I though Evra claimed he asked Suarez "why did you kick me" and Suarez replied "because you are black". So the "because you are black" line appears in the testimony of Evra, Kuyt and Commoli, although obviously with a different preceding question by Evra. I don't think an apology would be an admission of guilt - it would just be an acceptance that he said something stupid and didn't mean to offend. And most football punishments wouldn't hold water in a criminal court - it's almost impossible to prove anything on a football pitch, as shown by the amount of debate over pretty much every contentious decision. "The experts who were instructed are Professor Peter Wade and Dr James Scorer who are both affiliated to the Centre for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at the University of Manchester. Peter Wade works in the Department of Social Anthropology and is a specialist in race and ethnicity in Latin America, with particular emphasis on black populations, genetics and sexuality; he has also worked on the ties between Colombian national identity, popular music and race. He learnt his Spanish mainly in Colombia, has been a fluent speaker for nearly 30 years, and has experience of Spanish usage mainly in Colombia, Mexico and Spain. James Scorer works in the Department of Spanish, Portuguese and Latin American Studies. His research focuses on Latin American cities, particularly urban politics and cultures in Buenos Aires, as well as on national and regional identities in Latin American cinema, including that of Uruguay. He learnt his Spanish predominantly in Buenos Aires, and has been a fluent speaker of Castellano for nearly 10 years." South American enough for you? You're right about Evra, but then Evra has admitted being a twat right from the start - insulting Suarez' sister and pushing Kuyt. Suarez seems to have changed his story a few times and contradicted his teammates, which obviously hasn't gone down well with the commission. And Ferguson wasn't called as a witness - any evidence he gave wasn't even discussed by the commission. The only references to him in the report are about him accompanying Evra to see the ref, same way Dalglish went to see the ref after the game. That's true, although I guess they are just trying to disclose all aspects of the discussion. There's a lot of stuff in the report that doesn't necessarily need to be included, but as soon as they start picking and choosing people are probably going to start crying foul (even more than some are already doing!).
Yid Firstly; apologies for referring to you as an idiot; unnecessary & childish. Nope what I'm suggesting is that as with all arguments both parties came away with a different view of events both in order and what was said exactly, that is the case in every row I've ever witnessed: to be frank like the FA I believe neither person totally. Now although being a LFC supporter if I had come to this conclusion I honestly wouldn't feel safe making any further judgement beyond what was admitted. Unless I was given solid external evidence to back it up. this is all very much he said she said. I would give Suarez the big fine & 4 match ban with the same life ban threat for further breach & possibly a warning to LFC of sanction of any breach by any other team member. Thus I'm holding to the laws in place which, if I'm engaged in a kick it out campaign I've ensured are stern enough beforehand. Or I announce that after these events although I'm sticking to the letter of the law in this case to be fair, the punishment will be doubled from now on to show how seriously we are about this subject. The way they've justified this decision in my honest opinion is ad hoc & muddy at best & left open to challenge by smarter lawyer types than myself picking it apart. My way, the FA would have been beyond reproach from all but the most loyalty blinded fans.
I should imagine he'll be advised to apologise by LFC's lawyers. Whatever's been going on in his mind, ours, and his team mates, he has been a nob. So has Evra but then since no one will kick his arse he's out of LFC's control.
Both English and both in ****in' Mancland, I rest my case! Not only that, with all due respect to these experts, no matter how fluent they are in a language, one thing they aren't fluent in is regional language and slang. I ought to know, my sister is tri-lingual. As for Evra admitting to being a twat, he didn't exactly do anything worth being shot for, did he? So he would hold his hands up to that. Suarez is saying he isn't a racist. That's something you don't hold your hands up to. And even Evra said he wasn't. Yet the FA are saying he is. You can't base a judgement that serious on hearsay, even if Kuyt and Comoli have admitted to what he said.
No problem It's not the same rules for the FA and believe me, it's not often you find me sticking up for them. If I'm being honest, my problem with 4 match ban is not based on any FA reasoning. I dislike that you can get the same for a bad tackle with a frivolous appeal. The rule that Suarez broke is surely more serious than that? Anyway, I've said my piece. There's little point dragging this out, particularly when we agree for the most part.
