'Reilly was convicted on emails he sent months before the murder, and telephone records which indicate he lied about his whereabouts. No physical evidence, no witnesses.

Suarez was found guilty based upon his own admission, his evidence which was deemed not credible because it didn't fit with TV footage (perfectly reasonable), and then the various bits of witness testimony that exists including Evra. That admission by Suarez alone is more evidence that was available to the jury in Joe O'Reilly's case.

Anyone who is claiming there is not enough evidence is simply operating out of ignorance. There's not really any other conclusion that can be drawn. Particularly when you find everyday legal matters to be incredible and unreasonable.

Who the feck is Joe O'Reilly and whats he got to do with the Suarez case?

SantryRed · 01-01-2012 05:45PM

spockety wrote: »

It wasn't my starting position. In fact when I first got hold of the report and read it, I was utterly shocked by the first few paragraphs where Evra's case was put forward. I simply couldn't believe what I was reading, that Suarez had said those things, it was sickening. I felt sick in the pit of my stomach, that the indefensible had been defended, what were the club thinking?

It was only when I carried on reading, in the end reading the entire document, that I began to question the merits of the process.

We have not seen the additional TV footage, however it is described in detail in the report, and the findings that the panel took from the TV footage is also clearly detailed. They say that there is nothing in the footage which allows them to gain any further insight into what exactly was said, as there is no direct footage of people's faces/mouths when the conversations as described took place. All they can glean from the footage were body gestures, and confirmation around the timings of sentences and so on.

Again in this thread people are constantly referencing the unaired TV footage as if it is some sort of slam dunk evidence. It is not, and proclamations to that effect belong in the same category as "You are a racist for defending him", "Stop embarrassing yourself", etc.

What about the part were Suarez admits to calling him negro? He told both Kuyt and Comolli in different languages about saying "because you are black" to Evra.

tommyhaas · 01-01-2012 05:45PM

Brain Stroking wrote: »

Yes but comparing posters on an anonymous message forum and Dalglish speaking to the referee is a little silly, no? Saying something to a right thinking member of society (referee) which may lower Evra in the eyes of the referee (and possibly affect evra's livelihood) is slanderous. Check the law

I'm not comparing the validity or relevance of their opinions, just there assumptions. As I said, most assumed Evra had made the accusation at Chelsea, and that includes many Utd fans

If Dalglish is guilty of slander for questioning whether Evra had made these sort of accusations previously, then every Garda in the country would be guilty of slander for asking if a suspect was guilty of a crime

doc_17 wrote: »

It's a case of repeating a lie often enough and people believe it. I thought Evra made that claim as well but a few posters earlier in the thread put me right on that. I apologise.

Similar to yourself, I wouldn't have known Evra didn't make those allegations previously had it not been for the Suarez incident. I certainly didn't read the FA report on the Chelsea incident, and why would anyone without an interest in the case read it. The prevailing consensus after the incident amongst many was that Evra had made the accusation

Crazy Horse 6 · 01-01-2012 05:45PM

Brain Stroking wrote: »

No. We know Suarez was done for making a racial remark. Whether he is a racist is for anyone who reads the report and considers the case to decide.
Victims victims victims. Pathetic

Who are the "victims"? What are you on about.

SantryRed · 01-01-2012 05:46PM

mister men wrote: »

Who are the "victims"? What are you on about.

You still didn't answer my post from earlier btw.

Crazy Horse 6 · 01-01-2012 05:49PM

SantryRed wrote: »

You still didn't answer my post from earlier btw.

You should go into politics

spockety · 01-01-2012 05:50PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Again your ignorance of legal priniciples and everyday court matters is evident.

Joe O'Reilly was convicted on emails he sent months before the murder, and telephone records which indicate he lied about his whereabouts. No physical evidence, no witnesses.

Suarez was found guilty based upon his own admission, his evidence which was deemed not credible because it didn't fit with TV footage (perfectly reasonable), and then the various bits of witness testimony that exists including Evra. That admission by Suarez alone is more evidence that was available to the jury in Joe O'Reilly's case.

