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

Leiva · 02-01-2012 01:57PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

I see where you're coming from and if your assumption is right it doesn't change the fact he called him a Negro.

If its so relevant I'm sure Liverpool will be all over it and get the decision overturned.
I won't hold my breath.

Another part of Evras statement which doesn't make sense ....

He truly believed he was called a Niggger and rightly upset but in his evidence he said he was repeatly in one breath called:

blackie blackie blackie

Getting the count up to 7 maybe

cournioni · 02-01-2012 02:00PM

cournioni wrote: »

Here's a summarised version of the full report for anyone unable to read the full PDF that the FA have released:

http://quizzicaleyebrow.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/a-race-to-judgement/

Here is the full report:

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx

02-01-2012 02:00PM

blackie blackie blackie

http://bigmentaldisease.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/blackie-connors.jpg

cournioni · 02-01-2012 02:02PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Another part of Evras statement which doesn't make sense ....

He truly believed he was called a Niggger and rightly upset but in his evidence he said he was repeatly in one breath called:

Getting the count up to 7 maybe

Are there any straws left for you to clutch at?!

Kess73 · 02-01-2012 02:04PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

I have. Regardless of what Evra claimed, or inconsistencies in his evidence, Suarez's own admission makes him guilty of what he was charged with

Yes and no.

Yes it makes Suarez guilty of using the word at least the one time he admitted to saying the word in Spanish. No arguement there from me on that point, although the context may/will be debated by other posts.

No, in that it does not make Suarez guilty for sure of what he was charged with, which includes the claim that he used the word at least 7 times as the FA's own report clearly states that they have no evidence or proof that he said the word for sure anymore times that what he admitted to, and that the 7 times bit is based on the fact that the FA think that Evra is probably telling the truth on that bit.

I saw in a few papers yesterday headlines being run like "Liar Suarez" and "racist terms used 7 times", and that kind of stuff is being gobbled up by people despite the fact that the FA report does not say any of those things as facts.

Just to play devil's advocate a little here. Let's say that Suarez and his legal team decide to try to bring all this through the court of the land based on say some form of defamation claim. Let's say he goes after the papers that have printed that he is a liar and that he is a racist. Let's say he looks for Evra and the FA to present actual proof that he said what he said 7 times and that even foir the one time he admitted to that it was meant in a racist context. If all that did somehow end up in front of a judge then there is no way he would be found guilty as the legal system would not be able to convict a man based on the fact that he might have done it.

So if that scenario plays out sometime in the future and the Judge decides, in a court of law, that he cannot find Suarez guilty, does that mean this thread turns into a "United/team of choice supporters should be ashamed of themselves/their club/their player" series of blinkered rants from some?

Would that mean Suarez is 100% innocent and everyone else is wrong? No it would not mean he was 100% innocent as he would be found not guilty based on there being no solid evidence to convict him, but in theory he still could have made a comment meaning for it to be racial in nature.

Same thing currently applies to the FA's 115 page report. He has been found guilty not because there was any sort of compelling solid evidence, but heavily based on probabilities and hearsay with as much said in the report. And basing any final result so much on probablilities and hearsay means there is more than a small chance of error.

I am most certainly a Liverpool supporter, but based on having read that report a number of times I cannot say with any certainty that Suarez is innocent. But it is with the same lack of certainty that leads me to say that I cannot say he is guilty.

So when there is that much reasonable doubt, and tabloid shyte counts as nothing despite so many being happy to present it as some kind of proof, the only logical thing to do is look for solid proof and if solid proof does not present itself then I fail to see how a man can be proven either genuinely innocent or guilty.

Leiva · 02-01-2012 02:04PM

cournioni wrote: »

Are there any straws left for you to clutch at?!

Ahh that old chest nut .

What no pic ? ... I'm dissapointed .

Enter the debate

Will I Amnt · 02-01-2012 02:07PM

mixednuts wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

I see where you're coming from and if your assumption is right it doesn't change the fact he called him a Negro.

If its so relevant I'm sure Liverpool will be all over it and get the decision overturned.
I won't hold my breath.

Another part of Evras statement which doesn't make sense ....

