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

Mr.Crinklewood · 03-01-2012 11:57PM

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.

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Source?

Mr Alan wrote: »

Finnan was investigated for racism by Utd fans who reported the incident from watching telly.

Terry, again reported by TV viewers.

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Apologies i was under the impression that you were talking about the incident under discussion in this thread, the Suarez incident...

In relation to the Finnan claim, could you throw up the link that states that they were United fans, i actually never saw their team mentioned.

Hi Alan, i know you may have been watching the City game, but if you could throw up the Finnan link it would be appreciated.

I`ve been looking ( admittedly only skimming ) for the where someone asked about the Finnan incident, could you throw me that link as well.

Cheers Sir.

Mr Alan · 03-01-2012 11:59PM

http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/mar/01/newsstory.sport4?cat=football&type=article

Blatter · 04-01-2012 12:00AM

Kess73 wrote: »

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.

As explained above, the evidence is that Suarez was inconsistent and unreliable with his version of events, whilst Evra was found to be credible.

Are you saying that isn't evidence?

monkey9 · 04-01-2012 12:00AM

So Utd fans say that Liverpool should accept the report which they now have, yet there's still some saying that you only accept it if you're guilty?? Wow! You can't win

Grayditch · 04-01-2012 12:02AM

That statement is unprofessional. At least it's wrecking the heads of United fans who were only in this for the digs.

Shame about everyone else of course.

Hulk Hands · 04-01-2012 12:04AM

Kess73 wrote: »

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.

It's what an independent commission concluded he said. Their views were agreed with by the FA.

The media, neutrals, and in a roundabout way Liverpool FC have accepted. The only people who haven't are Liverpool fans who continue to make a fool of themselves.

If you produce consistent statements and evidence like Evra then your case holds more credence. If you produce inconsistent ones like Suarez and Kuyt then more often than not you will lose. Even if he was found innocent, there's grounds to say the 2 of them should recieve a ban for their inconsistencies (ie lies) during the investigation

monkey9 · 04-01-2012 12:04AM

Quandary wrote: »

In fairness, Kenny should have had more sense than to commit so voraciously to the cause.

That pic is a disgrace.

Nope, not a disgrace. Pure hyperbole nonsense from yourself.

SlickRic · 04-01-2012 12:04AM

Kenny really isn't fúcking helping.

Suarez's "brilliant" statement he says??

the ridiculous part of all of this, is that my club still had the time to redeem themselves ever so slightly, even after the ludicrous nature of their defence in the last 10 days or so.

if Liverpool had apologised to Evra, even just for the misunderstanding, acknowledging that the language could have hurt Evra, then at least something would have come of it. but i'm sorry lads, this incessant need to defend Suarez to the bitter end on every level is just getting loony now.

how much would it have hurt to just shut up?

citing Utd in the past doesn't make this any better.

i can't believe that PR department hasn't been sacked yet.

i'm hating every second of this saga, because the amount of ammunition it is giving rival fans to ridicule the club, a club i've actually been proud to support for 20 years now, is laughable.

whether we think Evra's reliability and credibility is evidence or not, clearly Suarez's statements weren't consistent according to the report. so unless they're lying, are out to get us, and are actively looking for a reason to punish Suarez, then you have to assume that they had good reason to believe Evra, between the lip readers, statements, etc. and whether we agree with all this, the club really need to stfu at this stage.

the club should have shut up months ago in all honesty.

Helix · 04-01-2012 12:04AM

Blatter wrote: »

As explained above, the evidence is that Suarez was inconsistent and unreliable with his version of events, whilst Evra was found to be credible.

Are you saying that isn't evidence?

there seems to be an awful misunderstanding as to what evidence means

monkey9 · 04-01-2012 12:08AM

killwill wrote: »

Maybe he is a compassionate soul and does not want Suarez to end up with a criminal record?

In fairness to Evra he did say whilst he was racially abused he does not believe Suarez to be a racist.

Nah, i think it's safe to assume that Evra won't be reporting Luis Suarez for racially abusing him to the police!! :cool:

Mr.Crinklewood · 04-01-2012 12:08AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/mar/01/newsstory.sport4?cat=football&type=article

Cheers, this is the link that i saw myself that mentioned "deaf football fans", just looking for a link to them being Man Utd fans.

I`ve posted the details of your link below.

Still waiting on other questions to be answered.

