Flaws: Panel criticism and weight given to exact Spanish words comolli/Daglish used with Mariner. Side with Mariner but seem to find it acceptable that Mariner went to the trouble (correctly) of getting Dowd to take secondary notes then apparently compared & destroyed them! Why? 2 sets of notes taken by two different people saying the same thing have more weight if there is a dispute over the conversation which there was; an important dispute! Panel magically accept that Marriner reviewed both sets of notes quoting a language he didn't know and would have noticed any disparities & yet two LFC men were BOTH wrong. They dismiss Suarez witnesses as wrong because they all had a very slightly different wording to the same sentence- All proof of Suarez worming his way out. Evras 3 teammates "sentences" overheard do not remotely resemble each other but that's ok prob just means Suarez was using the racists Spanish phrase book! Missing and delayed evidence. One inconsistency understandable/ another deliberate. All based on a stutter or being 3 seconds shorter than a silent movie! Now again I'm not automatically assuming Suarez innocence; my previous posts show that: but I despair that any true supporter who has read this report believes that an accused should be "convicted" in such a flimsy arbitrary way: I ask you; set aside your tribal dislike of Suarez and come back here and truly say you would be satisfied if your player received this "fair" mock judicial process. Now: not a conspiracy theorist either: I believe the panel tried to be independent, it actually curbed some of the hysterical nonsense wanted by the FA & made VERY clear(nicely ignored by tabloids) that they narrowed their remit even further and were not responsible for deciding if Suarez used racist language but abusive language that included reference to race : might be apples & pairs to us but it is an important definition.. I still can not accept that such an unprofessional investigative body from the ref to the panel are allowed to "guesstimate" guilt with regard to what is a criminal offence in this society: We're not allowed Sharia law because no other court can impinge the crowns rule but apparently we can have FA law. There's more but this would end up 115 pages long....
I think just have to now wait and see what Liverpool do. They'll obviously have top lawyers working through the paperwork and circling any sections where things just don't add up and if there are enough of them then I'm sure they'll appeal. Whether the appeal get's anywhere, that's anybodys guess though. If they decide not to appeal then I think it's safe to say that they can't see anyway of getting round it and we have to accept the ban. Hopefully Suarez how now learnt what is and isn't acceptable and will think before he speaks next time. If he does it again then he is clearly stupid enough and should rightly get a much more severe ban.
http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showpost.php?p=6859329&postcount=1148 Forwarding to share another Spanish experts opinion as they appear to be important in the judgement. Last post (definitely!) on the matter.
Oh, and before people witter on about irrefutable, due process, balance of probabilities, tec, RELEASE, UNFUCKING EDITTED, THE EVRA SECRET TAPES THAT WERE NOT PUBLISHED DURING THE WITCHTRIAL!
That's a very nice piece of fantasy in the link. Like every argument on that site its simplistic and downright irrelevant bordering on stupid. He spends ages picking petty little holes in his "expert opinion" then acknowledges that the FA made a decision about it. Which whether right or wrong cannot be appealed. The FA considered the matter in question, made a decision, END OF THE MATTER. You cant launch an appeal because you disagree with the decisions, cant launch an appeal because you think differently, you cant even appeal with new super duper evidence that proves he's innocent (if it even existed). The only way to appeal is against the severity, in which case you have to accept the judgement or you have to prove the independent commission was completely insane and mentally unbalanced. Nit picking the report, cherry picking a few statements where you think there is some doubt or just plain wrong means bugger all.
Apologies: author of above; Aldo Mazzucchelli Assistant Professor Hispanic Studies Browne University US Place of Origin:Montevideo Ivor I don't know Spanish myself but appealing on the basis that the facts the panel based a large part of the decision on I.e they picked the wrong experts and got their Spanish wrong which coloured the way tgey viewed all of the LFC case seems both reasonable and logical to me. As you (& I have been saying)it will, if proved mean a reduction to the 4 games for a literal breach of the rule but if I was Suarez I think I'd prefer to walk away saying I got banned for 4 games for saying the word "black" once & I'm being punished for literally saying "black" with no racist intent proved then just say 'oh the FA have erroneously gave me a harsher sentence which has made me look like a racist, has had me named in every media outlet in the country I & my family work & live in a racist but heyho at least I know it was all because they couldn't speak Spanish properly.' Yeah you're right Ivor, if I was Suarez & genuinely thought I was innocent I'd still take it lying down so smug tw*ts like yourself can SHOUT their pseudo moral superiority on an Internet forum.
