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

My opinions of this forum have heightened somewhat, since now it's only a tiny number of people looking for ways to discredit the victim, instead of accepting the crime.

Credit where credit is due... it seems the majority of Liverpool fans are showing some sense. It's easy to ridicule the morons, so it's only right to praise the rest.

The minority left are getting to the point of trolling though, so it's time to bail out.

I can happily unfollow this thread now, thanks to the irrefutable evidence putting this case to rest for pretty much everyone bar the extremely biased/clueless few, and look forward to Mr Terry undergoing the same scrutiny and fair trial in the coming months.

tommyhaas wrote: »

I would assume because no complaint has been made. Even if he was though, it wouldn't have an effect on Suarez's guilt

But being the fair and just organization that they are I would assume the FA would take it upon themselves to insure that the same rules applied to every player.

cournioni wrote: »

I think it is more in relation to Suarez's reference to Evra's skin colour.

But the rule applies to abusive behaviour.

Des wrote: »

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.

Des I already said the bit in bold you replied to me with.



Yes Suarez brought the word Negro to the table, and whether or not Evra started the exchange means nowt to me tbh in the contect of what I have said today.

My take on the report is that there are many inconsistencies by Suarez, by Evra, and even by the FA. Too many in fact for me to be able to state I defo think one side is guilty or innocent.

My point earlier about if it somehow ends up in an English court still stands methinks. If that court came out and said Suarez is not guilty, what happens then?

Do all the papers start printing "Not guilty" and "He is not a liar".

Actually who knows what the papers would do, all they want to do is get mugs buying into headlines as it makes papers sell quicker.


Do we get post after post saying "well if the law of the land says he is not guilty then all of you who said he was guilty based on the FA report are wrong"

Probably, and we get the same smug arsehole "I know I am right" attitude from certain Liverpool and ABU supporters that certain Man Utd/Anti Liverppol ones are using now.


None of us now for sure what was said in terms of how often a word was used. None of us know 100% what context the word was used in even for the one time that was admitted to. Yes we can guess based on what we saw, but we cannot say for sure.


Did Suarez say it in a racist manner? He may well have done.

Did Suarez say it in a sarky manner that was not meant in a racist manner? It is possible.

Did Suarez say it in a sarky manner not meaning it in a racist manner, but knowing that it was a word that carried the risk of being taken the wrong way? He may well have.

I think there are still too many variables for this to end anytime soon, and that one way or the other it will have major implications on the English game.

The Evra insult you mentioned at the start, whilst a minor point(imho anyway) when compared to the bigger picture, could come back quickly especially as part of the charge against Suarez is simply for being abusive towards another player. Technically if the FA want to be consistent then they will have to come back and charge Evra for being abusive seeing as he admitted it, and give him a one game ban or whatever they said general abusive language gets.

Now we have to look at Terry calling Kenny a fat cnut. Kenny can say he took offence and he felt abused. Now Terry has to be done for that.

Before we know it there could be tit for tat shyte going on every second game, and because the FA have stated that general abusive language is a ban worthy offence and because they have shown with this case that one man's word is enough to act as evidence, then players all over the country know they can report others for language/insults on the pitch.


Nah Des, I just don't think the FA report did enough in terms of making the FA look solid and certainly did not do enough to make for a clear cut case. I also think that a few cans of worms may have been opened by it that may cause some embarrassment to the FA sooner rather than later.

Blatter wrote: »

I myself am a regular on the United thread and have been for the last year, and can't recall anybody saying how Taylor is unreliable?

Just had a quick look:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74550820&postcount=4088

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71693993&postcount=26701

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71182011&postcount=23030

And even if a few did, they themselves didn't necessarily quote Taylor in this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74568466&postcount=4170

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76258110#post76258110

Nothing too see when its about United, everything to see when its about Liverpool.

If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'd agree that someone is selectively using Taylor's pieces and displaying double standards, but I honestly haven't seen it.

