There are two versions of events, Evra's and Suarez's. I don't fully believe either, but both versions stand on their own. I fully believe that the panel were wholly wrong to regard Evra's version was wholly reliable and Suarez as wholly unreliable. Consequently I'm happy to believe that, since he's a complete bellend, Evra knew that Sudaca is an insult (he knew about "Your sister's ****", after all) and he used it. I believe that the insult was reported in English as South American. Consequently, Evra may well have 'started it' using a term of racial discrimination. Perhaps he though that as it didn't mention skin colour, it was fair game... Either way, Suarez admitted responding with "Por que Negro?" Neither Sudaca or Negro is necessary? Both (I expect) said unnecessary things in the exchange and in truth, only Patrice and Luis really know what was said, when and by whom. I think the board's finding may be valid, but I disagree with the way they reached the conclusion they did and consider the punishment to be unjustifiable in the light of the published report.
Instead you live in Bristol and choose to support Liverpool.. The thing is I have never set foot in South Africa and know nothing of the things you can and can't say. Suarez has been in Europe for 7 years I think he should know what he can and can't say. Do you think he calls Glen Johnson 'negro'? Do you think, with the population of Black people living in the Netherlands that they would be tolerant of the word Negro? Or any reference to a persons skin colour in an arguement? No I doubt they would be just like the French wouldn't and that is why Evra took offence. Suarez knew what he was saying, that's why he and Liverpool haven't appealed because they know they haven't got a leg to stand on.
I got it wrong about the Ferdinand case - 1 test missed as far as I can see. Apologies for any confusion caused.
In the report I would like you to show me Suarez himself accusing Evra of using the word Sudaca please, if you could. I lived in Spain for a few years and there are a few insults I picked up. 'Chuparme la polla' which is effectively 'suck my dick' or 'puta madre' which is 'mother ****er'. These are offensive phrases well known to offend. Sudamericana isn't. Sudaca would mean South American immigrant. If it was proven or alleged Evra said this then he could well have been in trouble but as it wasn't I don't think you should continue to believe he said the word 'Sudaca' So again, show me where Evra was alleged to have said Sudaca in the report please. All we know is Suarez said negro once. Whether he said it as in 'Why, black?', 'Because you are black' or 'I don't talk to blacks' all of them phrases are racist, not meant in a friendly way and were intended to incite Evra, just as the pathetic pinching on the arm was.
Actually the one Suarez claimed to have used isn't racist. The one Evra said he used is. Therein lies the rub.
But players have since failed and missed tests and not got ssuch a harsh treatment ? Rio was made an example of just like Suarez has been. As you have said 4 games may have been enough but they often make an example of players from big teams as there is more media interest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3333091.stm He missed one test. Took it 2 days later. Compared to Christian Negouai who also missed a test recieved nothing but a £2000 fine. Cushy you say? Or looking to make an example out of United again... Regarding Suarez's ban you are all crying over, 8 games is nothing compared to what you or I would get for calling a black man a negro in the workplace. Sacking I reckon?
Suarez didn't claim to use any word. He ADMITTED using negro. Evra didn't admit nor was he accused by Suarez of using any word.
3 Tests???? Thats the first I ever heard that. Rio missed one test, then came back to take it but the testers had already left. The FA Disciplinary Committee imposed an eight month ban from January 2004 at club and international level and a £50,000 fine. However before this Manchester City player Christian Negouai also missed a drugs test and was only fined £2,000. Despite the claims that the FA is pro Utd they and indeed FIFA sought to have the ban increased to 12 months but failed. So much for the pro Utd FA.
Oh I aint blaming you SKY... Just fed up with the whole thing, we've admitted Suarez was in the wrong and he's serving his 8 game ban so why wont people leave it?...
Cause some posters like Davidako and dongo darko cannot accept this and believe it is a massive witchhunt by the FA which is controlled no doubt by SAF and the Utd board. SKY was being honest in expressing his opinion which was not belligerent in any way.
you misread my post as I intended it - I meant Evra's recollection of what Suarez said. not what Evra said himself. But since you brought it up, what Evra said is racist. And there is nothing wrong with the word negro. the full phrase is what matters.
Now you see, we're getting into areas which are completely unclear You're deliberately ignoring the point I originally made, which is that the panel was incorrect to believe Evra wholly, given his track record of gross exaggerating the evidence he gives to FA panels. Including this one, in my opinion. However, now we finally have your agreement - - perhaps you'd like to review the report and agree with the rest of us that while a 4 match ban is obviously warranted, an 8 match ban is not.
biased opinion just prove he never read the report as one of the FA's central points is Evra was reliable as he did in fact admitting he said things... of course if you knew you were caught on one camera angle saying those things admitting it is only sensible. read the thing through and you'll see the actual facts EVERYONE. the facts are both men admit things and lfc have kuyt, comolli and dalglish all contradicting suarez via thier second hand half rushed statments to the ref or the FA where they bascially hung their own man out to dry. The point is not that something was said. the actual fact is nobody but the two men know what was said in the goal mouth the FA chose to take the avaiable evidence in terms of body language and suarez not acting anything like a concilatory way he claims he was to say he said something 7 times. That requires adding up evry single time evra said he said something, then add on the ref incident and then seemingly add one for good measure from nowhere to come up with aggrevation. The point has to be made that the FA were in thier rights to believe suarez was not testifying to the truth from lfc evidence, erfo anyone with sense would say 4 games is fair. to tack on another 4 would seem to be making up a rule o nthe fly as that sanction is not dealt with in the laws as they stand. Anyone can then read each and every detail of evra's actions and conclude he is a bit of a tool who to be frank was looking for a reaction (probably hoping suarez would punch him) nothing will excuse suarez saying something but read the report and view evra was he is... a tool. he started on kuyt as well and gues who were his direct opponents on said pitch? for the record terry only merits 4 matches under the rules clearly so its down to the fa as to what they do
Are you serious? Go and say to a black man in a friendly manner good afternoon negro and see what happens. Good lord behind the times or what.. Enlighten us, what did Evra say?
Can't wait to see what Terry will get, since they have such strong evidence it should be no less than 8 games. If it's 8 games+ then fair play to the FA but if it's anything less then f**k 'em!
god biased opinion you are not listening. EVRA admitted it in his own testimony what he said AND the cameras show it. SUAREZ claimed he never heard what he said. simple.. go read the report yourself. you want me to go pull out the sections for you... if you care enough to bladder on about it go do it yourself.