Police investigate claims that Finnan made racist remark to Evra
Daniel Taylor
The Guardian, Wed 1 Mar 2006 01.10 GMT
A police investigation has been launched after deaf football fans complained they had lip-read Liverpool's Steve Finnan making a racist remark towards Patrice Evra of Manchester United.
The Merseyside club immediately denounced the claim as an "outrageous slur" but Greater Manchester police confirmed last night that inquiries are ongoing into allegations that the Liverpool full-back "made an offensive comment" during last month's 1-0 defeat at Old Trafford.
It is understood that the alleged remark was picked up by fans watching the game on television. Two contacted the police, as well as Manchester United, and claimed they had lip-read what the Republic of Ireland international apparently said. Police are understood to have taken statements and to be reviewing footage of the game.
The revelations drew an angry response from Anfield. "The first either the club or the player knew about this matter was through the media," a spokesman said. "There has been absolutely no contact from the Greater Manchester police. We have subsequently had a video of the match analysed by a lip-reader, who has told us there is nothing to support this outrageous slur."
The incident allegedly happened after Finnan had given away the stoppage-time free-kick on Evra that led to Rio Ferdinand heading the decisive goal. Evra, however, was unaware of any racist taunts. The Senegal-born Frenchman, a £5.5m signing from Monaco in January, has not raised any complaints although he is aware of the allegations.
United will not comment because it is a possible criminal matter.
Finnan returned to Liverpool last night after being forced out of the Republic of Ireland's squad to face Sweden in Dublin because of a neck injury. "The player vehemently denies these allegations," the Liverpool spokesman added. "He has not used any such language."
Evra's club captain Gary Neville, meanwhile, has confirmed that he will appeal against the Football Association's £5,000 fine imposed last week when the ruling body found him guilty of improper conduct after he ran 60 yards towards the Liverpool fans and kissed his badge to celebrate Ferdinand's winner in the same match.

Quandary · 04-01-2012 12:10AM

monkey9 wrote: »

Nope, not a disgrace. Pure hyperbole nonsense from yourself.

are you proud of Kenny in that image? Do you not think a smarter option would have been to air on the side of caution like a sensible figurehead for your club?

niallo27 · 04-01-2012 12:13AM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

It's what an independent commission concluded he said. Their views were agreed with by the FA.

The media, neutrals, and in a roundabout way Liverpool FC have accepted. The only people who haven't are Liverpool fans who continue to make a fool of themselves.

If you produce consistent statements and evidence like Evra then your case holds more credence. If you produce inconsistent ones like Suarez and Kuyt then more often than not you will lose. Even if he was found innocent, there's grounds to say the 2 of them should recieve a ban for their inconsistencies (ie lies) during the investigation

So your saying utd had a better legal team than liverpool had, your right they did, a better legal liverpool team and Suarez would have probaly got off, Liverpools legal team seem to have made a complete balls of this.

Mr.Crinklewood · 04-01-2012 12:15AM

niallo27 wrote: »

So your saying utd had a better legal team than liverpool had, your right they did, a better legal liverpool team and Suarez would have probaly got off, Liverpools legal team seem to have made a complete balls of this.

Well considering the posters for Boards.ie seem to be better than Liverpool`s legal team, they must be kinda crap.

Blatter · 04-01-2012 12:16AM

Helix wrote: »

there seems to be an awful misunderstanding as to what evidence means

From wiki: ''Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion''

Kess73 · 04-01-2012 12:17AM

Blatter wrote: »

As explained above, the evidence is that Suarez was inconsistent and unreliable with his version of events, whilst Evra was found to be credible.

Are you saying that isn't evidence?

Yes I am saying that is not evidence. That is a verdict based on probablilty not evidence and the FA stated as much. Now it could well be that the FA got it right and they guessed right (and when you make a decision based on probabilities it is your best guess rather than a proven certainty) but it is certainly not a decision backed up by cold hard undisputable evidence.

What it means is that Evra gave a better interview than Suarez and presented his case far better. Now he may have been able to do this for a number of reasons, one of which being that it could be as simple as he was telling the truth about what he heard and thought he heard, but actual evidence it is not. It is word against word with nothing concrete to prove which is the definitive truth.

I'm not trying to pick a row or anything like that, it is just that the constant use of the word "evidence" is annoying me when there is no conclusive evidence to point at save to what Suarez admitted.

I posted the next piece earlier by way of a reply to Slick. It pretty much sums up where I am with this case right now.

Just a couple of things in your post that I would like to ramble a little on.

You say the FA had to hand out a punishment for what Suarez said. I can go along with that, but what the FA actually did is hand out a punishment that was based on one thing he admitted to and six that he denied.

If Suarez is to be given an eight match ban, I think that the FA should have been very clear in stating it was for what he admitted rather than chucking in the bit saying that they think he may have said something similar six other times as well. It just does not sit well with me that he is being punished for what he might have said as well as what he actually did admit to. I think that regardless of what other things I think are inconsistent in the report (and both sides have plenty of inconsistent bits imho), if the FA came out and said that the punishment was for what was admitted to (and for how they interpreted that), and that there was a difference in opinion between both parties in relation to six other claimed incidents that I would be more inclined totake the report a bit easier.