I actually think Taylor is pretty decent, seems to usually have good sources but fans dismissing him when it suits and then quoting his opinion when it suits is just fan boy nonsense. Not surprising in a United Pool thread.

tommyhaas wrote: »

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



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

That is why I said Suarez and his legal team and not the club. He may well get a chance to bring it before the courts but time will tell on that one.


You say near the end of your post that he is still guilty of the charge, and near the start you say that he admitted guilt in terms of using a racist term.

The thing is he did not admit to that, in fact it is clearly stated in the report that he denied making any sort of racist remark.

He has indeed been charged of probably/possibly making seven racist remarks by the FA, and he has admitted to saying one word that could be used in a racist comment, but there is a difference to being "still guilty" and being charged. In an ideal world being actually guilty and being charged would go hand in hand. In the FA world possibly guilty is enough to see you charged.

A lot of people on here, including yourself, have come out and stated with what reads like some certainty that Suarez is defo guilty or still guilty to quote yourself, just as many have come out and claimed that Suarez is innocent or that Evra is making it up. I just don't know how all you guys and gals can do that as you all have even less that the FA had to go on, and are basically guessing like the rest of us.

Phil Thompson spoke of the incident on SSN earlier,his opinion was that Liverpool should accept the judgement and Suarez should apologise to Evra and let it be the end of the matter.Now that Suarez was found guilty there is no grounds for appeal.
He was asked about the T-shirt episode & said that "at the time the full findings hadn't been released & clubs always back their players,if the full facts had been released by the FA earlier then the players & Dalglish would have acted differently"

Kess73 wrote: »

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.

Evra spoke to Ferguson in English. His comment to Ferguson was

Boss, Suarez called me a niggger.

From the FA report,

statements were provided in Spanish for Valencia (who is Ecuadorian) and Hernandez (who is Mexican), and in Portuguese for Anderson (who is Brazilian) and Nani (who is Portuguese)

Here are excerpts of Nani, Valencia, Hernandez and Anderson's statements:

Nani:

When he said this in English I think he used the word "niggger" but in Spanish/Portuguese he used the word "negro" or "preto", I cannot remember exactly which.

Valencia:

I think the words Evra used were words similar to "Negro, no hablas conmigo."

Hernandez:

He said that during the game, Suarez said to him words similar to "No voy a platicar contigo porque eres negro".

Anderson:

I think he used words similar to "no hablo con negro".

The word "black" is also present in each of the 4 player's statements. However, these statements were translated into English by a professional translator. From the FA report:

In the case of each of the Manchester United players who provided a witness statement, except for Mr Giggs, the statement was provided in the player's native language and also in English, using the services of a professional translator.

It is not a case of Evra being in the dressing room claiming that he had been called, in English, "black". Evra later accepted that the word "negro" means black, and not "niggger". It was this use of the word "negro" which caused offence and "negro" (not "black") was the word which Valencia, Nani, Hernandez and Anderson all heard Evra say in the dressing room. When Evra spoke to Ferguson, in English, at that time he told Ferguson that he had heard the word "niggger", which he now accepts translates to "black", not "niggger".

Worth noting from the FA report:

This meant that Mr Suarez accepted in full the evidence of Mr Dowd, Valencia, Hernandez, Nani, Anderson, Sir Alex Ferguson, Mr Mike Riley and Mr Stephane Guy of Canal +, the French TV station.

Blatter wrote: »

tommy is right, it wasn't necessary for Suarez to have intended the words to be racist for him to be found guilty:

Indeed, it was more about if it could reasonably be assumed to be racist, not how it was meant. That's why they put so much weight on the argument and the length of it.

The only room for Liverpool is to decide if it's legally worth challenging the basis of the 8 game ban which seems to be based entirely on Evra's statement.

DDC1990 wrote: »

Yup, paragraph 12 and 13, page 6-7 on:
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx

12 States that Evra was able to watch the incidents during his interview.

EDIT: Ok, I can't find the exact wording (it is a 115 page document) but as far as I know, and I am open to correction, Suarez was not allowed view the video evidence.

The burden of proof was on the FA. They interviewed Evra and went through video footage to find out when the reported incidents occurred. From the report:

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 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.

