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

cournioni · 04-01-2012 03:26AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

after some of the stuff you've posted on this site over the years, that's beyond hilarious and is the kind of feigned moral outrage that is cracking me up.

What I have posted over the years has been due to outrage at your clubs lack of morals mainly. Go figure.

Mr Alan · 04-01-2012 03:28AM

cournioni wrote: »

What I have posted over the years has been due to outrage at your clubs lack of morals mainly. Go figure.

Good lad.

K-9 · 04-01-2012 03:29AM

cournioni wrote: »

What I have posted over the years has been due to outrage at your clubs lack of morals mainly. Go figure.

Another very vague statement with no specifics.

Will you just spit it out. Took you long enough the last time.

Seaneh · 04-01-2012 03:31AM

Blatter wrote: »

There are different examples of Suarez using both Uruguayan Spanish and European Spanish so that kind of makes your points moot tbh.

Those different examples are used by people OTHER THAN SUAREZ.
This would probably be because they, being people who speak either (a) very little spanish or (b) castellano speakers and in both cases are remembering what was said wrongly.

The experts the FA used noted that Saurez's account was the most consistant of them all, noticing differences in everyone elses.

I'd take that as a pretty telling piece of information myself.

opr · 04-01-2012 03:34AM

Blatter wrote: »

The evidence of the linguistic experts, which Suarez accepted, disagree with you.

So basically Suarez disagrees with you.

I don't understand what you are talking about here ? Suarez maintains that he never said what Evra has alleged. Are you saying that he was then asked well lets just pretend if you did say it is this what you would have said ? lol :pac:

Opr

YouTookMyName · 04-01-2012 03:35AM

Blatter · 04-01-2012 03:45AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Those different examples are used by people OTHER THAN SUAREZ.
This would probably be because they, being people who speak either (a) very little spanish or (b) castellano speakers and in both cases are remembering what was said wrongly.

The experts the FA used noted that Saurez's account was the most consistant of them all, noticing differences in everyone elses.

I'd take that as a pretty telling piece of information myself.

No they are not. In Suarez' transcript, he used the 'tu' form of the verb ser, which is the European version. In videos, he was seen to use the 'vos' form of the verb ser, which is the South American version.

If any of this was actually a valid defense, do you not think that Suarez would have mentioned it?

opr wrote: »

I don't understand what you are talking about here ? Suarez maintains that he never said what Evra has alleged. Are you saying that he was then asked well lets just pretend if you did say it is this what you would have said ? lol :pac:

Opr

Evra gave his account of what happened. The linguistic experts determined that his account of events would have been offensive, even in Uruguay.

Suarez accepted all the findings of the linguistic experts.

Seaneh is trying to claim that Evra's account of events wouldn't have been offensive in Uruguay.

Contradiction.

Follow me now?

opr · 04-01-2012 03:54AM

Blatter wrote: »

Evra gave his account of what happened. The linguistic experts determined that his account of events would have been offensive, even in Uruguay.

Suarez accepted all the findings of the linguistic experts.

Seaneh is trying to claim that Evra's account of events wouldn't have been offensive in Uruguay.

Contradiction.

Follow me now?

Seaneh is not trying to claim anything of the sort if you read his posts. He says that Evra's version of events are even more unlikely to have happened given the phasing used.

Opr

Mr Alan · 04-01-2012 03:57AM

kryogen wrote: »

Genuinely?

have you not claimed to have read the report?

Read it again you will come across it, 7 times was the figure decided on

I thought Suarez maintained he only said it once and it was Evra who was confused about the amount of times it was said? Could genuinely be wrong about that, I'm drugged up on flu medication!

A highlight from the FA's report for me....

The Commission asked Mr Evra why, then, did he not tell the referee that he had been called ******, as opposed to black. Mr Evra's answer was that even when he pronounced the word "****", it was not a word he liked to use.

Oh really Patrice?! Ah the poor petal!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMOWi3PRDJM&sns=em

Just an example of the many discrepancies in Evras statements which the FA was happy to not take into consideration

Blatter · 04-01-2012 04:02AM

opr wrote: »

Seaneh is not trying to claim anything of the sort if you read his posts. He says that Evra's version of events are even more unlikely to have happened given the phasing used.

Opr

You must have missed this post then:

Seaneh wrote: »

Honestly, this entire thing baffles me.

