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

Leiva · 02-01-2012 06:05PM

Blatter wrote: »

No. Evra had always maintained that Suarez had called him a negro. Evra had initially translated this as ''n*gger'' but later accepted hat it translated as ''black'' or ''blackie''

Read Nani's statement again. He mentions that Evra used the word n*gger when explaining in English, and used negro when explaining in Spanish.

I will ask for the third time, do you not think Suarez' lawyers would have honed in on this if there was anything suspicious about it? And do you realise that Suarez accepted the evidence in full given by the United players?

I would say they did hence the question about why Evra told (unheard twice) the ref he called him black and didn't say Niggger .

The incident about the alleged time Suarez said " blackie , blackie blackie" ... didnt he alleged say " Dale negro , negro , negro"
Is this a third translation by Evra to the word Negro ?

clubberlang12 · 02-01-2012 06:15PM

mixednuts wrote: »

The incident about the alleged time Suarez said " blackie , blackie blackie" ... didnt he alleged say " Dale negro , negro , negro"
Is this a third translation by Evra to the word Negro ?

From the report

94. Mr Evra said that after Mr Suarez said "I don't speak to blacks", he (Mr Evra) said "Ahora
te voy a dar realmente una porrada", which means "Okay, now I think I'm going to punch
you". To this he says that Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro...negro...negro". At the time, Mr
Evra understood this to mean "Okay, ******, ******, ******". He now says it means "Okay,
blackie, blackie, blackie". The expert witnesses stated that the phrase "Dale, negro" can be
understood as "Bring it on, blackie" or "do it, blackie" or "go ahead, blackie" (see paragraph
184 below)

Evra was under the assumption "Dale, negro...negro...negro" meant "Okay n****r...n****r....n*****r" until it was shown to him it could mean "Bring it on, blackie" or "do it, blackie" or "go ahead, blackie". This a translation given to Evra, not given by Evra, which Evra had accepted.

Will I Amnt · 02-01-2012 06:16PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Blatter wrote: »

No. Evra had always maintained that Suarez had called him a negro. Evra had initially translated this as ''n*gger'' but later accepted hat it translated as ''black'' or ''blackie''

Read Nani's statement again. He mentions that Evra used the word n*gger when explaining in English, and used negro when explaining in Spanish.

I will ask for the third time, do you not think Suarez' lawyers would have honed in on this if there was anything suspicious about it? And do you realise that Suarez accepted the evidence in full given by the United players?

I would say they did hence the question about why Evra told (unheard twice) the ref he called him black and didn't say Niggger .

The incident about the alleged time Suarez said " blackie , blackie blackie" ... didnt he alleged say " Dale negro , negro , negro"
Is this a third translation by Evra to the word Negro ?

Read soultraders post in the previous page,he put it in a way I couldn't earlier.Just let it go,you're getting like mr Alan and his 10 times on video crap.

Blatter · 02-01-2012 06:20PM

mixednuts wrote: »

I would say they did hence the question about why Evra told (unheard twice) the ref he called him black and didn't say Niggger.

The FA's report was extraordinarily detailed and they would have mentioned it had it been part of Suarez' defense.

The incident about the alleged time Suarez said " blackie , blackie blackie" ... didnt he alleged say " Dale negro , negro , negro"
Is this a third translation by Evra to the word Negro ?

Evra officially translated nothing. He told the FA what was actually said in Spanish and they got it translated.

"Dale, negro" can be understood as "Bring it on, blackie" or "do it, blackie" or "go ahead, blackie".

''Negro'', when used with the other phrases Suarez said it with, meant ''black''.

It's all in the FA's report.

Leiva · 02-01-2012 06:24PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

Read soultraders post in the previous page,he put it in a way I couldn't earlier.Just let it go,you're getting like mr Alan and his 10 times on video crap.

Again I have no agenda and I don't see a conspiracy theory .

I'm simply posting my own personal views on the evidence in a case that is judged on probability where the evidence , statements and witnesses need to 100% water tight .

I still have concerns about verdict.

All views are my own so the "you lot" or comparisons to other posters are not needed .

CSF · 02-01-2012 06:25PM

You're all going to make fine detectives some day.

tommyhaas · 02-01-2012 06:28PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Again I have no agenda and I don't see a conspiracy theory .

I'm simply posting my own personal views on the evidence in a case that is judged on probability where the evidence , statements and witnesses need to 100% water tight .

I still have concerns about verdict.

All views are my own so the "you lot" or comparisons to other posters are not needed .

This absolutely baffles me. I can understand dispute over the punishment, but the verdict?

Even if Evra's evidence had been dismissed, the verdict would have been the same. He was charged with referencing race. He admitted referencing race. How could they possibly arrive at any other verdict?

Leiva · 02-01-2012 06:33PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

This absolutely baffles me. I can understand dispute over the punishment, but the verdict?

Even if Evra's evidence had been dismissed, the verdict would have been the same. He was charged with referencing race. He admitted referencing race. How could they possibly arrive at any other verdict?