Appeal what? That you think they got decision A, D, and F wrong? Doesn't matter, you cant appeal that. You seem to be under the impression an appeal in this is like a retrial. Its not. If LFC wanted their own independent experts there then they should have arranged for them to be there at the hearing. Too late now. Doesn't matter if that guy is the worlds most renowned expert and he disagrees with everything said in the report, the time to argue such things was at the hearing. But you didn't and he was found guilty of using racially abusive language, on the probability of all the evidence and that's the only thing that matters. You can try and get it reduced or argue the commission is stark raving bonkers, but all these semantics and "experts" are wasting their breaths with all their little armchair legal eagle stuff. Actually found a LFC poster on that same thread who summarises it nicely: http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showpost.php?p=6860999&postcount=1197
Nice lack of reading comprehension there Ivor: reread without pre made assumptions about me & what I have suggested.....or not You are right about one thing: this is pointless.
Compiling a short, simple list of inconsistencies and inadequacies in the Suarez case enough for a conscientious sports writer to pick up and use. Again, it's not defending Suarez or racism, it's defending justice. Questioning whether the sloppy and assumptive way the case was conducted is sufficient to damn the player and examining whether Liverpool Football Club have a case for continuing to fight. If you can add more or write it better, it's all yours. - Conflicting stories from Evra and his colleagues on what was said and how often. - Spanish language experts disputing the evidence of the experts paid by the FA. - Footage of a foul that wouldn't shock a seven-year old, followed by faking an injury in order to con the referee -- contradicting a claim to be in shock and an apparently unimpeachable character. - Evra on video saying for entertainment the word he didn't want to say to report a heinous offence. - Video evidence apparently shared with Evra but not Suarez. - No reason seen why Evra would lie, despite his being an "unreliable witness" with "far-fetched" evidence in a prior case where claims of racism to excuse his loss of control were dismissed.
Professor in Hispanic Studies dissects the FA’s Suarez report By Aldo Mazzucchelli On January 3, 2012 · 4 Comments · In Opinion.. .. 176 The following is written by award-winning Professor in Hispanic Studies at Brown University, Aldo Mazzucchelli. I will first quote the FA document on the key point: “90. Mr Evra’s evidence was that, in response to his question “Why did you kick me?”, Mr Suarez replied “Porque tu eres negro”. Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean “Because you are a ******”. He now says that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean “Because you are black”.” I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn’t use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up. This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolli apparently stated), which are grammatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Comolli reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”. Hence, I don’t know what Comolli heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong–unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish… What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said–if at all he said anything– “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound implausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up. That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report. “138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him “Don’t touch me, South American” to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had replied “Por que, tu eres negro?”. (… Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he had used to Mr Evra translated as “Why, because you are black”.” “Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean. And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported: “141. Mr Suarez’s version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him “Don’t touch me, South American”. Mr Suarez had said “Por que negro?”. Mr Suarez told Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said.” What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words. The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA: “284 (… Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said “you are South American” to Mr Suarez who responded with “Tues Negro” which translates as “you are black”.” It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh. In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish. Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words. Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the “negro” word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American” is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra. Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements: 1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element) 2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used –even though they grounded the verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language. 3) They believe the word “negro” cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion–which means they don’t really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them. A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement. Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the “wild animals” South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey’s famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.
Everything that guy said was covered in the report. If you, him, or anyone else bothered to read it. They admitted it was uncommon usage, found that he did use "tu" and gave two possible reasons for its usage. Yet so many people are harping on about this as some kind of proof. Its not proof, its not evidence, its just plain rubbish.
What a load of nonsense from this poster!! When you are in a hole you should stop digging! It was said that whoever is found guilty should just say sorry and we should then all move on. I believe the club and/or Suarez will say sorry and that will be the end of that.