I speak south american spanish.

Negro is not a ****ing offensive word.

Luis Suerez would use negro without even realising he was using it, the same way people drop mate, buddy, sham, dude, man or fella into sentences without realising they are all over this country.

The only problem here is the idiocy of the media, the general public and the FA.

There is such a stupid fear of being seen as supporting racism and the FA are so blinded that they claim he had to have meant it offensively, they said that the fact the couldnt remember how many times he said it was a clear indicator he meant it offensively.

The fact that he couldnt even remember using the word half the time he does, to me, screams he just happens to ****ing use the word in sentences.

The people on here, and elsewhere, who are too stupid to see a linguistical misfortune as someone throwing racial slurs, I really pity you all.

Seaneh · 04-01-2012 04:13AM

Blatter wrote: »

No they are not. In Suarez' transcript, he used the 'tu' form of the verb ser, which is the European version. In videos, he was seen to use the 'vos' form of the verb ser, which is the South American version.

If any of this was actually a valid defense, do you not think that Suarez would have mentioned it?

Evra gave his account of what happened. The linguistic experts determined that his account of events would have been offensive, even in Uruguay.

Suarez accepted all the findings of the linguistic experts.

Seaneh is trying to claim that Evra's account of events wouldn't have been offensive in Uruguay.

Contradiction.

Follow me now?

The linguistics experts are actually anthropologists and sociologists, not linguistics professors, one of whom's area of expertise is Colombia and has spent the majroity of his research time IN MANCHESTER, the other who has never been to uraguay.

They are hardly the best "experts" in the world, are they?

They are probably the two LEAST qualified people from The Latin American Spanish faculty of Manchester University!

opr · 04-01-2012 04:15AM

I am not sure what I should be looking for in that post. It is pretty clear he doesn't believe Evra's version of events happened ?

Seaneh wrote: »

Evra is lying through his teeth.

Seaneh wrote: »

That entire alleged sentence makes no sense in south american spanish anyway, so if Evra calims it happened, he is either lying or misunderstood.

Opr

cournioni · 04-01-2012 04:22AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

****ing hell you're an absolute idiot.

The fact that you're equating the death of 39 Juventus fans & 96 Liverpool fans to this case shows the level of retard you have attained.

Congratulations.

Who equated anything? Looks like I touched a nerve with you earlier by showing you up to be nothing other than a bullsh1tter.

What I essentially said in my last post was that everyone should hold some accountability for their actions. I also said that Liverpool had a history of not showing accountability. They are always right on everything, and everyone else doesnt matter. There is no equating anything here, I want accountability for everything.

Blatter · 04-01-2012 04:24AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

The Commission asked Mr Evra why, then, did he not tell the referee that he had been called ******, as opposed to black. Mr Evra's answer was that even when he pronounced the word "****", it was not a word he liked to use and 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.

Oh really Patrice?! Ah the poor petal!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMOWi3PRDJM&sns=em

Just an example of the many discrepancies in Evras statements which the FA was happy to not take into consideration

You conveniently left a little bit out there but don't worry, I added it back in red for you:)

Anyway, that may have held a little weight had Suarez not admitted to using the word negro.

Seaneh wrote: »

The linguistics experts are actually anthropologists and sociologists, not linguistics professors, one of whom's area of expertise is Colombia and has spent the majroity of his research time IN MANCHESTER, the other who has never been to uraguay.

They are hardly the best "experts" in the world, are they?

They are probably the two LEAST qualified people from The Latin American Spanish faculty of Manchester University!

Well, even if you are correct(that's a massive if), it's a bit futile to be arguing about it when Suarez and his legal team accepted their findings.

DOC09UNAM · 04-01-2012 04:27AM

cournioni wrote: »

K-9 wrote: »

Another very vague statement with no specifics.

Will you just spit it out. Took you long enough the last time.

Ok, I would like Liverpool FC to offer a full and written public apology to Juventus and their fans for Liverpool fans part the Heysel Stadium disaster. None of this amicizia crap that is nothing but an insult to the families and friends of the victims. Also I would like Kenny Dalglish to apologise for the comments he made about the disaster, which were quite sickening to be honest.

