Suarez Charged

He doesn't need a watertight case, he's not been charged with anything. It isn't him in the dock. The FA have taken on board all 'evidence' they have and decided to charge Suarez.

Other than that, if it does indeed prove to be a spurious accusation then he will look a **** and more than likely bugger off to play elsewhere.

If Suarez is indeed guilty though

 

I've heard it all now.

 

I mean does he have a water tight case for making an accusation? And he will be in the dock if he's been making false accusations.

So there.

 

That's not even remotely the same. Poor analogy. Most players kick other players, they don't all racially abuse opposing players though.



In other news, Haaland's career was ended due to an injury to the opposite leg to the one Keane kicked, just so you know.

 

Of course he will, rightly so.

 

It's prats like you that give your supporters a bad name.

 

I did say basically. He never managed to play a full game after the tackle. And it wasn't the fact he kicked him, he deliberately went out to injure him, because Halaand had accidently injured him before. Thing is, if you racially abuse someone on a football pitch it could be said in the heat of the moment, people often say things before thinking when they're angry or getting wound up at something. The Roy Keane incident is much worse than something said in the heat of the moment because he had planned it for four years, he didn't think once that it wasn't a good idea to retaliate against him, it was a cold, malicious act in which he deliberately went out to injure his opponent. It was much more despicable than anything anyone could ever say to someone.

 

Leave Roy out of this

 

Nah, was it ****.

In any case, Haaland had injured Keane's cruciate and then stood over him calling him a diver and to get up. Keane, not being the sharpest tool in the box, decided to get revenge. He only 'waited four years' because that was how long it took before they played each other again.

Anyway, the point is that NO supporter would ever turn against a player for fouling, however bad or deliberate that foul might be, another player. They may feel a good deal less comfortable about one who called someone a ****** though. Especially if he has '******' team mates. And to call somone that in the heat of the moment is no excuse, words you are thinking anyway tend to come out in the heat of the moment.

It is ALL in the use of that very emotive word.

 

I can't honestly see that happening to be honest. And if it did I would hope the judge would tell both sides to take a running jump. The courts are overstretched enough not to have to deal with two grown men having a whinge at each other, when there is an existing system in place that is designed and funded to handle this sort of issue. The court thing is probably just posturing by both sides.

It doesn't exclude you from a criminal investigation - you couldn't shoot someone and say that cos you were playing football all you should get is a three match ban - but when there are FA rules in place to cover the issue the police generally don't bother. The Terry case is a bit of an exception as what he said was clearly visible from the crowd, and hence could be construed as a public order offence - the police could claim he was inciting racial hatred by making the comment in such a public manner.

Well, as already discussed on another thread, there is generally a predilection against charging people who have made false accusations, unless it can be proven that they had malicious intentions. If Suarez is found innocent Evra could easily claim that he misheard what was said, or misunderstood the context. Particularly given that most of the comments made in Suarez' defence so far indicate that he did nay something and Evra misinterpreted the sentiment behind it.

In addition, the fact that the FA has chosen to charge him indicates that they believe there is a case to answer for, which implies that Evra has not completely falsified the accusations.

 

Actually, Keane went down a lot in my estimation when he admitted he deliberately set out to hurt Haaland. He's still a legend, and it doesn't alter how great a player he was, but that is still a big stain on his record imo. And given the premeditation I think it's pretty equal to making a racist comment in the heat of the moment with no premeditation.

 

I read a few weeks ago that the FA were going to close the case because there was not enough evidence so some new "evidence" will have appeared or they feel Suarez has a case to answer for.

May i also add innocent until proven guilty. Certain people on here are jumping to conclusions.

 

Former Red Ryan Babel backs Luis Suarez on twitter.

 

Oh well thats all right then, worry over everythings ok now, nothing to see here. lmfao.

 

And if they dont?

Your quick slagging Babbel for backing him and you've already found Suarez guilty as charged without seeing or hearing any evidence.

lmfao.

 

The thing is Liverpool fans are saying that french **** is a lying **** and i never said Suarez was guilty did I but the way you go on about Evra lying assumes that you think he is not guilty so Im saying until the charges are either dropped of Suarez found guilty then really you shouldnt be calling Evra a liar,works 2 ways.
And for the record I think Suarez did say something but it might be ok in South America and happens over there but Suarez didnt realize it was wrong to say it here, so I think he should be found not guilty but get a warning but then again that is my opinion and I dont know the full facts but neither does anyone else on here.

 

My concern is the length of time it has taken to investigate. It was reported directly after the match yet it took the FA a month to obtain enough evidence to make a charge. Statements should be taken as soon as possible.

How long does it take to review footage, audio and interview 22 players & 4 officials. This length of time may have allowed those on both sides time to coordinate stories.

The Guardian is reporting (for what it's worth) that a number of united players have now backed Evras story.

My questions would be: Did any of them report it to an official? I can see why Evra may be reluctant to "tout" at the time but hearing that level of disgusting abuse hurled at a team mate repeatedly & not have a word; to anyone? Not even directly after the match. Reports suggest only ferguson & Evra went to the referee. What happened to these witnesses? Why didn't they go?

When did they give their supporting statements, before or after they found out there was no video evidence?

If the new evidence is indeed Suarez "admission" of using a supposed non insulting variant of the word; how does the FA prove intent? Because it was used in an argument? So the word is not insulting or referring to the players colour or ethnic origin if you say it with good morning or
I love you?

I find it deeply uncomfortable when people start saying one person can use a word based purely on the colour of their skin but another can't because they are the wrong colour. Any division like this creates a grey area. Something I would assume those who feel most at risk of racial abuse would want to avoid.

 

Surez called him negrito according to the guardian which they say has no racist conotations or intentions in spanish and is banded about all the time even amongst white people. the FA probs want to follow up the route that he said "negro" though or worse.

 

Nobody on this forum actually knows what transpired. However we do know that Evra was specific about the number of times he was supposedly abused. In his tv interview he called upon visual and audio coverage to support his claim. So far no such evidence has been published and given the nature of our press if such evidence was avilable then it would have been made public (the FA holds no sanction over the media).

Therefore this FA Tribunal has to decide upon the evidence presented firstly that Evra was or was not abused and secondly (as 2 distinct charges have been laid) that such abuse was racist. Now the wording of the 2nd FA charge is very significant. "It is further alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra." If this is a complete statement of the 2nd charge then the FA are on very dodgy ground. When black players talk about themselves as being black then refernces to colour at least cannot be considered, by itself, to be abuse.

 

Who knows how long it takes the paperwork to go through the FA and the clubs as for the witnesses well they weren't needed until now. They dont need the entire club to march over to the referee, but when the investigation started their evidence is needed.

That to me is an admission of using a racial term. Justifyed to himself that others call him it, but it is that question of intent that you raised. The thing is, Do you think that between two players who visably dont like each other, who play on opposite sides of englands biggest rivalry in the derby, that is was friendly banter? Of course there is a grey area where you cannot be sure, but if suarez is found to have said these things i dont think he would fall in it.

As for "why are black people allowed to say it" Because i dont think its possible to racist towards you own race.