Anyone who is claiming there is not enough evidence is simply operating out of ignorance. There's not really any other conclusion that can be drawn. Particularly when you find everyday legal matters to be incredible and unreasonable.

Just to be clear, Suarez was found guilty based on the panel accepting that the conversation went exactly as Patrice Evra has claimed. Is that something that you believe Suarez has somehow admitted?

Just to highlight it again, that Suarez's evidence gives an admission that he uttered these sentences?

"Because you are black".
"I don't speak to blacks".
"okay, blackie, blackie, blackie".

Joe O'Reilly claimed he was somewhere, phone records clearly indicated he was not and he had no defense to that. There are no records of any description which prove clearly that Suarez said anything other than what he claims to have said, and in the spirit in which he claims to have said it. By which I mean beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you even acknowledge that in our courts the burden of proof must go beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas with the FA's proceedings a balance of probability is enough? Or are you even suggesting that in our legal system the balance of probability is enough?

SantryRed · 01-01-2012 05:53PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

You should go into politics

So will you answer it or not? You seem to like answering some things which you can put in your way but not others.

Here it is again if you want to answer it:

SantryRed wrote: »

A couple of inconsistencies? You make it sound like they were small points. Have you read the report?? It reflects badly on Suarez and Liverpool as a whole.

Suarez:
One of the main inconsistencies is where he used the word negro. According to the report, when he said negro has changed for him several times. This is to try and agree with video evidence.

Liverpool:
This pisses me off and nothing has been said of it. Either Suarez has decided to lie and put himself in a pickle or Liverpool staff have deliberately began a cover up of what happened immediately after the game. Both Comolli and Kuyt spoke to Suarez after the game in two different languages (Dutch and Spanish), both of them are told by Suarez that he said to Evra "Because you are black". He is then in earshot of Comolli saying it in English to Dalglish of what happened. Comolli uses some excuse about different speech phrases in Spanish while Kuyt says in his Witness Statement that he could have misheard him. Also, I believe Comolli tried to cover up this "Tues negro", while being interviewed, by saying he doesn't have any recollection of Phil Dowd asking him to spell the word "Tues".

I'm not even getting into the supposed 5 times before this incident has happened that Suarez has now been found guilty of. This is more damning and it completely shows how Suarez and/or the Liverpool staff can't imo be used as credible witnesses.

The situation of where Suarez used negro and in what context absolutely stinks tbh.

This is from a neutral as well btw.

spockety · 01-01-2012 05:58PM

SantryRed wrote: »

What about the part were Suarez admits to calling him negro? He told both Kuyt and Comolli in different languages about saying "because you are black" to Evra.

Suarez admits calling him "negro" in Spanish, in the same way he refers to Glen Johnson, and in the same way he referred to Toure in a match last season. It is his claim that this was not done in an offensive way, and that in his culture and in his native tongue what he said is not meant in an offensive way at all.

With respect to Kuyt and Comolli's statements, both of them are disputed by Suarez, as his is right as a defendant. It is what they believe they were told by Suarez, but it was done in two conversations where one party was a non-native speaker of the language the conversation was being held in each time. It also does nothing to prove that it is actually what Suarez said to Evra.

But again just to re-iterate, I believe that if Suarez did say to Evra "Because you are black", and meant it in the way it sounds in English, then he is guilty. My point is that Suarez disputes that that is exactly what was said. Suarez claims he said "Why, black?".

In terms of the worthiness of Kuyt's evidence, the FA also dismissed his assertion that Evra accused the ref of booking him because he was black, even though Kuyt was 100% adamant that that is what he heard.

Blatter · 01-01-2012 06:03PM

Trilla wrote: »

Baz did someone answer this?

Here is how Suarez changed his story three times.