From the report, it seems Suarez and his legal team went to some detail in backing up their side of the story with video evidence:

Mr Suarez had watched a recording of the game with a view to preparing for his FA interview. It is a reasonable inference that he had thought very carefully about what had happened at the key moments in the penalty area, with the benefit of some recording to refresh his memory, in order to be able to give a clear account in his interview and his witness statement.

Indeed, the report goes on to explain that Suarez's lawyer had managed to obtain video footage that had not been provided to the FA.

In Mr McCormick’s opening statement he showed us some video clips which were taken from an international broadcast of the match, which had not previously been provided to us.

Further, Suarez's lawyer used video evidence to highlight 4 previous incidents from the game the purpose of which was to show that Evra was wound up and that the entire allegation, beginning on the day of the match and continuing all the way to the hearing was invented by Evra in an attempt to exact vengeance on Suarez for the foul and failure to apologize for the foul.

The four incidents were the coin toss, the incident with Downing, the throw-in and the foul on Kuyt. They were all highlighted in an attempt to undermine Evra.

Can people now stop saying that Suarez wasn't allowed to view video evidence? This case, remember, was the FA vs Luis Suarez. The FA, as prosecutors, sought out video evidence which would support their case. Suarez, as defendant, sought out video evidence, previously unseen by the FA, that would support his case and undermine the case of the prosecution. No conspiracy theories there, please move along.

Blatter wrote: »

Yeah, Suarez’s defence claim that Evra made up Suarez saying he kicked him because he was black and that he didn’t talk to blacks. They claim that because Suarez had kicked Evra in the knee, Evra wanted revenge, so fabricated the whole story.

That is pretty incredible, and it would be nice if some LFC fans focussed on this, and other elements of the defence, before plucking conspiracy theories out of the air. Footballers get kicked all the time - to suggest that one would seek to damage the reputation / career of a player as a racist in revenge for a kick, is absurd. Thankfully, the independent commission weren't buying it.

K-9 wrote: »

I was surprised the lawyer took that approach, its a risky strategy. Focusing on misinterpretations or maybe Evra exaggerating the amount of times would have been better.

To be honest K-9, it wasn't a risky approach.......it was plain right foolish and reckless. It made a mockery of LFC's defense and in no uncertain terms, damaged Suarez's case. It made the legal team look as if they were clutching at straws and i'm very surprised that someone hadn't the fore-sight to see how dubious it would seem.

clubberlang12 wrote: »

To be honest K-9, it wasn't a risky approach.......it was plain right foolish and reckless. It made a mockery of LFC's defense and in no uncertain terms, damaged Suarez's case. It made the legal team look as if they were clutching at straws and i'm very surprised that someone hadn't the fore-sight to see how dubious it would seem.

Extremely risky in that it's very hard to prove and can backfire as the panel can be more sympathetic to the other side. That Evra felt he was racially abused was never an issue to me.

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

That exact charge could be proved beyond reasonable doubt quite easily. What most fans are calling for is absolute proof, no court in the world operates on that basis.

You take Suarez's admission, Evra's statement, you take note of the inconsistencies in Suarez's statements throughout, you note how his version of events doesn't tally with the video evidence - you reject his explanation of the context and bingo the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

It's not possible to prove that he said it 7 times beyond reasonable doubt, but they don't need to. Once is enough to be guilty.

Anybody protesting Suarez's innocence is completely on the wrong track.

Yeah, the 7 times thing is harder to prove and I could see them having grounds to appeal that, suppose it comes down to if they think it has a good chance of getting the ban reduced and if PR wise its worth it.

K-9 wrote: »

Extremely risky in that it's very hard to prove and can backfire as the panel can be more sympathetic to the other side..

This is the thing, how could they ever prove it? Did someone on the legal team not realise this? Even if it had being true? It's like...."let's create this scenario, that has no real basis behind it, and use it as a part of our defense and hope that the commission buy it". But no-one bought it because it stunk of desperation. I don't think it lead to any sympathy towards Evra. It just showed the defense teams reasoning to be extremely thin.