Swarbs, don't be like that. You're forgetting the 8 match ban that Luis Suarez got, which was given based on the exaggerated evidence provided by Patrice Evra. Suarez admitted to saying what he said once, Evra said he said it a dozen times, there was nobody there to back Evra's statement up, nobody else heard it. If it had gone to court, which it probably should have, Luis Suarez would have got off. The evidence was circumstantial. One word against another without witnesses is circumstantial and cannot be proved without reasonable doubt. You are correct in everything else you've posted.
Be like what? I'm not discussing the process of the Suarez case, cos that's been done to death and is frankly pointless. I'm just pointing out that under FA rules what Suarez did (ok, allegedly did) is a different offence and hence is punished in a different manner from what Rio did. Right or wrong, that's how the FA sees it.
The FA have decided the term 'choc ice' is racist. I wonder if Piara Powar (Head of executive director of the Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE) organisation) will now step down after his 'coconut' jibe on twitter ...
As quoted from the FA Statement ""The charge is proven and the breach of FA Rule E3 was aggravated by reference to Mr Cole's colour, ethnic origin or race." This clearly states they have both breached the same rule and therefore, whatever to extent, they are both guilty of the same offence. The E3 rule doesn't stipulate where the offence is thought to have taken place, it is the actual offence committed.
SKD, I don't think it's a case of us wanting the book to be thrown at Rio. I thnk it's more a case of us and them. They got our guy banned and fined for 'Allegedly' calling their guy a 'Negrito' 7 times (Reduced from 10 times first claimed) and their manager called for LFC, no advised LFC that Suarez should be sacked. Then to have one of their guys committ a similar offence (However you wish to look at this, it is the same. Race was brought in to a conversation on a social media network, and was derogatory towards a person of a certain, race or colour) and he gets a fine. Now, some on here will argue that Suarez was in breach of E3 rule, but fail to have picked up the point that Rio was also found to be in breach of the same rule. But eh, why let the truth get in the way of defending a racist that plays for what many on here believe to be the most hypocritical team ever to grace the PL?
Ah c'mon, there is a massive difference between a social media site and on the pitch. Swarbs provided a fine example in mentioning the Chelsea player and Wayne Rooney. The Chelsea player swore in a post match interview, Rooney swore into a camera. Thats why the Chelsea player had no action taken against him. However the only part I found wrong with what Swarbs said is that Rio's fine was larger than Luis Suarez' not taking into account Luis Suarez was also handed an 8 match ban. However I do feel that Rio was punished correctly.
OK, let's say there were no witnesses to support the claims made by Evra yet millions of people could visibly see what Rio wrote before he embarrassingly removed the comment? What's the difference in this bit then? That is pretty damning evidence!
Why aren't comments allowed on the BBC sports page thats if you can find the story in the first place.......
There is a difference. One was on the field of play and one was on a social media site. Swarbs made an interesting comment that a Chelsea player swore during a post match interview and got away with it, and Wayne Rooney was done for the same thing on the field of play. Thats correct. Thats why I feel Rio should have got no more than a fine, his actions were stupid, and provocative like Ryan Babels..but not in any shape or form racist. As for Suarez being harshly treated because the entire case was against him was exaggerated. I stand by that, it was exaggerated. If it had gone to court, Evra would not in a million years have been described as a ''credible witness' due to him contradicting himself. How can you at first say that ''x said something x number of times for it to be changed to even more times''? This doesn't wash. It would be described in a court of law as distorting the truth. It could lead to ''contempt of court'' in all honesty. In other words, Evra could have found himself in prison.
i should imagine as its not monitored ie closure of old 606 and would look bad if there was a comment made that should have been removed, but to be honest don't know, that's my best guess.
Is that the best this kid can come up with? What Rio did cannot and will not be tolerated. The FA may have shown themselves up to be bigots (and extremely weak when it comes to a Utd player) but that doesn't stop the rest of us from understanding what is right and wrong in life.
"The commission found the breach included a reference to ethnic origin, colour or race"..... the exact same wording as Suarez. Ipso facto Rio = Suarez = racist. In terms of congruent triangles, Side, angle, side. QED Rio is the same as Suarez. If Suarez is a racist, then so is Rio. If the same processes that the FA used against Suarez are valid, as was claimed by the media and Utd (same thing), then they've validly found Rio equally guilty. I could go on. Oh believe me, I will...
will non-black players have to form their own union if Utd do not sack Rio? I think Garth Crooks should tell us.
Actually much that I hate to say anything positive about the FA after the way they handled Evra/Saurez I think Swarbs has a reasonable point. Rio was never going to (and keeping it in context, fairly) get a ban for re-tweeting despite being found guilty of breech of the same rule E3. That said £45k seems a strange figure, and tellingly, more than Saurez got "financially" (but not by much). When you look at other incidents re twitter that the FA have imposed fines for it’s at the very top of the scale. I think maybe there are two trains of thought with the FA over the fine. They are well aware that his drugs ban/fine have been brought up and are back in the public minds, they are aware his actions over the handshake were not helpful (full marks to Reina who was following Saurez in the line for shaking Rio's hand despite having just seen him refuse Saurez, I may of been tempted to say "what’s your ****** problem, not your argument, why you drawing more attention to it, you ****, but instead he shook hands moved along quickly and things didn't degenerate any further), and then comes the Choc-ice endorsement. They knew the furor that has followed the way they handled Saurez, add to that Fergusons "they should sack him" comment and even they are starting to question whether they look balanced or fair, and then some sort of balance, Rio getting a bigger fine than Saurez, at the very least this will give context to how unfair the Saurez treatment has become because Rio won't be subjected to it. Secondly I think they may at last be trying to defuse the anger from us as well as recognising their actions have caused football to end up in the limelight for the wrong reasons, booing at the Olympics, and the general feeling that it is run by morons with a propensity to side with one teams views. The only difference in the two incidents as far as I can see is apart from Saurez being challenged out of the blue with aggressive insults and then responding on the spare of the moment, Rio being sucked up to a brown nose tweeting something he thought Rio would want to hear and not stopping to engage his brain before agreeing, is the lack of public consternation manufactured by the press, BBC, Ousley, Taylor, Carlisle, Blissett, Powar, but all in all its put better context around the Saurez incident and got people making excuses for Rio which has to be good for us.
Ryan Babel didn't introduce race into his tweet, hence (unlike Suarez AND Ferdinand - how sweet it is!) he has not been found guilty under rule 3a of mentioning race, ethnicity or skin colour - like Rio and Suarez. Talking ofwhich, this is like Lennon and McCartney now - do we say Suarez and Ferdinand when referring to those found guilty of breaching rule 3a by introducing race, ethnicity and skin colour into a deregatory argument, or does it have to be Ferdinand and Suarez, in alphabetical order?
No great surprise here really. We'll get nothing but silence from those in the media/public and from the opposition fans we'll get the usual strawman arguments & declarations. Let's all keep it simple. Remove opinion of what is or what should be declared racist. The FA allowed only one way to view this subject in relation to player comments. No context: merely absolutely no acceptance of reference to another players colour of skin. Precedent & punishment set in the Suarez case. Judgement of equitable or Inequitable treatment re punishment can now be compared in 3 cases. Two players & an FA representative. Anyone that states that treatment has been equitable will prove once & for all that this issue means nothing to them further than an instrument of tribal argument. We merely await the Terry verdict to see if it's only white people the FA treats as second class citizens or merely white people from other countries. Please note as always: my preferred outcome in all 4 cases? Court or no action at all. The FA just keeps proving they are not mature or independent enough to handle this issue.