Originally posted by the FA report

There were, thus, three changes in this account from what Mr Suarez had said in his 2 November interview: (1) Previously he had said that this exchange took place when they were walking away after the referee had spoken to them, whereas now it was said to have occurred simultaneously with the referee blowing his whistle and before he spoke to them. (2) Previously he had said that the exchange took place in the context of Mr Suarez saying sorry to Mr Evra as required by the referee, whereas now nothing was said about Mr Suarez apologising. (3) Previously Mr Suarez said that he believed that Mr Evra's comment that Mr Suarez should not touch him was a reference to Mr Suarez putting his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head, whereas now it was said to be a reference to the pinching on the goal line.

The impression created by these inconsistencies was that Mr Suarez's evidence was not, on the whole, reliable. He had put forward an interpretation of events which was inconsistent with the contemporaneous video evidence. He had changed his account in a number of important respects without satisfactory explanation. As a result, we were hesitant about accepting Mr Suarez's account of events where it was disputed by other credible witnesses unless there was solid evidence to support it.

I feel people are overlooking the role of Kuyt and Comolli in this.

Could someone explain how both Kuyt and Comolli, in two different languages , could interpret what Suarez as having said as ''because you are black''.

Kuyt saying that he could have misinterpreted it, and Comolli trying to cover up the word what he had initially said and then claim it was all a misunderstanding.

Seems a remarkable coincidence that you could have two original interpretations(that were damning and in line with Evra's version of events), in two different languages, that were both conveniently ''misunderstood'' when it was found they didn't match with Suarez' statement.

And do people not find it odd that Suarez changed his story three times to suit video evidence?

And Suarez was found to have clearly lied when he said he tried to pinch Evra ''to diffuse the situation''. Even his own lawyer admitted that there was no way Suarez was trying to diffuse any situation there! So why did he lie?

And all this, after Suarez admitting he used the term 'negro', after Evra's testimony matching up to that of the ref, his teammates, the Canal+ interviewer and video evidence.

Yet there's not enough hard evidence and some people still claim it's essentially one man's word against another's, despite Suarez' lawyer agreeing that it wasn't?

I think the only court Liverpool can bring this to is the CAS, and afaik they also reach their verdicts on the balance of probabilities.

PHB · 01-01-2012 06:08PM

Are people aware that Suarez's lawyer specifically stated that the case was not simply a case of one persons word against another? Suarez's own lawyer.

ilovelamp2000 · 01-01-2012 06:11PM

spockety wrote: »

Just to be clear, Suarez was found guilty based on the panel accepting that the conversation went exactly as Patrice Evra has claimed. Is that something that you believe Suarez has somehow admitted?

Just to highlight it again, that Suarez's evidence gives an admission that he uttered these sentences?

"Because you are black".
"I don't speak to blacks".
"okay, blackie, blackie, blackie".

Joe O'Reilly claimed he was somewhere, phone records clearly indicated he was not and he had no defense to that. There are no records of any description which prove clearly that Suarez said anything other than what he claims to have said, and in the spirit in which he claims to have said it. By which I mean beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you even acknowledge that in our courts the burden of proof must go beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas with the FA's proceedings a balance of probability is enough? Or are you even suggesting that in our legal system the balance of probability is enough?

I love the way every keyboard warrior has become both a linguistics and legal expert on account of this matter.

Beyond reasonable doubt is only ever used in criminal trials, no criminal charge was proferred in this instance so there is no need to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. It was a simple breach of an FA Rule, a civil law matter so the civil law standard applied. There is nothing strange or unusual about this. Again it shows your naivete in legal matters.

Suarez was convicted on the basis of his admitted use of negro, and they believed Evra's context to it because it tallied with the TV footage. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Suarez wasn't credible because he said that basically it was a friendly exchange when TV footage indicates the opposite. Much like the telephone records in Joe O'Reilly.

You literally have to suspend all reason to think Suarez is innocent here.

manual_man · 01-01-2012 06:11PM

Blatter wrote: »

Trilla wrote: »

Baz did someone answer this?

Here is how Suarez changed his story three times.