I would like Liverpool FC to offer a full and written public apology to Martin Georgiev for the vicious assault that took place by a Liverpool fan in Bulgaria and for forcing the British Government to pardon the convicted Michael Shields of the jail term that he should have served. He still has not been proven innocent by Bulgarian court and Liverpool FC decided that they were above that. They should be doing all in their power to get justice for Georgiev.

I would like Liverpool to apologise to Patrice Evra in a public statement for trying to defame him in the statements released by the club. I would also like Liverpool FC and Luis Suarez to apologise for the racist abuse directed at Evra by Suarez. They should also wear United shirts bearing Evra's name and number on the back for their warm up in their next game.

I also would like the Police and organisers at Hillsborough to publicly apologise in full for their negligence at Hillsborough in 1989 that caused the deaths of so many lives of Liverpool fans that semi final day.

Justice for all.

Jesus christ almighty, that's a retarded post if ever there was one, wtf is the point in bringing up those tragedies, stinks of you just trying to piss alan off.

Revolution9 · 04-01-2012 04:29AM

cournioni wrote: »

I would like Liverpool FC to offer a full and written public apology to Martin Georgiev for the vicious assault that took place by a Liverpool fan in Bulgaria and for forcing the British Government to pardon the convicted Michael Shields of the jail term that he should have served. He still has not been proven innocent by Bulgarian court and Liverpool FC decided that they were above that. They should be doing all in their power to get justice for Georgiev.
.

Liverpool FC has that type of power?!

Surely we should have no problem getting them to lift the Suarez ban then!

I suggest you read up on the real reasons why Shields was pardoned. Your suggestion is simply laughable and quite pathetic.

Blatter · 04-01-2012 04:30AM

opr wrote: »

I am not sure what I should be looking for in that post. It is pretty clear he doesn't believe Evra's version of events happened ?

Opr

He blatantly insinuates that the word negro is never offensive in SA and that Evra's version of events would not be considered offensive in SA.

Maybe Seaneh can clear it up for us. Seaneh, do you think Evra's version of events would be considered offensive in Uruguay and do you accept that the word negro can be derogatory in Uruguay?

cournioni · 04-01-2012 04:36AM

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Jesus christ almighty, that's a retarded post if ever there was one, wtf is the point in bringing up those tragedies, stinks of you just trying to piss alan off.

Doesn't take much to piss him off. In most cases the truth pisses him off. I was asked to post what I thought Liverpool should have shown accountability for, so I did. Get over it.

Seaneh · 04-01-2012 04:38AM

Blatter wrote: »

He blatantly insinuates that the word negro is never offensive in SA and that Evra's version of events would not be considered offensive in SA.

Maybe Seaneh can clear it up for us. Seaneh, do you think Evra's version of events would be considered offensive in Uruguay?

I think Evras version of the events would never be spoken by a native latin american spanish speaker, thus, they are fabricated.

Also, I'd be of the opinion that Suarez uses the word negro without even realising he uses it, thus meaning, it wasn't meant in a racist way.

The findings of the experts are extremely flawed.

They uses EXTREMELY specific contexts where Negro or Negros CAN BE offensive and then applied them to the case at hand, that is retarded.

I have never, in extensive travel through out south america, come across Negro being used as an insult. I have heard of it being an insult in Central America (Especially Mexico, where there is a massive issue with racism towards indigenous Indian communities and Afro-Mexican's in Guerrero and other southern costal areas).

Blatter · 04-01-2012 04:43AM

Seaneh wrote: »

I think Evras version of the events would never be spoken by a native latin american spanish speaker, thus, they are fabricated.

Also, I'd be of the opinion that Suarez uses the word negro without even realising he uses it, thus meaning, it wasn't meant in a racist way.

The findings of the experts are extremely flawed.

They uses EXTREMELY specific contexts where Negro or Negros CAN BE offensive and then applied them to the case at hand, that is retarded.

I have never, in extensive travel through out south america, come across Negro being used as an insult. I have heard of it being an insult in Central America (Especially Mexico, where there is a massive issue with racism towards indigenous Indian communities and Afro-Mexican's in Guerrero and other southern costal areas).

Again, you are working with solely SA Spanish here, when I've already told you Suarez has used both European and SA Spanish in the past. So you have to factor that in too.

And again, why would Suarez have accepted the findings of the linguistic experts if they were indeed 'extremely flawed'?

That doesn't add up.

