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

#15 · 03-01-2012 10:43PM

Tox56 wrote: »

Reading the report it's pretty clear the proof is one person's word v the other, and Evra's is taken as fact.

Wtf

It's actually the complete opposite of what you said.

If you read the report, how did you miss that? Suarez's lawyers accepted that it wasn't simply a case of one person's word vs another.

What is up with all of these people claiming to have read the report and then making up a load of bollocks that isn't in the report?

kmart6 · 03-01-2012 10:47PM

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Whats the source on that? Not saying I don't believe, cause I remember reading it. Just can't remember where and I'd like to quote the report on another arguement I'm having :P

It's in the report!!

Blatter · 03-01-2012 10:50PM

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Whats the source on that? Not saying I don't believe, cause I remember reading it. Just can't remember where and I'd like to quote the report on another arguement I'm having :P

From the FA's report:

It was accepted by Mr McCormick (LFC lawyer) in closing submissions that this is not simply a case of one person's word against another

Paragraph 215 by the way.

Ordinary man · 03-01-2012 10:53PM

#15 wrote: »

Wtf

It's actually the complete opposite of what you said.

If you read the report, how did you miss that? Suarez's lawyers accepted that it wasn't simply a case of one person's word vs another.

What is up with all of these people claiming to have read the report and then making up a load of bollocks that isn't in the report?

It's like fcuking groundhog day in here lately. Explain, show, prove and repeat;)

Unearthly · 03-01-2012 11:00PM

I was going to say unbelievable statement from Liverpool but it's not really.

I knew they wouldn't have the class to apologise.

Crazy Horse 6 · 03-01-2012 11:02PM

Tox56 wrote: »

Reading the report it's pretty clear the proof is one person's word v the other, and Evra's is taken as fact.

Yeap that's pretty much it and what i expected from day one. The FA where on a mission to make an example of Suarez and this was always going to be the outcome.

Mr Alan · 03-01-2012 11:02PM

Blatter wrote: »

From the FA's report:

Paragraph 215 by the way.

I'm flabbagasted this keeps getting brought up.

In my opinion that section has been totally misinterprated.

cloptrop · 03-01-2012 11:03PM

why oh why couldnt they apologise and move on,,,,,,,have you heard the statement they realised, have they no realisation that they are just fuelling the fire
STOP READING NOW IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE MY NEXT COMMENT SERIOUS
<on a lighter note maybe if suarez had of played today city might have dropped points , was this all kennys plan>

kmart6 · 03-01-2012 11:06PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'm flabbagasted this keeps getting brought up.

In my opinion that section has been totally misinterprated.

How can you think that such a simple, straight forward sentence could be misinterpreted?!

Big Pussy Bonpensiero · 03-01-2012 11:07PM

gerryo777 wrote: »

So what is the answer to my question?
Get a grip on yourself will ya, you sound like some hysterical fool.
For your own info I have employed all colours and creeds in my business and don't/didn't have a problem with anyone, so be careful about what you say about me...

Be careful what you say. Black is an offensive term when describing people, regardless of what it's meant in Uruguay.

Blatter · 03-01-2012 11:09PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'm flabbagasted this keeps getting brought up.

In my opinion that section has been totally misinterprated.

Please do explain further why you think it has been totally misinterpreted, I'm fascinated.

Helix · 03-01-2012 11:09PM

THFC wrote: »

Be careful what you say. Black is an offensive term when describing people, regardless of what it's meant in Uruguay.

it's a perfectly fine word for describing people if they're black. just like white is. or tall, or short, or fat, or dark haired

however it CAN be used in a negative or antagonistic way, still without necessarily being racist, but with obvious intent to rile up

black is NOT a racist word ffs

Big Pussy Bonpensiero · 03-01-2012 11:16PM

Helix wrote: »

it's a perfectly fine word for describing people if they're black. just like white is. or tall, or short, or fat, or dark haired

however it CAN be used in a negative or antagonistic way, still without necessarily being racist, but with obvious intent to rile up

black is NOT a racist word ffs

Which is how this whole argument started. Thanks for clearing it up. Suarez realised as much when he was yelling it at Evra, yet he won't even offer an apology, pathetic behaviour you wouldn't get from an 8 year old. And the fact Liverpool are backiing him up and acting as if he did nothing speaks volumes of teh club.

citytillidie · 03-01-2012 11:20PM

gerryo777 wrote: »

A final question, surely if mr. evra believes he was racially abused by mr. suarez he should now make a formal complaint to the police using the evidence the FA seem to have to back up his claims.