Originally posted by the FA report

There were, thus, three changes in this account from what Mr Suarez had said in his 2 November interview: (1) Previously he had said that this exchange took place when they were walking away after the referee had spoken to them, whereas now it was said to have occurred simultaneously with the referee blowing his whistle and before he spoke to them. (2) Previously he had said that the exchange took place in the context of Mr Suarez saying sorry to Mr Evra as required by the referee, whereas now nothing was said about Mr Suarez apologising. (3) Previously Mr Suarez said that he believed that Mr Evra's comment that Mr Suarez should not touch him was a reference to Mr Suarez putting his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head, whereas now it was said to be a reference to the pinching on the goal line.

The impression created by these inconsistencies was that Mr Suarez's evidence was not, on the whole, reliable. He had put forward an interpretation of events which was inconsistent with the contemporaneous video evidence. He had changed his account in a number of important respects without satisfactory explanation. As a result, we were hesitant about accepting Mr Suarez's account of events where it was disputed by other credible witnesses unless there was solid evidence to support it.

I feel people are overlooking the role of Kuyt and Comolli in this.

Could someone explain how both Kuyt and Comolli, in two different languages , could interpret what Suarez as having said as ''because you are black''.

Kuyt saying that he could have misinterpreted it, and Comolli trying to cover up the word what he had initially said and then claim it was all a misunderstanding.

Seems a remarkable coincidence that you could have two original interpretations(that were damning and in line with Evra's version of events), in two different languages, that were both conveniently ''misunderstood'' when it was found they didn't match with Suarez' statement.

And do people not find it odd that Suarez changed his story three times to suit video evidence?

And Suarez was found to have clearly lied when he said he tried to pinch Evra ''to diffuse the situation''. Even his own lawyer admitted that there was no way Suarez was trying to diffuse any situation there! So why did he lie?

And all this, after Suarez admitting he used the term 'negro', after Evra's testimony matching up to that of the ref, his teammates, the Canal+ interviewer and video evidence.

Yet there's not enough hard evidence and some people still claim it's essentially one man's word against another's, despite Suarez' lawyer agreeing that it wasn't?

I think the only court Liverpool can bring this to is the CAS, and afaik they also reach their verdicts on the balance of probabilities.

the word porque in spanish can mean because or why. It is quite possible Kuyt and Comoli misinterpreted porque as meaning because. Suarez insists he used it as such: "Porque, negro?" This ambiguity is noted in the report, so it is impossible to say with 100% certainty whether it was said as a statement, or a question. We just don't know

Will I Amnt · 01-01-2012 06:13PM

PHB wrote: »

Are people aware that Suarez's lawyer specifically stated that the case was not simply a case of one persons word against another? Suarez's own lawyer.

Yea but he said "simply" so it could mean the complete opposite apparently.

Blatter · 01-01-2012 06:14PM

spockety wrote: »

Suarez admits calling him "negro" in Spanish, in the same way he refers to Glen Johnson, and in the same way he referred to Toure in a match last season. It is his claim that this was not done in an offensive way, and that in his culture and in his native tongue what he said is not meant in an offensive way at all.

With respect to Kuyt and Comolli's statements, both of them are disputed by Suarez, as his is right as a defendant. It is what they believe they were told by Suarez, but it was done in two conversations where one party was a non-native speaker of the language the conversation was being held in each time. It also does nothing to prove that it is actually what Suarez said to Evra.

But again just to re-iterate, I believe that if Suarez did say to Evra "Because you are black", and meant it in the way it sounds in English, then he is guilty. My point is that Suarez disputes that that is exactly what was said. Suarez claims he said "Why, black?".

In terms of the worthiness of Kuyt's evidence, the FA also dismissed his assertion that Evra accused the ref of booking him because he was black, even though Kuyt was 100% adamant that that is what he heard.

That's another thing that wasn't really brought up here.

Suarez denied saying "Dale negro negro negro" to Evra but in separate testimony said he said "Dale negro" to Yaya Toure. The commission found that it was unlikely that Evra would make up exactly a phrase which Suarez has himself said he used not then but on another occasion.

Also, maybe Kuyt did hear the words ''because I'm black''

Maybe Evra was saying ''He(Suarez) wouldn't answer me because I'm black'' but Kuyt was convinced he was directly saying that to the referee, but got it wrong?