He truly believed he was called a Niggger and rightly upset but in his evidence he said he was repeatly in one breath called:

blackie blackie blackie

Getting the count up to 7 maybe

But his evidence came well after the incident.He admits he got the meaning of the word wrong at the time.

Mr.Crinklewood · 02-01-2012 02:10PM

Having now received the evidence it will be interesting if Liverpool fine Suarez.

Leiva · 02-01-2012 02:11PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

But his evidence came well after the incident.He admits he got the meaning of the word wrong at the time.

OK .

Then where did he pull "blackie" from ?

And what about the four written statements from the for UTD lads.

You can't rewrite history in your statements because then they become inconsistent .

I think a penny might drop soon .

Kess73 · 02-01-2012 02:12PM

#15 wrote: »

If Evra was mistaken on this, what material significance does it have though?

It doesn't change what Suarez said, or the manner in which he said it. Genuine question, I don't see how it's as relevant as mixednuts is making out.

No offence but I thought it pretty obvious at to how I understood what Mixednut's said and I thought how I explained it was pretty basic.

I will try again.

If according to the FA statement, Evra and his manager (after Evra airing his grievence in the dressing room in from of his manager and teammates as said in the report) go to the ref's room to make a complaint about Evra being called a n*gger.

Then in the following days Evra discovers that what he was called does not mean what he said in the dressing room it meant (this error coming about as he says he took the Italian meaning of what Suarez said in Spanish rather than the Spanish meaning), how did the United player's statements about what was said on the first day in the dressing room not contain what Evra said on that first day but instead contain the meaning of the word that Evra said he only discovered himself some time afterwards?

It just seems odd that the statements given which claim to be of what was said in the dressing room staring away don't match what Evra and his manager went to report as being said, but rather they match the version that Evra in the report says he discovered afterwards.

Now that is pretty much what I took what Mixednuts said to mean.

02-01-2012 02:12PM

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Having now received the evidence it will be interesting if Liverpool fine Suarez.

What's a fine to footballers anyway?

Rooney (reportedly) was fined 250k by Fergie. Quarter of a million smackers.

Which equals approx........ 1 weeks wages

Fining is pointless tbh.

Blatter · 02-01-2012 02:13PM

Kess73 wrote: »

Actually it is not that simple. Evra and his manager, according to the report, approached the ref after the game to report to the ref that Evra was called a n*igger.

Now they came from the United dressing room, and if Evra's manager was under the impression that Evra was called a n*igger, then I think it is safe to assume that is what Evra said he was called when he was in the dressing room straight after the game.

Now Evra, in the FA report, is quoted as saying that he thought he was called a n*gger in Spanish based on his own knowledge of Italian. So he would have been furious no doubt if he thought he was called a n*gger.

He then goes on to say in the report that it was not until later on that he discovered that there is no word that means N*gger in Spanish, and that what he was called was not N*igger at all, but was the word Black.

Now all that is fair enough and makes perfect sense to me.

But, and this is the point Mixednuts is making imho, the statements from the United players about what Evra said in the dressing room straight away after the game does not have any mention of Evra saying he was called a N*gger, and instead has all of them saying Black despite Evra being quoted in the report as saying that he thought it was N*gger he was called and that he did not realise it was black until after he had said what he thought he was called in the dressing room and to his manager.

So I think that mixednut's question is how do the statements from the United players contain what Evra found out later instead of what Evra is quoted in the report as saying in the dressing room in terms of what he thought he was called.

There are a lot of points in that report where the "evidence" manages to contradict itself, and this is true for both sides involved.

I don't have much time(I'll be back later) but just to address the bit in bold. Nani's statement does have mention of the word n*gger(he says that he thinks that's what Evra had translated it to), so to say that none of the United players made any mention if it is not strictly true.

Would could have happened was that Evra didn't mention the word n*gger to his teammates whom he converses in Spanish/Portuguese with as he didn't speak with them in English, just told them what came out of Suarez' mouth. And maybe Nani mentioned the word n*gger because he heard Evra explain it to somebody else in English?

To be perfectly honest with you, I don't see it as any sort of major sticking point. It's also worth pointing out that Suarez accepted all of their evidence in full and the fact that Suarez' lawyer didn't even try to use this against Evra is telling imo.