Because the police have already said this on the matter

There was at least some relief for Suárez last night when Merseyside police confirmed that the FA’s judgment will not lead to a criminal investigation similar to that affecting Chelsea captain John Terry

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8971768/Liverpool-face-Luis-Suarez-racism-row-dragging-on-until-late-in-the-season.html

K-9 · 03-01-2012 11:28PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Anyone can make a formal complaint to the police about the incident as far as I'm aware.

You're kidding yourself if you think plenty of Utd fans haven't already reported the incident to the police.

The reason no action will be taken is cause there's no evidence.

Because a charge by the police or well to be correct, the police forwarding a file to the CPS means they think there's enough evidence there beyond reasonable doubt. There isn't.

As for the Liverpool statement, it doesn't matter what Liverpool say now. Back the player and appeal it will be portrayed badly by the usuals, accept it portrayed badly by the usuals. Win win for the usuals.

Mr Alan · 03-01-2012 11:29PM

Blatter wrote: »

Please do explain further why you think it has been totally misinterpreted, I'm fascinated.

That statement was made at the end of the hearing.

Before the FA deliberated, came to a conclusion & published their findings.

The FA were seemingly the ones who decided basically that it was Evra's word against Suarez in regards to what was said in the goal mouth. And judged that Evra was telling the truth and Suarez was lying.

So Suarez's barrister was correct, there was more to the case than one persons word against the other. It's a shame the FA didn't agree.

Blatter · 03-01-2012 11:29PM

citytillidie wrote: »

Because the police have already said this on the matter

There was at least some relief for Suárez last night when Merseyside police confirmed that the FA’s judgment will not lead to a criminal investigation similar to that affecting Chelsea captain John Terry

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8971768/Liverpool-face-Luis-Suarez-racism-row-dragging-on-until-late-in-the-season.html

There are no quotes from the police in that piece and you omitted this part:

The police will not act unless a complaint is made, and Evra has made no representations about the Oct 15 incident.

SantryRed · 03-01-2012 11:31PM

K-9 wrote: »

As for the Liverpool statement, it doesn't matter what Liverpool say now. Back the player and appeal it will be portrayed badly by the usuals, accept it portrayed badly by the usuals. Win win for the usuals.

Man that's absolute bollocks. If they thought they had a case they'd appeal. The fact that they threw out some spiel of it being better for the FA's fight against racism if they dropped it is absolute rubbish by them and ridiculous.

K-9 · 03-01-2012 11:35PM

SantryRed wrote: »

Man that's absolute bollocks. If they thought they had a case they'd appeal. The fact that they threw out some spiel of it being better for the FA's fight against racism if they dropped it is absolute rubbish by them and ridiculous.

Nope, I've said this for a couple of days, I think Blatter and other more impartial observers, unlike yourself and your claims to the contrary, agreed.

Appealing it drags it on and will be spinned. What already is a PR gets worse.

KevIRL · 03-01-2012 11:35PM

Wow

Daniel Taylor -

"Fascinating press conf with Dalglish: refusing to give an inch, maintains Suarez t-shirt gesture 'fabolous statement to make' "

tommyhaas · 03-01-2012 11:36PM

K-9 wrote: »

Because a charge by the police or well to be correct, the police forwarding a file to the CPS means they think there's enough evidence there beyond reasonable doubt. There isn't.

As for the Liverpool statement, it doesn't matter what Liverpool say now. Back the player and appeal it will be portrayed badly by the usuals, accept it portrayed badly by the usuals. Win win for the usuals.

I assumed there wouldn't be either, but the below was posted in reply to my assumption by someone who is obviously involved in the legal profession in some capacity

Needless to say, its impossible to say whether there is sufficient evidence until the charge is known

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.

Blatter · 03-01-2012 11:38PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

That statement was made at the end of the hearing.

Before the FA deliberated, came to a conclusion & published their findings.

The FA were seemingly the ones who decided basically that it was Evra's word against Suarez in regards to what was said in the goal mouth. And judged that Evra was telling the truth and Suarez was lying.