After all, the words ''because I'm black'' seem to be at the root of a lot of 'misunderstandings'.

Blatter · 01-01-2012 06:20PM

manual_man wrote: »

the word porque in spanish can mean because or why. It is quite possible Kuyt and Comoli misinterpreted porque as meaning because. Suarez insists he used it as such: "Porque, negro?" This ambiguity is noted in the report, so it is impossible to say with 100% certainty whether it was said as a statement, or a question. We just don't know

Suarez told Kuyt what he said in Dutch and told Comolli what he said in Spanish.

They both initially interpreted the translation as ''because you are black''

One misunderstanding, yes you could believe that. But a second misunderstanding in a different language, that just happened to mean the same thing as the other apparent misunderstanding?

LuckyLloyd · 01-01-2012 06:26PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

You literally have to suspend all reason to think Suarez is innocent here.

Do you believe that the 8 match ban was justified though?

Helix · 01-01-2012 06:26PM

Blatter wrote: »

Suarez told Kuyt what he said in Dutch and told Comolli what he said in Spanish.

They both initially interpreted the translation as ''because you are black''

One misunderstanding, yes you could believe that. But a second misunderstanding in a different language, that just happened to mean the same thing as the other apparent misunderstanding?

it's a conspiracy dating back to the origins of the spanish, dutch and english languages with the soul intention of victimising liverpool is what it is

opr · 01-01-2012 06:29PM

Taken from another forum.

RedLFCBlood over on LFCREDS, here is video of Evra going down after contact with Suarez. Before you watch it, here are the FA's words:
In the 58th minute of the game, Mr Suarez fouled Mr Evra between the edge of the Manchester United penalty area and the corner flag at the Kop end. It seemed to us to be a deliberate foul, and the referee awarded a free kick. The foul was committed by Mr Suarez kicking Mr Evra on his right knee. Mr Evra explained that he had previously had a bad problem in that knee. He remained on the ground receiving medical treatment for about one minute after the tackle.

2nd point: Mr Evra said that while he was lying on the ground, Mr Kuyt came up to him and said "stand up, you ****ing prick". Mr Kuyt said "This is untrue. What I did say was something to the effect of "Stand up, stand up", as if to say that it had been a foul but he was making too much of it". The video footage did not show Mr Kuyt speaking to Mr Evra at this time, but Mr Kuyt admitted that he did so.

Now watch the video starting at about 1:15. Suarez did not kick Evra deliberately, and Kuyt did say something to Evra. Both points are obvious on the video, yet the FA gets both points horrendously wrong. They had zero desire to get the facts right. They put their blinders on and set out to find whatever they could to convict Suarez, discounting any evidence that didn't fit their wishes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH50lwwBRms

Opr

manual_man · 01-01-2012 06:31PM

Blatter wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

the word porque in spanish can mean because or why. It is quite possible Kuyt and Comoli misinterpreted porque as meaning because. Suarez insists he used it as such: "Porque, negro?" This ambiguity is noted in the report, so it is impossible to say with 100% certainty whether it was said as a statement, or a question. We just don't know

Suarez told Kuyt what he said in Dutch and told Comolli what he said in Spanish.

They both initially interpreted the translation as ''because you are black''

One understanding, yes you could believe that. But a second misunderstanding in a different language, that just happened to mean the same thing as the other apparent misunderstanding?

It certainly presents doubt. But i'm still not 100% convinced. Suarez could quite well have mumbled the answer to Comoli and Kuyt (as you can imagine, under the circumstances), which may have caused them to interpret it as a statement that was made by Suarez, as opposed to it being a question, as Suarez maintains.

Helix · 01-01-2012 06:36PM

manual_man wrote: »

It certainly presents doubt. But i'm still not 100% convinced. Suarez could quite well have mumbled the answer to Comoli and Kuyt (as you can imagine, under the circumstances), which may have caused them to interpret it as a statement that was made by Suarez, as opposed to it being a question, as Suarez maintains.

given the number of straws being grasped at, do you not think that if he mumbled it, it wouldve been stitched onto liverpool's crests, or the stadium had its name changed to "suarez is innocent: he mumbledfield" or something?