02-01-2012 02:14PM

What word did Fergie use when he went to the referees room?

Mr.Crinklewood · 02-01-2012 02:15PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

What's a fine to footballers anyway?

Rooney (reportedly) was fined 250k by Fergie. Quarter of a million smackers.

Which equals approx........ 1 weeks wages

Fining is pointless tbh.

Good point, but they would get back some credit if they were to issue their own punishment. The same day that when Csntona got his ban that United stood by him but also punished him.

Will I Amnt · 02-01-2012 02:16PM

mixednuts wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

But his evidence came well after the incident.He admits he got the meaning of the word wrong at the time.

OK .

Then where did he pull "blackie" from ?

And what about the four written statements from the for UTD lads.

You can't rewrite history in your statements because then they become inconsistent .

I think a penny might drop soon .

From the report:

Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro...negro...negro". At the time, Mr Evra understood this to mean "Okay, ni**er, ni**er, ni**er". He now says it means "Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie".

Kess73 · 02-01-2012 02:17PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

But his evidence came well after the incident.He admits he got the meaning of the word wrong at the time.

Yes he discovered the meaning well after the incident and made his statement well after the incident, but the point that Mixednut's is making is how do the statements from the United player's on what was said in the dressing room match the meaning of the word that Evra discovered afterwards rather than what he is on record as actually saying in the dressing room.

Surely their statements on what was said straight after the match should match what Evra is quoted as saying straight after the match rather than what Evra found out afterwards.

Them giving statements that use what Evra fould out afterwards instead of what he actually said makes those statements wrong straight away as he did not say what the statements claim he said, and Evra's own statement to the FA backs that up.

There are just too many inconsistencies in that report for me to fully believe what either side is saying.

K-9 · 02-01-2012 02:19PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

I have. Regardless of what Evra claimed, or inconsistencies in his evidence, Suarez's own admission makes him guilty of what he was charged with

Suarez's own admission is that he said it once which would mean a 2 or at most a 4 game ban. The FA are just assuming he said it repeatedly based on Evra's word and his reaction hence the 8 match ban.

Leiva · 02-01-2012 02:21PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

From the report:

So Negro can now mean blackie ?? or is that also just "presumed" by the FA to validate Evras statement .

FFS my heads spinning with this stupid toilet read .

_blank_ · 02-01-2012 02:21PM

Kess73 wrote: »

I am most certainly a Liverpool supporter, but based on having read that report a number of times I cannot say with any certainty that Suarez is innocent. But it is with the same lack of certainty that leads me to say that I cannot say he is guilty.

No-one can, just as no-one can say he is genuinely innocent either. Not rabid Liverpool fans defending him to the hilt because he plays for Liverpool, not rabid United fans calling Suarez names because he plays for Liverpool.

BUT.

In my mind, from looking the the report, as I've been doing since Saturday evening, I agree with the findings of the commission thus far.

I think Suarez changed his story too many times to be credible. I think the "Evra side" were more consistent.

I think Suarez used the word "Negro", in Spanish, in an argument with Evra. I don't think he was attempting to diffuse the situation (neither does his Lawyer, tellingly imo), so the theory that it is acceptable to use that word in certain contexts is null and void here. This was not one of those situations where "Negro" is an acceptable term in South American Spanish, or the Uruguyan vernacular - this was said by two experts in evidence, that yes, the word can be used in a friendly manner in friendly situations, but the commission are clearly of the opinion that this was not one of these situations.

I fail to see how anyone can think otherwise in this instance. It was very clearly a very heated argument between the two men, there was no friendly context there. Even if Evra did "start it" by calling Suarez' sister names. It doesn't matter who started it, Suarez brought the "negro" word to the table, in an argument.

And that's the end of it.

02-01-2012 02:22PM

Kess73 wrote: »

There are just too many inconsistencies in that report for me to fully believe what either side is saying.

Very true.

cournioni · 02-01-2012 02:24PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Ahh that old chest nut .

What no pic ? ... I'm dissapointed .

Enter the debate

There is nothing to debate. The evidence is there to be seen by all. Suarez used racist language towards Evra in the game at Anfield.