Mr Alan · 04-01-2012 04:45AM

cournioni wrote: »

Who equated anything? Looks like I touched a nerve with you earlier by showing you up to be nothing other than a bullsh1tter.

What I essentially said in my last post was that everyone should hold some accountability for their actions. I also said that Liverpool had a history of not showing accountability. They are always right on everything, and everyone else doesnt matter. There is no equating anything here, I want accountability for everything.

You strike a nerve with me cause you're a ****ing thick prick.

Worse that that, you're a thick prick who thinks that you have some sort of moral high ground here. In reality, you don't give a **** about the Juventus fans who died. You don't a **** about the Bulgarian lad who was attacked. You're just a Utd fan who loves to use those instances as sticks to beat Liverpool FC with.

No doubt when you're in Old Trafford you sing & shout about Heysel, totally missing the point that by using the disaster to belittle & annoy Liverpool fans you are simply using their death to suit your own hate filled agenda. By calling for Justice in an effort to belittle & trivialise the Hillsborough Justice Campaign you're ignoring the fact that 14 Liverpool fans went to prison for their role in Heysel. Not one person ever faced any prosecutions for what happened at Hillsborough.

You talk about the pardoning of Michael Shields as if Liverpool hold the sway to do that? What sort of bitter & twisted universe do you operate in where Liverpool FC hold that sort of sway?! you ****ing braindead halfwit. Christ. The people of Liverpool wanted him pardoned cause they'd refuse to accept a Liverpool fan could have done that? You realise at the same time they were pushing for another Scouse Liverpool fan to be punished for the crime right-one who had a history of violent crimes & confessed before withdrawing his confession when realising he would be extradited?

I'm not even going to bother addressing the Evra case amongst such genuinely & appalling tragedies & injustices.

You ****ing thick prick.

Blatter · 04-01-2012 04:46AM

Btw, Dalglish's press conference:

Seaneh · 04-01-2012 04:49AM

Blatter wrote: »

Again, you are working with solely SA Spanish here, when I've already told you Suarez has used both European and SA Spanish in the past. So you have to factor that in too.

And again, why would Suarez have accepted the findings of the linguistic experts if they were indeed 'extremely flawed'?

That doesn't add up.

Suarez, in conversation, would ALWAYS use his a-language, everyone does, especially if he is in the middle of squaring up to someone.

He has never learned what you are calling "european spanish", he has never lived in spain, he speaks latin american spanish, dutch and a little english, there is no proof that he speaks the dialect of spanish spoken in spain, he has never needed to!

And even if he did, using non native grammar would be unnatrual for him!

Divorce Referendum · 04-01-2012 04:51AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Suarez, in conversation, would ALWAYS use his a-language, everyone does, especially if he is in the middle of squaring up to someone.

He has never learned what you are calling "european spanish", he has never lived in spain, he speaks latin american spanish, dutch and a little english, there is no proof that he speaks the dialect of spanish spoken in spain, he has never needed to!

And even if he did, using non native grammar would be unnatrual for him!

Why would he use it in the past interview video evidence they have of him then?

opr · 04-01-2012 04:53AM

Blatter wrote: »

Again, you are working with solely SA Spanish here, when I've already told you Suarez has used both European and SA Spanish in the past. So you have to factor that in too.

And again, why would Suarez have accepted the findings of the linguistic experts if they were indeed 'extremely flawed'?

That doesn't add up.

This was never proved to any degree in the report nor does it present any solid evidence other than referencing stuff which it never presents.

Suarez/Spanish wrote:

The suggestion that Suarez speaks a European form of Spanish appears to have no basis whatsoever. At Groningen he learned Dutch to fit in and has never played for a Spanish club. The Committee draws a conclusion without, so far as I can see, the benefit of any evidence whatsoever. There is no credible evidence I can see that Suarez speaks any form of Spanish other than his native A-Language (to use the linguistically appropriate term). However it appears he has been punished on the basis of what a European Spanish speaker or a Spanish speaker from elsewhere in Uruguay or South America might speak. That is an utterly ridiculous position for the Committee to take.

Blatter wrote: »

And again, why would Suarez have accepted the findings of the linguistic experts if they were indeed 'extremely flawed'?

I have answered this a couple of times. Why would Suarez be looking at the side of the report that in his view never happened ? The experts came to the view that if Suarez said what Evra alleges then it would have been considered racists. Suarez can't offer insight into something he didn't say.