Will I Amnt · 01-01-2012 06:42PM

opr wrote: »

They put their blinders on and set out to find whatever they could to convict Suarez, discounting any evidence that didn't fit their wishes.

I particularly like this line

bucketybuck · 01-01-2012 06:44PM

The amount of "blaming the victim" that is happening in this thread is pretty disgusting. I am a bit beyond internet pissing matches at this stage, but the behaviour of some racism apologists is quite pathetic.

Blatter · 01-01-2012 06:47PM

opr wrote: »

Taken from another forum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH50lwwBRms

Opr

The angle of that clip is very, very misleading. The Sky replays showed clearly at the time that Suarez definitely kicked Evra in the knee. There was unquestionable contact.

manual_man wrote: »

It certainly presents doubt. But i'm still not 100% convinced. Suarez could quite well have mumbled the answer to Comoli and Kuyt (as you can imagine, under the circumstances), which may have caused them to interpret it as a statement that was made by Suarez, as opposed to it being a question, as Suarez maintains.

The whole Kuyt/Comolli testimonies are just another instance that gives Evra's side of the story much more credence. You still have to factor it in beside Suarez lying about his motive for pinching Evra's skin, Suarez changing his story three times so it matched video evidence, Suarez admitting he used the word Negro etc.

There's A LOT of circumstantial evidence going against Suarez here and certainly more than enough for him to be found guilty on the balance of probabilities.

eigrod · 01-01-2012 06:47PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Forget about Suarez Evra etc and concentrate more on the court and process the FA setup .

This is a question to all regardless of club :

Would you feel comfortable working under a Company , Organisation or Association if their disciplinary procedure had a bottom line which amounted to this ;

"Quote:
FA: "We found that Mr X account is probably what happened "

That's it in a nutshell for me.

Handing down the severest of punishments under that type of finding makes it even more scary.

Having read the report, there are inconsistencies all over the place, from both sides. In a normal employment law scenario, mediation would have been the ideal way of dealing with this.

carlcon · 01-01-2012 06:49PM

For those still claiming to have read the report when they clearly haven't.

Article 12:

During the interview, the FA and Mr Evra watched some video footage of the match. Mr
Evra pointed out to the FA, by reference to the video footage, when it was during the 7
match that Mr Suarez made the comments about which Mr Evra had complained. This
information enabled the FA to ask broadcasters to provide video footage of what
appeared to be the key moments of the game, so far as Mr Evra's complaint was
concerned. This video footage was provided in due course. It contained material which
was not broadcast, including footage of the exchanges in the penalty area in the 63rd
minute taken from a number of different camera angles.

So they have video of their actions during the main conversation.

Article 87:

Mr Evra and Mr Suarez are agreed that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the
goalmouth. Mr Evra said that he is not exactly fluent in Spanish but that he can easily
converse in Spanish. For Mr Suarez, Spanish is his native language as a Uruguayan. Mr
Evra told us that he began the conversation by saying "Concha de tu hermana". Mr Evra's
evidence was that this is a phrase used in Spanish like when you say "****ing hell" in 27
English, but the literal translation is "your sister's pussy". Mr Suarez did not hear Mr Evra
say this. One of the video clips that we have seen, taken from a close up angle behind the
goal, does appear to support Mr Evra's evidence that he started the conversation with this
comment.

Evra admitted to starting the verbal altercation. Even though he didn't have to, since Suarez apparently didn't hear that. So that foul language is barely relevant to the case, despite being potentially disgusting. Although if you fast-forward to article 178, in a section dedicated to what the language experts said... "Concha", although similar to the english word "c*nt", is "not as taboo" as the the english version. And the term used by Evra can be used as a general expletive, usually meaning "f8cking hell", "f*ck me", or "you son of a bitch", if directed at someone. So to repeat: Evra is in the clear here... as said by experts.

97.