Both Comolli and Dalglish stated it when speaking to the referee after the game. They stated that Suarez said "Tu eres negro" or "you are black", Suarez stated that he only had said "Por que negro?" which contradicted that, and Comolli later denied that he had said (which was spelled out for the referees report by Comolli) "tu eres".

It is what is known as lying.

#15 · 02-01-2012 02:25PM

Kess73 wrote: »

No offence but I thought it pretty obvious at to how I understood what Mixednut's said and I thought how I explained it was pretty basic.

I will try again.

Fair enough, I missed your original response. Condescending tone not necessary btw, it was just a simple error on my part. I wasn't trying to antagonise you.

Will I Amnt · 02-01-2012 02:31PM

Kess73 wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

But his evidence came well after the incident.He admits he got the meaning of the word wrong at the time.

Yes he discovered the meaning well after the incident and made his statement well after the incident, but the point that Mixednut's is making is how do the statements from the United player's on what was said in the dressing room match the meaning of the word that Evra discovered afterwards rather than what he is on record as actually saying in the dressing room.

Surely their statements on what was said straight after the match should match what Evra is quoted as saying straight after the match rather than what Evra found out afterwards.

Them giving statements that use what Evra fould out afterwards instead of what he actually said makes those statements wrong straight away as he did not say what the statements claim he said, and Evra's own statement to the FA backs that up.

There are just too many inconsistencies in that report for me to fully believe what either side is saying.

Just another bit of the report which could be used to explain why he might have said black in the dressing room:

The Commission asked Mr Evra why, then, did he not tell the referee that he had been called ni**er, as opposed to black. Mr Evra's answer was that even when he pronounced the word "ni**ers", it was not a word he liked to use. He added that maybe it was also because he was speaking in English, that "black" was the English word in his mind, and he felt he had done enough to complain by telling the referee that he had been called black.

tommyhaas · 02-01-2012 02:31PM

Kess73 wrote: »

Yes and no.

Yes it makes Suarez guilty of using the word at least the one time he admitted to saying the word in Spanish. No arguement there from me on that point, although the context may/will be debated by other posts.

No, in that it does not make Suarez guilty for sure of what he was charged with, which includes the claim that he used the word at least 7 times as the FA's own report clearly states that they have no evidence or proof that he said the word for sure anymore times that what he admitted to, and that the 7 times bit is based on the fact that the FA think that Evra is probably telling the truth on that bit.

The charge was ''using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Manchester United's Patrice Evra contrary to FA rules.

"It is further alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra''

By admitting he made reference to Evra's race, he has admitted guilt. The report found that he made reference on 7 occasions, and as you say these findings were based on the balance of probabilities, but hypothetically had they believed Suarez's version of events, it would still have made him guilty

Kess73 wrote: »

I saw in a few papers yesterday headlines being run like "Liar Suarez" and "racist terms used 7 times", and that kind of stuff is being gobbled up by people despite the fact that the FA report does not say any of those things as facts.

Just to play devil's advocate a little here. Let's say that Suarez and his legal team decide to try to bring all this through the court of the land based on say some form of defamation claim. Let's say he goes after the papers that have printed that he is a liar and that he is a racist. Let's say he looks for Evra and the FA to present actual proof that he said what he said 7 times and that even foir the one time he admitted to that it was meant in a racist context. If all that did somehow end up in front of a judge then there is no way he would be found guilty as the legal system would not be able to convict a man based on the fact that he might have done it.

So if that scenario plays out sometime in the future and the Judge decides, in a court of law, that he cannot find Suarez guilty, does that mean this thread turns into a "United/team of choice supporters should be ashamed of themselves/their club/their player" series of blinkered rants from some?

Would that mean Suarez is 100% innocent and everyone else is wrong? No it would not mean he was 100% innocent as he would be found not guilty based on there being no solid evidence to convict him, but in theory he still could have made a comment meaning for it to be racial in nature.

Same thing currently applies to the FA's 115 page report. He has been found guilty not because there was any sort of compelling solid evidence, but heavily based on probabilities and hearsay with as much said in the report. And basing any final result so much on probablilities and hearsay means there is more than a small chance of error.