I accept that an FA inquiry is not required to show a body of evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" in the same way that a criminal court is, but I feel that in a case like this it should be. An accusation of racism is too serious to be decided in such a subjective manner. The report says they set out to be objective and regarded intent as irrelevant. To me this is against all the rules of natural justice, as intent is crucial. To accidentally bump into someone, for instance, is very different to deliberately pushing them over. Despite this declared objectivity, they go on to subjectively decide intent in a number of ambiguous scenarios, Suarez patting Evra on the head, for instance. It seems to me they had decided guilt from the outset and were just collecting and interpreting the evidence to suit the decision, not the other way around.
This struck me as odd too. They say that Evra's witness report was congruent with the video evidence (which he was allowed to watch before making his statement) and that Suarez's (who had not reviewed the footage prior to making his statement) did not. They also allow Evra to alter and/or explain certain inconsistencies - e.g the '10 times' comment - while appearing to deny all of Suarez's attempts to explain and making particular note of his inconsistencies. Having skimmed through the whole report, I'm no more informed on my opinion than I was prior to reading it. The case seems to be decided on 'this is probably what happened.' Everything seems to be probable and not certain, and because of this, pretty much every judgement could in theory have gone the other way. They say 'in some cases the word negro is used in a derogatory manner in South America' (or something to that effect), but in other case it IS NOT. They choose to paint this incident as the former, when the possibility still remains for it to be the latter. We know the word was used once, but are still unsure how many times more, if any, and in what manner. The latter details rest on the judgement of the panel, and on no established facts. They should therefore base their verdict on which facts ARE established - that is, the word was used at least one.
Just because he isn't a racist doesn't mean he didn't make a racist comment - you're just regurgitating the Jade Goody defence. The rules don't state it's alright to make racist comments as long as you're a racist, they state making racist comments contravenes the laws of the game.
**** me guys Sunderland have just gone 1-0 against City with 10 seconds to go! We might face a backlash I feel!
I'm not saying it is all right, but there's no way you can't have one without the other. Either you are racist or you're not. I'm just pointing out this is what Evra is saying: Suarez is not a racist. Why would he say that? I agree with Saintanton's comments above.
Yeah true. However to get anywhere you have to beat the best. I'm sure we'll be bang up for it after Newcastle and Gerrard's return. Shame this crap keeps the negative round the club.
Yeah true. However to get anywhere you have to beat the best. I'm sure we'll be bang up for it after Newcastle and Gerrard's return. Shame this crap keeps the negative round the club.
That's the thing, you can have one without the other, just like you can make a sexist comment without being a sexist, a bigoted comment without being a bigot, or an idiotic comment without being Boris Johnson (sorry, I meant to say an idiot...) - saying otherwise is a remarkably black and white way of looking at things or, more likely, a way of describing a situation in a manner that lawyers find acceptable.
He'd say it because he doesn't think Suarez is a racist, simple as. I'm still trying to get my head around your first sentence there. There's NO way you CAN'T have one without the other... does this (double negative) mean you think you can have one without the other? I'd agree if so. I am in no way racist, but I could go up to a black man in the street and call him a 'black bastard', which would be a racist comment.
Sorry. Bad sentence structure, was typing in a rush and didn't stop to read what I'd written. Should've said: You can't have one without the other. I don't know you as a person, but if you are not a racist, and you say you're not, I know you wouldn't feel comfortable going up to someone in the street and calling him or her that. You don't come out with terms like that unless you are racist and find those words easy to say. PS Why not take the smeg out of my grammar now? Even writers make mistakes when they rush - that's what editors and proof readers are for - but this is a two-bit football forum, not a ****in' Jane Austen novel.
Strange you should say so. Sky telly didn't take that view when they sacked those two morons who went to work for Talksport. That station now calling Suarez a racist.
No, but if I was provoked, or attempted to provoke, I might make a poor choice of words and say something considered racist. Add to this the language complexities of Suarez's case (which I, as a Englishman, wouldn't experience) and you can see how he is more likely to make the same mistake.
They sacked them for 'sexist comments', not for being sexists. On the one hand I'd contend that racists/sexist do make racist/sexist comments which mark them out as so (and therefore you can't have one without the other, as you say) but this isn't true in reverse. Comedians, for example, regularly make sexist jokes, designed to offend and amuse in equal measure. If you know it'll wind somebody up or amuse them, many people make jokes of this nature. It doesn't, however, mean that this is indicative of their wider beliefs.