Mr Suarez said that at no point did he use the word "negro" during the exchange with Mr
Evra in the goalmouth.

Article 104 then states that Suarez did admit to calling him a "negro" moments later - but claims it to be a term of endearment, meant to calm the situation. This is not contradictory to article 97, since they were now away from the goal mouth. The key is that Suarez admits to calling Evra a negro.

The experts later go on to explain that "negro" may be ok if it's said in a friendly manner with family or contemporaries, but it is just as bad as "the N word" over there if not said in a friendly manner, said in an inflammatory context, or meant to antagonise.

241. (Video evidence time: Referring to Suarez's reaction to Evra initiating the aggression)

Mr Suarez responded in kind. His facial expression was hostile towards Mr Evra, he was
speaking forcefully to him, he looked Mr Evra up and down and then reached out and
pinched Mr Evra's bare left forearm. This was an unpleasant and petty gesture which
appeared designed to aggravate Mr Evra, and was likely to have that effect.

243.

The referee spoke to both players. They listened and then walked away. As they did, Mr
Suarez put his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head. There are, of course, many ways of
touching an opposing player with the hand. Some are obvious attempts at conciliation
such as a handshake or sometimes a pat on the back. Others are intended to further
aggravate the opposing player whilst, perhaps, being made to appear like an attempt at
conciliation. In our judgment, Mr Suarez placing his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head
fell into the latter category. It appeared calculated to wind him up and had that effect,
which is shown by Mr Evra forcefully pushing Mr Suarez's arm away.

Now we see Suarez acting like a prat during the times he claims to be using the word negro to calm the situation. This is a huge inconsistency with what Suarez claims to be the case.

Actual questioning in 246.

Q. Do you see paragraph 27 of your statement? Does it read: "I was trying to defuse
or calm the situation"?
A. By the gesture I was doing with my hands, I could show that I was trying to
explain the situation, because these are conversations that you have in the field.
Q. Mr Suarez, I have to suggest to you that my question is really a very simple one.
In the goal mouth, and in particular as you pinched the skin of Mr Evra, do you say
you were trying to calm the situation?
A. Not after the pinch, because he was saying that he was going to hit me.
Q. I'll just make one more attempt, and then we will move on. In your statement,
over which we have understood you took some care, you have said of the pinching:
"I was trying to defuse the situation." All I wish to know is whether that is true or
not.
A. I was not trying to calm down the situation, but trying to explain to Evra why I
was doing this foul, and when - then he replied, "I'm going to hit you", and I was
trying to show him that he was not untouchable, not in the foul and not by the
gesture that I did with the - by the pinch I was doing to his arm, that he wasn't
untouchable."

Basically, while antagonising Evra, Suarez called him a negro.

Suarez changed the context of his story, falsely describing his own manner during this of this extremely important few minutes.

TL;DR

Suarez admitted to calling Evra a negro.
Video footage of the moments in which he said this show Suarez trying to wind up Evra. He continually tried to wind Evra up... antagonising him.
When used in an anagonising situation, calling someone a negro/black man is racism. Both in the English language, and in Spanish as stated by the language experts.
Suarez was punished for this.

End of story for everyone on the planet, less a handful of deluded fans, or people who haven't actually read it.

You can read further if you like, about how Comolli and Kuyt actually back up Evra... or how Kenny and Liverpool officials in general behaved quite terribly. But all you need to know in terms of what Suarez did can be found above.

tommyhaas · 01-01-2012 06:51PM

opr wrote: »

Taken from another forum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH50lwwBRms

Opr

That video was obviously taken on someone's phone, how would the FA have access to that?

It can't be seen from that angle, but from other angles you can see Suarez make contact with Evra's leg, intentionally or not, its easy to see how it could be construed as a kick

The footage the FA had access to may not have shown Kuyt and Evra talking to each other. They didn't say it didn't happen, just that the footage they had didn't show it.

I'm not sure why exactly this video makes any difference

Mr.Crinklewood · 01-01-2012 06:53PM

Talksport going through the report now.

Racism - Mod Note on 1st Post - Read before posting.

Comments