Good article by Henry Winter in the Telegraph. www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/...to-put-a-stop-to-the-Luis-Suarez-episode.html It is time this whole affair was moved on. It should be closed and with it these threads!
I said many times on threads about this case that I wanted to read the evidence and decide for myself so I have done so and so can anyone else who bothers. (and i expect this one to be just the same sniping and inter club rubbish but i'll press on regardless) For me this case hinges on the direct timeline based evidence outlined in sections 81 to 100 in the rather long winded but necessary document posted on the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Discipli...Written Reasons of Regulatory Commission.ashx I interpret the following from this evidence. 1. There are two guys "at it" in this. Meaning evra is on camera as acting threateningly to suarez. We all know suarez is a guy who loves to gain any advanage and one can conclude from the foul he'd committed in the evidence that he got the reaction he was looking for. Evra attempted to unsult suarez to provoke him back by starting on about sisters etc. it is at this point that the evidence becomes totally lacking. 2. The panel can only match the statments against camera angles etc and they seem to conclude that up to a point body language (shrugs and the like) tally with some parts of evidence. evra advances on suarez and they end up behind the goal line, kuyt and the linesman see it happening and kuyt is the one that intervenes. the ref gets a signal from the linesmen and blows up and is told that something went on and to sort it out. Evra is the only guy on camrea that got caught and his comment about the sister is all that getas recorded... suarez says he never heard it. It is at this point that two wildly differing tales emerge. 3. De gea, evans and kuyt were in close proximity... no utd player adds anythingt o the case for evra and they say they didn't hear it... kuyt can only say that he say the body language and intervened... Interestingly Evra makes comment that kuyt verbally abused him as well over the "kick in the knee" 4. section 102 becomes key.... the evidence is that suarez says something with the ref and evra and evra is shocked... in the following sections up to 106 show marriner heard nothing either... Importantly suarez admitted saying what was "leaked to the press" in this section, claiming it to be normal in his country. 5. the evidence then goes in to the head patting incident. this is a non entity it seems as nobody knew what the hell was said but evra didn't like to be touched... I don't see particularly why this is important evidence aside form it showing suarez was still winding evra up.... 6. the next vital section is 112.. nobody again seems to remember anything but evra kicks kuyt and then starts on about being called black. the ref books him here but claim he never said who called who what etc. gain this part and part 5 seem to be important case builders but are outside the direct incident 7. sections 113 and 114 are hearsay where giggs is reportedly told on the day what occured... a "he called me black" 8. section 115 shows kuyt touched evra and that was why evra reacted... 9. what follows is more hearsay evidence where 4 utd players testify that evra told them something after the game.... for me such evidence is all well and good but means nothing in this context. for example the liverpool team administrator heard ferguson say "he called me x 5 times" to the ref before the door got closed. 10. sections 138 to 141 clearly show an issue between suarez and comolli of different words of what was said as they discussed the incident on the day. this is an issue in the FAs minds this becomes critical in sections 150 and 151 qwhere comolli is the one who says suarez said that he called evra "you are blck" in spanish.. in repsonse to a taunt that he was south american. 11. section 177 is telling.. the experts were instructed to proceed on the basis of evra was telling the truth.. they assume suarez said what evra said he said... and the experts agree that if suarez had said what evra said he said (it gets stupid saying such but hey) then that would be offensive in south america section 187 then does the opposite and beleives suarez, in this case they took litle account of anything said in the goal mouth but were more concerned with the later incident with the ref. and concluded that perhaps if they were already talking in spainsh there may have been no racial slur intended. 12. section 200 then sets out an unsupported view of the Fa. Apparently there are some people in south american that find the world for balck in spanish offensive... interesting that there's no testimonry attached to this seeing its going to be the key point put across and actually doens't marry with the direct expert testimonry they used to convict. so my own thoughts are as follows: first the single and most improtant incident actually took place on the goal line and this has never been shown on tv to us. Rather the incident with the ref has been shown which in actucal fact is not the central point. Why? simply put the FA set out the rules in this document and in no way can a touch on the head be taken as racist, kuyt touched evra and no action has been taken after all. Second it is clear both players and big boys and were out to goad the hell out of each other to gain some advantage. I for one have watched suarez do this time and again and evra is not quite as bad but is well up for that game. How the Fa can take one players actions like a saint and the other like a devil when both are at it is very interesting. Third it seems that later actions are being taken as evidence that the conversation in the goal took place exactly as evra stated. This is not good logic, however having said that once can draw an alternative conclusion or three depending on the outcome one wants. Which version here to i believe? Its not possible to conclude in my opinion that if one thing evra said is right that ALL things evra said is right. It does seem to be the case that following suarez being charged he admitted something... can i conclude therefore that he didn't admit everything?