Forget about what I think but the FA really have made a rod out of their back with the way the verdict was made .

(eg)Tell a player to fcuk off now and it's two games if reported .

Also if the Ref hears it is he obliged to take note/report ?

And dont fool yourself that going forward some players could and will exploit not needing video evidence to get a racist conviction if true or not .

clubberlang12 · 02-01-2012 06:40PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Forget about what I think but the FA really have made a rod out of their back with the way the verdict was made .

(eg)Tell a player to fcuk off now and it's two games if reported .

Also if the Ref hears it is he obliged to take note/report ?

And dont fool yourself that some players could exploit not needing video evidence to get a racist conviction if true or not .

The FA haven't though. The ruling was there long before this incident. So all they have done is follow their rulings. Sure a player could report another player for telling him to "**** off", but that is not even near the same league as making a racial remark to another player.
Also if a ref decides to report it, thats up to him. Thats not the FA's fault. The FA have followed procedure in this incident. I am finding it hard to see why people can not fathom that.

tommyhaas · 02-01-2012 06:45PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Forget about what I think but the FA really have made a rod out of their back with the way the verdict was made .

(eg)Tell a player to fcuk off now and it's two games if reported .

Also if the Ref hears it is he obliged to take note/report ?

And dont fool yourself that going forward some players could and will exploit not needing video evidence to get a racist conviction if true or not .

Why would video evidence be necessary when the player admitted using a term he was charged with using?

Leiva · 02-01-2012 06:47PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

Why would video evidence be necessary when the player admitted using a term he was charged with using?

I wasn't on about the Suarez case in that paragraph .
I was talking about going forward.

Blatter · 02-01-2012 06:49PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Forget about what I think but the FA really have made a rod out of their back with the way the verdict was made .

(eg)Tell a player to fcuk off now and it's two games if reported .

Also if the Ref hears it is he obliged to take note/report ?

And dont fool yourself that going forward some players could and will exploit not needing video evidence to get a racist conviction if true or not .

Nah, I doubt the FA are going to set a ridiculous precedent by banning players for being generally abusive towards each other. They showed that by not charging Evra for his abusive language.

It was just a technicality associated with Suarez' charge of racial abuse.

1) Abusive language towards player

2) Said abusive language included a reference to his skin colour

To be found guilty of 2), he had to be found guilty of 1). They come as a couple, I doubt you'll find the FA charging anybody for 1) alone when the abuse does not cross the line.

SoulTrader · 02-01-2012 06:51PM

Blatter wrote: »

Nah, I doubt the FA are going to set a ridiculous precedent by banning players for being generally abusive towards each other. They showed that by not charging Evra for his abusive language.

It was just a technicality associated with Suarez' charge of racial abuse.

1) Abusive language towards player

2) Said abusive language included a reference to his skin colour

To be found guilty of 2), he had to be found guilty of 1). They come as a couple, I doubt you'll find the FA charging anybody for 1) alone when the abuse does not cross the line.

Exactly - there'd be nobody left to play otherwise.

kryogen · 02-01-2012 06:52PM

spockety wrote: »

My hole. You are all loving this. At least be bloody honest.

Dont hold me to your own standards

clubberlang12 · 02-01-2012 06:53PM

No, but it was Suarez's admission of using the word and the Comoli's and Kuyt's statement that Suarez told them he used the word that has ultimately found him guilty, so video evidence wasn't the primary reason for conviction.

To say players will exploit not needing video evidence to get a racist conviction whether true or not is quite ridiculous and begs whether you have properly understood the dynamics of this case.

Blatter · 02-01-2012 06:55PM

SoulTrader wrote: »

Exactly - there'd be nobody left to play otherwise.

If Liverpool had their way, that's the precedent they wanted to set. They wanted Evra charged for being generally abusive towards Suarez.

It was a ridiculous suggestion to charge Evra for what he said. As you say, you'd have no one left to play if you started doing that!

Lord TSC · 02-01-2012 06:58PM

mixednuts wrote: »

I wasn't on about the Suarez case in that paragraph .
I was talking about going forward.

Going forward, it will still be the same; if the "offending" player admits to the charges, he'll get done for it. If he keeps shut and admits nothing, he'll get nothing.

K-9 · 02-01-2012 07:17PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Forget about what I think but the FA really have made a rod out of their back with the way the verdict was made .

(eg)Tell a player to fcuk off now and it's two games if reported .

Also if the Ref hears it is he obliged to take note/report ?

And dont fool yourself that going forward some players could and will exploit not needing video evidence to get a racist conviction if true or not .

Actually, they handled that part pretty easily, they ignored the f*** of type stuff and charged on the racist reference. It's insulting exactly because its a racial reference.

lordgoat · 02-01-2012 07:33PM

K-9 wrote: »

Actually, they handled that part pretty easily, they ignored the f*** of type stuff and charged on the racist reference. It's insulting exactly because its a racial reference.