Opr

cournioni · 04-01-2012 05:00AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

You strike a nerve with me cause you're a ****ing thick prick.

Worse that that, you're a thick prick who thinks that you have some sort of moral high ground here. In reality, you don't give a **** about the Juventus fans who died. You don't a **** about the Bulgarian lad who was attacked. You're just a Utd fan who loves to use those instances as sticks to beat Liverpool FC with.

No doubt when you're in Old Trafford you sing & shout about Heysel, totally missing the point that by using the disaster to belittle & annoy Liverpool fans you are simply using their death to suit your own hate filled agenda. By calling for Justice in an effort to belittle & trivialise the Hillsborough Justice Campaign you're ignoring the fact that 14 Liverpool fans went to prison for their role in Heysel. Not one person ever faced any prosecutions for what happened at Hillsborough.

You talk about the pardoning of Michael Shields as if Liverpool hold the sway to do that? What sort of bitter & twisted universe do you operate in where Liverpool FC hold that sort of sway?! you ****ing braindead halfwit. Christ. The people of Liverpool wanted him pardoned cause they'd refuse to accept a Liverpool fan could have done that? You realise at the same time they were pushing for another Scouse Liverpool fan to be punished for the crime right-one who had a history of violent crimes & confessed before withdrawing his confession when realising he would be extradited?

I'm not even going to bother addressing the Evra case amongst such genuinely & appalling tragedies & injustices.

You ****ing thick prick.

Well done on your little rant Alan. So I take it that you don't agree with my calls for accountability for ones actions. Well I think that everything that is wrong requires justice to be done. I think anybody with morals would agree.

By the way, here is a quote from Kenny Dalglish condoning what happened:
"These Juventus fans felt that Liverpool were responsible for the deaths of their friends. How could we be? We had been the ones warning IEFA and the Belgians. It was our supporters who had been attacked the previous year by Italians and were determined not to be ambushed again."
http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/history/dalglish-heysel.shtm

Do you think he should apologise for it?

J. Marston · 04-01-2012 05:01AM

The following is a transcript from the Liverpool press conference after the Anfield club's 3-0 defeat at Manchester City on Tuesday night:

Reporter: "Kenny, the wider world is pretty shocked that, if a player can call someone 'negro' and the player who is the victim in this takes offence, that there is no apology or contrition offered from your club."

Dalglish: "I would have thought that, if you pronounced the word properly, you maybe understand it better. I think it was Spanish he was speaking and I don't think you were speaking Spanish there."

Reporter: "OK, if a player calls someone 'negro' [Spanish pronunciation], surely the player who takes offence deserves an apology?"

Dalglish: "Ask a linguistic expert, which certainly I am not. They will tell you that the part of the country in Uruguay where he [Luis Suárez] comes from, it is perfectly acceptable. His wife calls him that and I don't think he is offended by her. We have made a statement and I think it is there for everybody to read. Luis has made a brilliant statement and we will stand by him."

Reporter: "But the FA verdict said it was 'simply incredible' to suggest it wasn't used in an offensive way when they were clearly arguing and it wasn't friendly."

Dalglish: "There's a lot of things we'd like to say and a lot we could say but we would only get ourselves in trouble. We are not trying to be evasive … well, we are being evasive because we don't like getting ourselves in trouble. But we know what has gone on. We know what is not in the report and that's important for us. So without me getting ourselves in trouble, I think that's it finished."

Reporter: "Why take the ban now and not play the next three games, including the Carling Cup semi-final against Manchester City?"

Dalglish: "He could have played for a fortnight but he has to serve eight games at some stage and this time is as good as any, isn't it? It was better to get the situation over and done with."

Reporter: "Mark Lawrenson was saying on the radio that you've got to fear now whether Suárez may feel unsettled playing in England. Is that a concern?"

Dalglish: "Because Mark Lawrenson said it? No. I don't see why we have to reply to anybody. If you're asking if I have any concern about Luis playing in England, then no."

Reporter: "Is he strong enough?"

Dalglish: "I don't have a problem with Luis playing in England."

Reporter: "Do you regret wearing the T-shirts?"

Dalglish: "You see, if one of you guys were in trouble, would you help him? Would you support him if you knew the truth and you knew it was right? Would you support him?"