the evidence of canal plus interview, giggs on the pitch and the 4 utd players told in the dressing room are basically what seems to be drawing the conclusion... and the FA use the terms throughout.... consistent and plausible. however the evidence never identifies when or where said incident occured. The same seems to be true of the referee discussions post match with ferguson. However they all have contradictions i nthem which is not very good is it? 5 times v ten times who said what and when.... evra in his evidence says it was a figure of speech (section 159) (thats an accusation of racism though and a big one to brush off just like that) It is clear to me nobody sat down and interviewed the players as to what was said exactly when until long after the event, that much must be clear seeing the referre reprot was outlines as well in this and the notes phil dowd too were skant at best (sections 152 and 153) unfortunately is seems that suarez never tlaked to the ref on the day and it was second hand stuff that was taken as fact, french men, scots and uraguayan all disagreeed on what was said. Ergo I can firmly conclude LFC made a right balls up of putting thier best foot forward sections 207 to 213 set out how the fa panel thought to resolve the issues before them, demeanour, inconsistency, credibility, probability. In other words what someone looked like on video, how consistent the evidence was, how credible you are (if any part is untrue its all untrue or if any part is true the whole lt is true and finally what probably happened) sections 229 to 234 are an amazing set of statments to me. abslutely amazing and relate directly to the "credibility" of evra, his record as a fottballer, the fact he could speak english and give evidence and the fact that though clearly well prepared and briefed he would admitt things that were not in his favour... to me this is astounding that anyone would take a well coached witness as being all thats needed to prove the "truth" all we get for suarez is 235-237 and 237 sets out how he was not reliable (referring to section 246) suarez is only asked about the pinch, was he trying to calm the situation down... suarez answers in different ways to the same question about an arm pinch saying first it was to defuse it and then that it was to show evra he was not untouchable seeing he was saying he was going to hit suarez the fa underline the phrase friendly and concilatory a lot in this document that they have singled out the phrase suarez admitted saying and descided on the basis that if he was out to wind up evra he could not have meant the world used in a friendly way. section 263 outlines this. I don't think this is a very good section as it seems to accuse suarez of "starting it" by kicking evra in the knee... however we have a choice point here. 5 minutes pass and the game moves on to the point where its a corner. Evra doesn't need to confront suarez but he does. evra seems to be absolved of this totally. we have no idea what was said inthe goal mougth but what both men say... it is only once the corner is taken and the ref blows it up that suarez admits one use of the word in question. gvien suarez made a run, and flicked it on means that some physical spearation had occured between the players and the ref was stepping in. Clealry all trhough this both players are goading each other. the pinches and head pats are what suarez does, evra is getting verbally perosnal and threatening to hit the guy... which a lot of people might take as a good thing.. whatever to that. the issue i have really is the FA then in section 270 take it as fact that evra complained of being called black when the ref came over when in fact no such evidence was supported. the second time when he pushed kuyt this was shownto have happened but both were taken as fact. section 275 then deals with an inconsistency in evra's evidence but calls it minor.. a key word again is disputed. Section 276 then used liverpools own guy against them in adding up the 5 occasions in the goalmouth evidence (but no the admitted word in the ref discussion) haughton heard ferguson say 5 times. It seems the only perosn to be beelived from LFC is the guy standing at the door. the FA beleive the ref over comolli on whether he speaks fluent or nonfluent spanish for example which is absolutely key in determining the statments lfc made to the ref. this i feel is very poor as it would be easy enough to test comolli out. the FA document falls a bit short as it introduced further evidence from kuyt as late as section 297 and again this ends up in a big rigmarole about suarez speaking dutch and assumes he is fluent in it. finally in sections 326 there is a pure fantasy land in the scenaiors put forth about why evra might complain. the