And yet Evra changed his evidence three times, lied on oath about his distaste of

The 'n' word, but the FA didn't find that significant enough to effect their judgement (now justified to be twice as long as Terry's completely on the verbal evidence of one discredited witness).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...n-Terry-racism-row-Ashley-Cole-FA-report.html

 

Its hard to belive really but at least everybody has now witnessed the fa making a complete show of themselves and actually coming out of a racism case looking prejudice themselves like the referees are.

 

Gordon Taylor is a cowardly ****bag.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/8115960/

not once since Terry was found guilty by the FA has he condemned him yet the same prick hung Suarez out to dry.

He's quick enough to take Luis's union subs though.

 

As PFA Chief, his role is to protect players. But as you say, he condemned Suarez and offered no support or protection.

 

That's what i cant get my head around Jimmy, ok in both cases their were two players in question and he should protect the best interests of both in each case.

He openly slammed Suarez yet doesn't do the same with Terry, that's the trait of being anti-south american(a form of racism)or scared of himself getting slammed by the English press, either way it shows hes not fit to do his job.

 

Completely agree - but unfortunately, this is a battle we won't win. No matter how much evidence is in front of everyone - the FA and the media are too powerful.

 

Details in Evras story might have changed slightly as is often the case with retelling especially at a later date. The inconsistencies were found to be minor and understandable.

Suarez not only changed his story repeatedly but they were inconsistent changes with regards to all other evidence. So in fact Evra was a credible witness and Suarez was the story changing liar, much like cashley.

 

But you also have to remember - Evra had prior access to the evidence which helped him build a case which corroborates with the evidence.

Suarez had to solely rely on his memory (I think).

 

As I say chaps, the bit that infuriates me is the FA acting like they've uncovered some major piece of evidence that the real courts missed. "Cogent", no less. But when the evidence of Evra changing his statement about what, when and where he was called, and lying on oath about why he changed wht he said he'd been called unfurled they didn't regard this a 'cognent'.

Twats indeed.

 

Prove it.

Provide links proving Evra substantially changed his story, not mere semantical bull**** but fundamental changed it in a way that had to have been dishonest and not a genuine mistake. Prove he did that three times and intentionally lied under oath.

You can't, because you're just spouting faeces.

**Proof meaning court case report etc etc, not what some bitter LFC supporting turd claims on some random blog.

 

I see no proof.

Why are you bringing this up a year later? Everyone but Chelsea agree Terry should have got an equally long ban as Saurez. You're just beating a dead horse.

 

please log in to view this image

Goodbye

 

Is your last comment a promise? Hope so

 

"Details in Evras story might have changed slightly as is often the case with retelling especially at a later date. The inconsistencies were found to be minor and understandable.
"

Slightly? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Evra was asked to explain why he ran up to Marriner shortly before he was booked and said "Ref, he called me a black". This was confirmed by Giggs. Then when he reported it after the match to Marriner he said "he called me ******". His explaination was that he found it distasteful to use the word '******' even when describing what he'd been called. maybe it was the enobling presence of SAF telling him what to say (literally) in the ref's room that gave hime the courage to get that word out that cuts him to his very soul.

On secretly reviewing the evidence (and Suarez's statement) and being told there is no such word a '******' in Spanish, the language he initiated the conversation in when he told Suarez his sister was a whore, evra then indeed agreed he'd been called negro after all, just as Suarez had said. And so we have undisputed evidence that Evra changed what he'd been called, on his account because he couldn't bring himself to use the word '******' to the ref, but then could whem Slurguson was holding his hand, but then accepted it was negro when he and the FA reviewed Suarez's evidence (something, outrageously, not offered to the 'accused' in this case by the prosecution-judge-jury, three-in-one lynch mob). All this is in the report. paragraph 157, by memory, but I can dig it back out if you wish.

Now, having established that Evra claimed, under oath, that he couldn't bear to utter the word '******', do you want me to" post the link" where he demonstrates anything but an aversity to using that word?

Now YOU, show me where Suarez changed his evidence. He accepted the pinch on the arm (the Evra didn't feel) was not necessarily "concilitary", but maintained throughout that Evra< Kuyt and Comolli had all misinterpreted "Por que" to mean 'because' and not "why" as he intended (and all the language experts accepted, including a Uruguayan professor of Spanish from Montevideo who maintained the phrase attributed by him by Evra is not even Spanish, let alone Rio Plate Spanish). But as i say, i can and will post the link tp the relevant part of the report and evra's YouTube 'performance'. To summarise, he explained, under oath, that he couldn't bear to repeat the word '******', then was seen screaming it on video. QED = he lied under oath. And there's a lot more evidence of THAT than Cole changed his evidence.

Cogent indeed.

 

"271. When, shortly after the match, he went to see the referee with the manager, Mr Evra
complained that Mr Suarez had said "I don't talk to you because you ******s". Mr Evra
told us that he believed, from the moment he heard Mr Suarez use the word &#8220;negro&#8221;, that
this meant ******. The Commission asked Mr Evra why, then, did he not tell the referee
that he had been called ******, as opposed to black. Mr Evra's answer was that even when
he pronounced the word "******s", it was not a word he liked to use."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMOWi3PRDJM

 

Every time the Terry case is mentioned in the media Suarez gets dragged into it so it's pointless putting the blame on Liverpool fans. Taylor can't even make his statement without mentioning him.
Everyone takes every available opportunity to slate him regardless of the relevance to the subject of the time.

Besides, does an injustice stop being one with the passage of time? Anytime anyone gets treated differently to Suarez under similar circumstances it will just highlight the monumental cock-up the FA made of it the first time round.
I said at the time that the FA had set precedents they can't possibly maintain and are just going to look corrupt or foolish when these things happen again- and that is exactly what is happening.

 

Can somebody translate this thread into Arabic for me please? I will then translate the Arabic version into Russian.

I find that you generally have to translate something that is said (and meant) in one language into another language and then do that again into a second completely irrelevant language in order to completely misunderstand (or indeed to feel offended by) what was initially being said....just like Evra!

 

Evra plays for the lovechild of the FA. Suarez never had a chance.

 

Are you for real? The standard test of a translators ability is to take their translation into another language and give it to another translator that you trust to re-translate back into the original language. Your supposed test is just complete nonsense.

Even accepting that Evra did not understand what was being said to him and that his 'offence' was based upon that misunderstanding, his testimony is based upon his unwillingness to even use the word that he had misunderstand, However, proof exists the he has used that very word himself. Therefore he is a proven dissembler.

The rest of the railroading of Suarez has more to do with the FA and the media itself.

 

Quick question chaps, if Terry had received the same punishment as Suarez would you all have been happy and stopped moaning about how Suarez was treated?