I am most certainly a Liverpool supporter, but based on having read that report a number of times I cannot say with any certainty that Suarez is innocent. But it is with the same lack of certainty that leads me to say that I cannot say he is guilty.

So when there is that much reasonable doubt, and tabloid shyte counts as nothing despite so many being happy to present it as some kind of proof, the only logical thing to do is look for solid proof and if solid proof does not present itself then I fail to see how a man can be proven either genuinely innocent or guilty.

As I posted yesterday, from my understanding (I'm not involved in the legal profession or anything, but had to do a law module as part of my cadetship), that legally you can only refer to someone as racist for example, if they have been convicted of such. The FA finding him guilty is irrelevant I would have thought in this respect, and so I would assume that Suarez could take a case against anyone referring to him as racist

Suarez obviously wouldn't have been convicted in a criminal case, however that's largely irrelevant, because the club can't reasonably go down that route. The context of the charge is that his actions were in breach of FA rules. That's not illegal. The FA deal on balance of probabilities, the criminal justice system on beyond reasonable doubt,of which standard Suarez guilt can't be proved.

The fact for me is, that regardless of which version the FA choose to believe, the verdict would have been the same. The version they accepted has obviously dictated the length of the ban they imposed, and any argument over this can be justified if the aim is to reduce the ban length. But whether he said it once or seven times, he's still guilty of the charge and so I think any dispute over the verdict is senseless

Will I Amnt · 02-01-2012 02:35PM

mixednuts wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

From the report:

So Negro can now mean blackie ?? or is that also just "presumed" by the FA to validate Evras statement .

FFS my heads spinning with this stupid toilet read .

You're quick enough to post sections of the report when trying to prove your little conspiracy but it's toilet read when someone else does??? :rolleyes:

tommyhaas · 02-01-2012 02:36PM

K-9 wrote: »

Suarez's own admission is that he said it once which would mean a 2 or at most a 4 game ban. The FA are just assuming he said it repeatedly based on Evra's word and his reaction hence the 8 match ban.

That's a fair enough argument, and I agree to an extent. Its fair enough to suggest the evidence isn't sufficient to warrant an eight game ban, the only point I'm making is that it certainly is enough to find him guilty

spockety · 02-01-2012 02:38PM

KevIRL wrote: »

Excellent piece from James Lawton in the Independent

His use of the word irrefutable is enough to make it tabloid nonsense.

Turtyturd · 02-01-2012 02:41PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

The charge was ''using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Manchester United's Patrice Evra contrary to FA rules.

Is there any reason why Evra hasn't been charged with the same thing?

Leiva · 02-01-2012 02:42PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

You're quick enough to post sections of the report when trying to prove your little conspiracy but it's toilet read when someone else does??? :rolleyes:

Your right I was too quick in slating the report.
It had gotten even more silly (IMO) when you pointed out that they (FA) accepted a third meaning of negro.

Oh by the way there is no "conspiracy " I'm just pointing out obvious inconsistencies .

DDC1990 · 02-01-2012 02:43PM

The report makes interesting reading.

After reading the BBC Sport and RTE Sport websites on the incident I was very worried. It appeared that everything they reported, the word Blackie or N**gers being used 7 times.

Suarez changing his statement etc.

But in reality, it is still the same situation as before.

Turns out Evra changed his statement as well, after being able to view the video evidence and match words up with the actions that he saw.
Alex Ferguson claimed after the match he was called N**gers 5 times, that rose to 7 times. Evra claims that Kuyt Called him a Fuc*ing Prick, when Kuyt is adament that he just told him to get up. There are a number of innaccuracies in the report, yet their reasoning seems to be that Evra's evidence seems to be sounder then Suarez's so they decided to side with him.

The worst part is where the report goes on about the goalmouth incident.
Evra says that Suarez told him he fouled him "because you are a n*gger".
Suarez says he said to Evra that "it was just a normal foul".

The report states that at this point Suarez shrugs his shoulders. You dont racially abuse someone and shrug your shoulders. You would however shrug your shoulders if someone was having a go at you for something that happens in every game played all over the world!

And no, I can't be certain that he didn't say it, butif you are convicting someone on a probablity, then its a strange world where Evra's evidence is taken over Suarez in that instance anyway.

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

Comments