hilarious thought by the fa that 5 minutes after a fould evra would go up to suarez and refer to his sister to get an apology is laughable... it is pretty clear to any rational soul who ever played the game both men were after a reaction so they could ge tthe other sent off! simple. The Fa conclude that suarez used the word once at least and that his case of being freindly was unsustainable... they also conclude that if evra took it as being the n word it was a misunderstanding between italian and spanish as it seems evra has lots of languages stored up in his head. it is VERY clear to me that LFC made a total hash of this on the day and that Utd had the discussion went to the ref and simply reported it. LFC should NOT have done what they did at all and only added second and third hand stuff to the tabel that was taken as fact over the first proper witness statments taken by the FA. dalglish and comolli royally screwed up in a very amateurish way in what they said and did as it really doesn't look like they took any proper account of things and then went into the ref's room where they said different things to the ref each was taken as fact and damned suarez I don't actually accept evra's word on it to be frank but i don't accepts suarez's either. I think both were at it and both were fairly scummy. The fact is the TV evidence shows evra being shocked when they were talking to the ref... this was not dealt with at all it seems. What was said then seems to be what convicted suarez along with really poor representation from the club on the day. For me LFC should shut up because it is the testimony of dalglish and comolli and even kuyt to the ref that did the damage to thier case. If they'd not all been so "helpful" and talked 4 different languages then perhaps they could have got the truth out on day one but they didn't and they put across several different stories which muddied the waters. I don't buy a lot of the FA's conclusions over why people did what they did, the stuff on evra's frame of mind in the game is pointless and i can only conclude that LFc tried to smear evra and this went againt them seeing the FA lauded evra's well coached testimony... Again LFC playing the game. evra didn't just make the whole thing up though. Ws it 5 times or was it once? I don't know... was it cos the ref didn't hear it that evra got so mad? I don't know... both sides have inconsistences and exageerations but in the end it all comes back to one thing... Did Suarez say something in a deliberately racist way to wind evra up or did he simply say what most players would say in spanish (ie the fmaously reported de gea and hernandez use of the same phrase) This report does'nt really draw a line under that. they conclude that as evra said to the ref (which the ref never heard) that suarez called him something and he had visibly reacted on camera that in fact suarez said black twice not once as he admitted to saying it after... This conclusion is an inference and is dangerous precidence as we all know play acting is thats done in games. I'm still amazed that the Fa seem to brush off some things on the video and not others.... that they state that for suarez to turn round and use an ali g type phrase is suprising in the first place... It is actually not good and dissappointing that they are not that clear, one reaction is taken as fact that black was siad while others are not facts for anthing simply as it doesn't fit in ? The fa then in the final part conclude amazingly that suarez said negro 7 times.... section 397, they then conclude in sections 400 and above that the suspension should have been 2 matches, then double it for the racist comment = 408 to 414 but seeing we need to be seen to punish him more. in fact the fa took the punishment and doubled it from 4 to 8. they state that not only do they beleive it occured but as they take evra's word on each and evry occasion that the addtional 4 matches is justified It is my firm belief that LFC would not have complained with 4 matches here..... given precednece in previous occurances of only 3 matches.... we are now in a position that LFC have called the FA a kangaroo court as a result and things can only degrade from there. The FA could have given 4 matches and aksed for some nice promotional anti racist stuff and be done with it but they took action for politics. One feels LFC look very poor in the evidence and the FA don't look much better.
Interesting that the last 3 posters all have a vested interest in closing the matter - obviously in their favour as they see it. The 'matter' is far from closed.
Bloody hell MITO. Anyone who reads all this in one sitting deserves a 'man vs food' type T shirt saying ''I took on MITOS thread in one sitting and won' Some interesting points though.