Reporter: "But not with T-shirts when he has been found guilty …"

Dalglish: "Why not? If they want to show their support for their team-mate, what's wrong with that? It was a fabulous statement to make visually of their support for a guy who is endeared in the dressing room, one of their closest friends in the dressing room, and all of his friends in the dressing room can speak up adequately and perfectly well for him. And I think it is very dangerous and unfortunate that you don't actually know the whole content of what went on at the hearing. I'm not prepared, and I can't say it, but I am just saying it is really unfortunate you never got to hear it. That's all I'm saying."

Reporter: "Kenny, given how the wider public are so opposed to your view, what do you have to lose by telling us and revealing what you're saying was not included in the FA statement?"

Dalglish: "It's up to the club to decide what they want to do."

Reporter: "But if you have something to say, surely say it – because the alternative is you are digging a bigger hole for yourself?"

Dalglish: "I don't think we are digging a bigger hole but I just think it's unfortunate we can't be more forthcoming. That's the unfortunate thing."

Reporter: "In your two statements you basically accused the FA of a conspiracy against your club."

Dalglish: "So they have made a statement then …"

Liverpool press officer intervenes and asks for no more questions on Suárez.

Reporter: "The hearing was to lay out all the evidence, 115 pages of evidence, and you have said they [the FA] have done it subjectively. So why do you think the FA are targeting Liverpool and Suárez?"

Dalglish: "Maybe wrong place, wrong time. It could have been anybody. I can't answer for the FA, you ask them."

Reporter: "You think there is an agenda against Liverpool?"

Dalglish: "No. You said that. I never. You get yourself in trouble, I'm all right."

Reporter: "Are you concerned Suárez's first game back could be at Old Trafford?"

Dalglish: "I'll just be delighted to get him back."

Suarez's wife calls Suarez ''negro'' but Dalglish can't seem to comprehend that if you call a black person who you're having an argument with ''negro'' multiple times, trying to piss off that person, then it may be offensive. He really should just hush up. And judging by the fact that a Liverpool press officer stepped in, I think they know that he's a bit clueless.

And the second bolded part, that's just a load of hot air.

Reporter: "But the FA verdict said it was 'simply incredible' to suggest it wasn't used in an offensive way when they were clearly arguing and it wasn't friendly."

Dalglish: ''Well....we know a lot of stuff. Trust me, a lot of stuff. But....erm....we don't want to say.''

Hmm, I wonder if he's just spoofing. Credit to Kenny though, he's a brilliant troll.

Mr Alan · 04-01-2012 05:04AM

cournioni wrote: »

Well done on your little rant Alan. So I take it that you don't agree with my calls for accountability for ones actions. Well I think that everything that is wrong requires justice to be done. I think anybody with morals would agree.

A man who sings about 39 dead football fans at a match & constantly makes sly little digs at Liverpool fans about it in order to get a reaction talks to me about morals.

You actually couldn't make it up.

Blatter · 04-01-2012 05:07AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Suarez, in conversation, would ALWAYS use his a-language, everyone does, especially if he is in the middle of squaring up to someone.

He has never learned what you are calling "european spanish", he has never lived in spain, he speaks latin american spanish, dutch and a little english, there is no proof that he speaks the dialect of spanish spoken in spain, he has never needed to!

And even if he did, using non native grammar would be unnatrual for him!

As said above, why did he then use the 'tu' version of the verb ser in his testimony for the FA?

opr wrote: »

This was never proved to any degree in the report nor does it present any solid evidence other than referencing stuff which it never presents.

Same question as above. Then why did he use the 'tu' version(which is the European version) of the verb ser in his testimony for the FA?

I have answered this a couple of times. Why would Suarez be looking at the side of the report that in his view never happened ? The experts came to the view that if Suarez said what Evra alleges then it would have been considered racists. Suarez can't offer insight into something he didn't say.

Opr

Why would Suarez look at that side of the report? To try and pick holes in the accuser's version of events in an attempt to try and prove it never happened, like anybody up on a charge would!

Suarez can offer insight into something he was alleged to have said, even though he denies it ever happening.

Of course he can!

Mr Alan · 04-01-2012 05:09AM

Blatter wrote: »

Of course he can!

Yet Hernandez, Valencia, Camolli etc cannot.

According to the FA.

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

Comments