So Suarez's barrister was correct, there was more to the case than one persons word against the other. It's a shame the FA didn't agree.

The FA didn't decide it was just Evra's word against Suarez' with regards what happened at the goal mouth.

They decided to take Evra's word because there was evidence suggesting Evra's side of the story was credible and consistent. In contrast, there was evidence suggesting that Suarez lied and was unreliable.

I don't know if you get this yet, but there was EVIDENCE as to why the FA believed Evra and not Suarez, hence it was not a simple case of just one man's word against another.

Mr Alan · 03-01-2012 11:41PM

I disagree.

But ok.

SantryRed · 03-01-2012 11:41PM

K-9 wrote: »

Nope, I've said this for a couple of days, I think Blatter and other more impartial observers, unlike yourself and your claims to the contrary, agreed.

Appealing it drags it on and will be spinned. What already is a PR gets worse.

I am clearly impartial. But Liverpool have dug a hole in their PR stance as the facts are now there and they realise they haven't a hope in winning an appeal. Also, their previous statement said about Evra previously having unfounded allegations. Something I hadnt noticed until today.

clubberlang12 · 03-01-2012 11:44PM

KevIRL wrote: »

Wow

Daniel Taylor -

"Fascinating press conf with Dalglish: refusing to give an inch, maintains Suarez t-shirt gesture 'fabolous statement to make' "

If this is true, i would be very worried about Kenny's attitude through out this whole incident. It is quite possible to stand by your player, and club, without showing such disregard to the severity of the incident and it's repercussions for the image of the club.

Blatter · 03-01-2012 11:45PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

I disagree.

But ok.

Why exactly do you disagree?

Are you refuting that there was evidence as to why the FA believed Evra as opposed to Suarez with regard to what happened in the goal mouth?

Kess73 · 03-01-2012 11:45PM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

That would be all very well Luis if you weren't found to have said this..."I don't speak to blacks"

You must have a source that the FA don't because he was not proven to have said that and nowhere in the report does it say that there is any evidence to prove that he said that.

He admitted to using the word negro in a different sentence, and that is the one sentence that was proven for sure thanks to him admitting.

Evra said that he said "I don't speak to/with Blacks" and Suarez denied saying that. The FA could not prove which of them were telling the truth and then used probabilities based on interviews with both players, language experts, video footage etc to decide, as stated in their report

So he was not proven to have said what you claimed he did, so you are either making it up or you have misread something in a newspaper or you have misread it from the report.

Mr Alan · 03-01-2012 11:47PM

Blatter wrote: »

Why exactly do you disagree?

Are you refuting that there was evidence as to why the FA believed Evra as opposed to Suarez with regard to what happened in the goal mouth?

I'm suggesting the 'evidence' they have does not correlate with the conclusions they've come to.

Kess73 · 03-01-2012 11:54PM

Blatter wrote: »

Why exactly do you disagree?

Are you refuting that there was evidence as to why the FA believed Evra as opposed to Suarez with regard to what happened in the goal mouth?

Did the FA not state that they came to their verdict through speaking with both players, speaking with language experts, speaking with other players/club officials, watching footage etc and that other than what Suarez admitted they had to come to a decision based on what they thought probably happened as there was no actual evidence by way of other witnesses or tv footage to prove/disprove what each man was saying save for the one line that was admitted?

You are asking Alan if he is saying there was no evidence, so maybe you can help him and list the evidence you speak of.

And keep it to actual evidence and not anything that the FA came to using probabilities. The FA may not be wrong in their verdict, but I would love to know what the evidence you and a few other are speaking of because I am struggling to see the concrete undisputable evidence that is being claimed to exist.

Blatter · 03-01-2012 11:57PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'm suggesting the 'evidence' they have does not correlate with the conclusions they've come to.

But it does correlate with the conclusions they came to.

Suarez was found to have lied and was inconsistent, Evra was found to be reliable and credible.

They had had good reason to believe Evra's version of events and they had good reason not to believe Suarez account of what happened.

Now granted, the evidence does not directly correlate with the conclusion they came to, but they were entitled to come to the conclusion they did based on the evidence they had collected.

It was not a simple case of just one man's word against the other.

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

Comments