The Suarez is not a racist bit is the other thing that bugs me. If Suarez used the word on purpose in order to offend Evra based on his skin colour, then that is a racist act. In my eyes if you commit one racist act or one hundred then you are a racist. If you go out and make a deliberate racist comment to someone you do not know, then I fail to see how you can be looked at as not being racist.

If the FA and Evra etc come out and say Suarez is not a racist and they think that Suarez did not mean the comment in a racist manner, then he should not be charged with making a comment of a racial nature at all, and the charge should only be that of making an abusive comment.

But if they are to charge Suarez with making a comment that had deliberate racial connotations, and truly believe that he did so, then surely the report should be passed onto the police and either someone from the FA or Evra himself should be making an official complaint of racist abuse. It just does not seem right that if they think he made a comment of a racial nature that was deliberate in it's intent to be abusive that they would not at least try to take it as far as they legally could in order to make an example.

The more I read the report the more there is that does not sit well with me. I'm not saying that Suarez should just be called innocent and everything forgotten about, far from it in fact, but there seems like there are a lot of half measures when there should be something more definitive one way or the other.

Now I still stand by what I said in that piece, and it is for a very simple reason. I want something to be proven in a conclusive manner about this case, and if Suarez is deemed to have made a racist comment then I would want to see the injured party get the police involved, and if not the injured party then the FA should report it to the police in a formal manner.

I want this because when it comes to racism you are either racist or not racist in my eyes. You don't take it on and off like changing shirts. If a person makes deliberate racists comments then that person is a racist in my eyes. So I want something solid to say that Suarez is a racist or Suarez is not a racist because if he was proven without doubt to have made deliberate racist remarks (and if Evra's seven different times is correct then it is not a slip of the tongue) then I would not want a racist playing for my club and in my city.

But the other side of that coin is even more important, because it is very important to be 100% sure that the person being called a racist is actually one because once called that, it is hard to wash the mud that sticks away even if the person gets proven innocent at a later date.

niallo27 · 04-01-2012 12:17AM

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Well considering the posters for Boards.ie seem to be better than Liverpool`s legal team, they must be kinda crap.

I think utd's legal just have a lot more experience and it stood to them.

Mr.Crinklewood · 04-01-2012 12:18AM

Blatter wrote: »

From wiki: ''Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion''

But we have to look at how that might be interpreted in Uruguay.:rolleyes:

K-9 · 04-01-2012 12:18AM

tommyhaas wrote: »

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

ilovelamp has claimed to be a bit of a legal and financial expert over the years. Would be interesting to see his reasoning other than just a person on the internet who claims to be an expert says so.

I find people who do know stuff

on the net tend to outline their reasoning and don't go, well I've a Masters or whatever! I've seen that poster fail my own personal test.

If the police bring a charge we'll know. The FA panel obviously think the balance of probabilities test is satisfied. Big difference from that and beyond reasonable doubt. Video evidence was a big one in the Terry case, actual clear video evidence, the FA panel admitted the video evidence isn't very clear in this case.

Helix · 04-01-2012 12:18AM

niallo27 wrote: »

So your saying utd had a better legal team than liverpool had, your right they did, a better legal liverpool team and Suarez would have probaly got off, Liverpools legal team seem to have made a complete balls of this.

i dont really see why the blame here falls on the legal team, and not the guy who was dumb enough to say negro to an opposition player, however he meant it

Hulk Hands · 04-01-2012 12:19AM

niallo27 wrote: »

So your saying utd had a better legal team than liverpool had, your right they did, a better legal liverpool team and Suarez would have probaly got off, Liverpools legal team seem to have made a complete balls of this.

Did United use a legal team?

I thought it was just Evra who put in a complaint, and numerous players gave statements in evidence? I might be wrong.

The club itself had no vested interest in Suarez getting banned. Bar shiits and giggles, United people in general don't really care about this. If anything it hurt us as Suarez was out for tonight and will be back for the OT game.

Edit: And wanting Evra's name as a liar cleared also

Helix · 04-01-2012 12:19AM

Blatter wrote: »

From wiki: ''Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion''

exactly my point

SantryRed · 04-01-2012 12:23AM

niallo27 wrote: »

So your saying utd had a better legal team than liverpool had, your right they did, a better legal liverpool team and Suarez would have probaly got off, Liverpools legal team seem to have made a complete balls of this.

Have you read the report??

Even the first few pages. Because if you did you would realise this post makes no sense.

