Still doesn't answer the fact that Evra never once mentioned Suarez's alleged racist remarks until after the game. Perhaps he wanted to keep it quiet because he knew he made some remarks that could be used against him.
I don't think that follows - if Suarez is exonerated by the hearing then he will walk away fine, whilst Evra will have people accusing him of crying wolf for the rest of his career. Just look at the Chelsea thing in 2008 - no one thinks that Chelsea groundsman is a racist, whilst everyone has been bringing up Evra's accusations for the past two months. In this case, the fact that Suarez has admitted saying "negro" indicates that it's not a baseless accusation, it's more a question of perspective. And you can hardly say Evra knew for a fact that Suarez wasn't being offensive - the two of them were both clearly showing aggro towards the other at the time. That's a fair point, but I think that relies on the accusation being credible and public. In this case, assuming the alleged comments were actually made, everyone is will aware that Mariner is not a racist and Evra was not booked because he was black. And Evra didn't make those assertions public. So I don't think there is any stain on Mariner's reputation from it. For the Suarez case, if the hearing finds Suarez meant to be offensive, then that is something that deserves punishment. If the hearing finds that Suarez didn't mean to be offensive, then he walks away with no stain on his reputation as the hearing will clearly show he's not a racist. So I don't think the two outcomes would be the same, and hence I don't think there would be parity from equating the two acts.
Sometimes, its hard to be a blindingly ignorant as you, eh Berbs? Smith wrote a book. Perhaps you should at least look at the link contents before dismissing it. After all, it'll be far more reliable and far less offensive than the contents of the Republik of Mancunia
That's a fair point, but I think that relies on the accusation being credible and public. In this case, assuming the alleged comments were actually made, everyone is will aware that Mariner is not a racist and Evra was not booked because he was black. And Evra didn't make those assertions public. So I don't think there is any stain on Mariner's reputation from it. For the Suarez case, if the hearing finds Suarez meant to be offensive, then that is something that deserves punishment. If the hearing finds that Suarez didn't mean to be offensive, then he walks away with no stain on his reputation as the hearing will clearly show he's not a racist. So I don't think the two outcomes would be the same, and hence I don't think there would be parity from equating the two acts. but if suarez said nothing to evra and the entire thing was a fabrication then i believe both offences are the same - you seem to be saying that what suarez said and meant were different to the meaning interpreted by evra - this is different to a false accusation rather than a misinterpretation of what was said
My post was an attempt to lighten the mood here - I don't think Marriner is a racist. Evra clearly suggested otherwise however. The problem here is that this won't be an investigation into the truth - it'll be an investigation into Suarez's character. Its a bloody hard thing to prove a negative. Proving that there was no racist intent in a comment is nigh on impossible. Especially if the recipient takes offence. There will be no referring back to Evra's past record in perceiving racism where none was intended or occurred. That will be perceived as not relevant to this event. Even if they 'find in Suarez's favour', it'll most likely say case not proved, rather than dismissed, simply on the basis of Luis having admitted having used a word considered offensive in English-speaking countries. Like any accusations where its the word of one against the other, the foul smell will linger long after the trial ends...
Suarez will get away with it because if not liverpool will kick up such a fuss he will have to be let off. Lets not remeber that the club, manager and chairman all denied any wrong doing at heysel, what a ****ing bunch of jokers they turned out to be after that
MO..your quiet obviouslously a mbrainless ******, who is looking for his 5 mins of fame..you've had it, so fook off back to your hole.
Mo you big tough little boy, explain how Liverpool football club, Joe ***an or any of the players where responsible for what happened at Hysel.
Nobody denies the fans involvement, but you accussed liverpool football club, the manager and chairmen of being involved in some sort of massive cover up..That has no creditability, bit like everything you post.
They denied it was the fans fault. Absolute disgrace, that is why you get no sympathy for anything after that point
So Suarez has gone from claiming he said nothing, to then claiming he called him "Negrito", to then being on record as calling him "Negro". Negrito meaning "Little Black man". Negro meaning "a Black man/Black" *Note to self: Next time I'm trying to reconcile with someone, mention their race, especially if it's different to mine.
Here we go FFS Can anyone tell me by the way, is it true what Evra said to the ref or is this just what one journo has 'suddenly' found out ? Just asking as there is alot of people jumping up and down about it on here ?