Exactly, and rightly so. Every player can handle abuse, you don't need to play in the PL to put up with that or dish it out. Once it veered towards racism it went over the line. Simples.

eigrod · 02-01-2012 07:42PM

Blatter wrote: »

Nah, I doubt the FA are going to set a ridiculous precedent by banning players for being generally abusive towards each other. They showed that by not charging Evra for his abusive language.

It was just a technicality associated with Suarez' charge of racial abuse.

1) Abusive language towards player

2) Said abusive language included a reference to his skin colour

To be found guilty of 2), he had to be found guilty of 1). They come as a couple, I doubt you'll find the FA charging anybody for 1) alone when the abuse does not cross the line.

But is skin colour the only "difference" that is taboo, under the laws of the FA, and if so, why ?

What if a player calls another "a little c**t", or "a lanky c**t", or "a ginger c**t", or a "scouse c**t", or a "Manc c**t". Those fit 1) in your post, but why is skin colour the only difference that leads to an 8 match ban and a fine ?

ilovelamp2000 · 02-01-2012 07:46PM

eigrod wrote: »

But is skin colour the only "difference" that is taboo, under the laws of the FA, and if so, why ?

What if a player calls another "a little c**t", or "a lanky c**t", or "a ginger c**t", or a "scouse c**t", or a "Manc c**t". Those fit 1) in your post, but why is skin colour the only difference that leads to an 8 match ban and a fine ?

Because there isn't a long running campaign by a pressure group pushing any of those is probably the answer.

The reference to race doubles the ban, all those things would still be offences under the rules. Most people wouldn't bother making a complaint though.

tommyhaas · 02-01-2012 07:48PM

eigrod wrote: »

But is skin colour the only "difference" that is taboo, under the laws of the FA, and if so, why ?

What if a player calls another "a little c**t", or "a lanky c**t", or "a ginger c**t", or a "scouse c**t", or a "Manc c**t". Those fit 1) in your post, but why is skin colour the only difference that leads to an 8 match ban and a fine ?

Because vagina's, smaller people, tall people, red heads, Liverpudlians and Mancunians, have not been discriminated against through out history to the extent black people have been, hence the whole racism issue being so much more prominent

eigrod · 02-01-2012 07:48PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Because there isn't a long running campaign by a pressure group pushing any of those is probably the answer.

The reference to race doubles the ban, all those things would still be offences under the rules. Most people wouldn't bother making a complaint though.

Exactly...good reply. But what if players start making complaints now ?

Obviously I don't know, but I would be pretty sure that Jay Spearing and Peter Crouch would be regularly subjected to the first two examples I gave. What if they make a complaint the next time ?

abelard · 02-01-2012 07:52PM

eigrod wrote: »

But is skin colour the only "difference" that is taboo, under the laws of the FA, and if so, why ?

What if a player calls another "a little c**t", or "a lanky c**t", or "a ginger c**t", or a "scouse c**t", or a "Manc c**t". Those fit 1) in your post, but why is skin colour the only difference that leads to an 8 match ban and a fine ?

Are you seriously trying to equivocate calling someone (for example) "a scouse c**t" and "a black c**t"?

Seriously?

clubberlang12 · 02-01-2012 07:53PM

eigrod wrote: »

Obviously I don't know, but I would be pretty sure that Jay Spearing and Peter Crouch would be regularly subjected to the first two examples I gave. What if they make a complaint the next time ?

As said earlier, there is nothing to stop them reporting any such remarks to the FA. They would be fully entitled to. It would be then up to the FA to investigate. Problem is, most people's skin's are thick enough to take a little personal abuse like that. Racism is a whole different matter for a lot of people,

eigrod · 02-01-2012 07:58PM

abelard wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to equivocate calling someone (for example) "a scouse c**t" and "a black c**t"?

Seriously?

Equate ? No. But where's the line in the FA's rulings ? I've given examples of abusive terms relating to "difference" which seem to be acceptable, that is all.

Fuhrer · 02-01-2012 08:02PM

eigrod wrote: »

Equate ? No. But where's the line in the FA's rulings ? I've given examples of abusive terms relating to "difference" which seem to be acceptable, that is all.

Rule of thumb for football and everywhere else in life.

Racism = No

opr · 02-01-2012 09:13PM

Good post imo.

http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showpost.php?p=6859329&postcount=1148

Opr

Will I Amnt · 02-01-2012 09:32PM

opr wrote: »

Good post imo.

http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showpost.php?p=6859329&postcount=1148

Opr

Here's a quote from what you consider a good post.

“¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed.

Note the sentence in brackets.......that didn't happen,as has been repeated here ad nauseum.
Seems somebody is throwing in a few false facts to suit a certain agenda.

I don't know why people keep posting links from Liverpool/United fora,they hold absolutely no weight and are more often than not a biased pile of sh1te.

opr · 02-01-2012 09:38PM

Sorry cambo2008 I haven't been following this thread that closely. It is on page 5 of the report point 6. How has it become clear that Evra never said the below ?

When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra spoke to Mr Suarez and said (in English) "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez replied "Por que, negro?". He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar from his upbringing in Uruguay.

Opr

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

Comments