K-9 · 04-01-2012 12:24AM

SantryRed wrote: »

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.

That's exactly what I said. Liverpool feel the PR effect is stronger than any benefit of appealing.

It does not mean Liverpool think they don't have a case to appeal which you said earlier. They just thought better of it. Unless you've an ear in the LFC deliberations?

Ordinary man · 04-01-2012 12:28AM

Helix wrote: »

i dont really see why the blame here falls on the legal team, and not the guy who was dumb enough to say negro to an opposition player, however he meant it

They tried to blame evra and the f.a already, now they go to the next ones they can find. Anyone except the player who was dumb enough to start all this off.

Liverpool or suarez could have defused this somewhat today with a simple apology. They wouldn't even have had to admit anything, just a "we apologise to mr.evra for any offence he might have taken".

J. Marston · 04-01-2012 12:29AM

Liverpool do not fully accept Sky Sports findings that Pepe Reina is guilty of making a goalkeeping error during the Liverpool vs Man City game on the 3rd of January 2012. While we do accept the fact the ball crept under Reina in a somewhat peculiar fashion we stand by our players claim that the translation of the ball from the opposition players foot to the ball was misconstrued by outside parties which led to the goal in question. After consulting our aeronautic experts we are led to believe that the angle it was struck combined with the loss of air and bounce from the ball due to the sheer velocity of which the ball was hit created a unfair and unforeseeable swerve on the ball which resulted in a unstoppable dip of the ball into the ground.

We believe that during the throw in process the ball boy switched the balls with a slighty less pumped and slightly punctured ball which led to the change in air flight of the ball. We believe this was a deliberate attempt by the F.A to make Pepe Reina look like a poor goalkeeper. In the future we wish for the F.A to examine each ball before it is thrown in to determine quality and ensure its ability to maintain its condition for the entire game. We also wish to question James Milners throwing action and we appeal to the F.A to examine the use of any sharp objects to create a deviation of air flow from the ball. We also wish for the F.A to release any evidence that can provide the whereabouts of a large beach ball previously spotted at our last unintentional goalkeeping error made.

As a result of our findings we will be appealing against our 3-0 loss in this game.

.

monkey9 · 04-01-2012 12:32AM

Quandary wrote: »

are you proud of Kenny in that image? Do you not think a smarter option would have been to air on the side of caution like a sensible figurehead for your club?

Himself and the players don't agree with the charge and now don't agree with the report that has now been commissioned.

Plenty of anti-racist groups have come out over the last few days urging LFC not to appeal the ban.

So what should Liverpool do?? Respect the anti-racism stance, accept the ban whilst calling out the report for the inconsistant bull**** that it is. No way could Liverpool appeal that after all the pressure put upon it.

The FA has has it's anti racism conviction finally so it can now give it's two fingers to Blatter and FIFA and it's made it's stance.

As for the rest of the world 'laughing at Liverpool FC'? (not you, op), they're laughing at the FA.

Kess73 · 04-01-2012 12:33AM

Helix wrote: »

there seems to be an awful misunderstanding as to what evidence means

There does indeed.

Blatter wrote: »

From wiki: ''Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion''

There is a difference between reaching a verdict based on probability and reaching a verdict based on quantifiable evidence that proves the critical facts of the case to the highest possible level of certainty.

I know that the case was a civil one and not a criminal one, and as such it is can be decided on the balance of probabilities rather than what would be deemed actual hard evidence.

My point is that this case was decided on that balance of probabilities, and the FA state this in the report, rather than actual evidence. So when you kept saying that there was evidence and asking if Alan refuted that evidence, I simply asked you to list the actual evidence you were talking about rather than anything that was decided on the balance of probabilities. Other than what Suarez admitted to, you cannot and neither can I or anyone else on here.

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

But we have to look at how that might be interpreted in Uruguay.:rolleyes:

Might have to check how it translates under bridges as well.

Hulk Hands · 04-01-2012 12:36AM

monkey9 wrote: »

As for the rest of the world 'laughing at Liverpool FC'? (not you, op), they're laughing at the FA.

Keep thinking that. Regardless of whether you were right or wrong, Liverpool FC and all it concerns have come out of this as a laughing stock in the eyes of anyone not connected with them. Look at any football forum for proof. The FA has actually been praised in many sections

Helix · 04-01-2012 12:36AM

Kess73 wrote: »

There is a difference between reaching a verdict based on probability and reaching a verdict based on quantifiable evidence that proves the critical facts of the case to the highest possible level of certainty.

yeah, the difference is that the FA regulations stipulate that only the former is necessary, as do all civil cases. the latter is only necessary in criminal cases, which this isnt.

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

Comments