F.A. Hypocritical ****ers

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Take your points on this guys but we are all getting a bit off topic here<grr> What about those two faced sycophantic ****s at Soho Square who have employed a known racist!
 
Robby202 said:
Take your points on this guys but we are all getting a bit off topic here<grr> What about those two faced sycophantic ****s at Soho Square who have employed a known racist!
Click to expand...

They can go and literally **** themselves Robby <ok>
 
Swarbs said:
But under FIFA statutes the only court that could have dealt with it was CAS. And CAS adopts the same basis of judgement as every other sporting authority - balance of probability. Therefore Liverpool couldn't have asked the court to use a higher basis of evidence, the only grounds would be to challenge the FA's decision to believe Evra's, Kuyt's, Commoli's and Dalglish's testimony over that of Suarez.

To do that would either require Suarez to make a more persuasive argument for his post match comments to Kuyt, Commoli and Dalglish having been lost in translation, or for Suarez to change his argument. As one of the main factors underlying his initial conviction was the fact that he had changed his testimony a couple of times, changing it again was unlikely to build a stronger case.

The only real conclusion is that Liverpool's lawyers looked at all the arguments they could make in appeal, and realised that all of them would weaken their case, and so were forced to accept the result rather than drag out the appeals process and have Suarez distracted for half the season, and then probably banned at the end of the process anyway.
Click to expand...

Sorry Swarbs but you are wrong. LFC were not limited to an appeal to CAS. They could have gone to the UK courts. However, it is highly likely that the publication of the decision was accompanied by 'private' pre-emptive messages from the FA to LFC that any attempt to do do would only result in a pyrrhic victory at best.

Please don't refer to Suarez changing his testimony without also pointing to Evra's changes plus the coaching that he received prior to the hearing.

In your heart of hearts you know that the Tribunal was deeply flawed. The decision itself was not based upon the balance of probability but on what the FA believed was their responsibility to be seen to implement their policy on racism. That is why so many Reds are so incensed at what happened. It has very little to do with either Suarez or Evra (they are probably both ****s) but it does have everything to do with justice.
 
foredeckdave said:
sorry swarbs but you are wrong. Lfc were not limited to an appeal to cas. They could have gone to the uk courts. However, it is highly likely that the publication of the decision was accompanied by 'private' pre-emptive messages from the fa to lfc that any attempt to do do would only result in a pyrrhic victory at best.

Please don't refer to suarez changing his testimony without also pointing to evra's changes plus the coaching that he received prior to the hearing.

In your heart of hearts you know that the tribunal was deeply flawed. The decision itself was not based upon the balance of probability but on what the fa believed was their responsibility to be seen to implement their policy on racism. That is why so many reds are so incensed at what happened. It has very little to do with either suarez or evra (they are probably both ****s) but it does have everything to do with justice.
Click to expand...



this
 
OddRiverOakWizards said:
The media want him because he is always good with them. They faun over him and he gives them juicy titbits. I would say the most controversial part of Pearce's appointment is because his brother is a senior member of the BNP. This should not effect things because he and his brother are different people but the media have been using the brother excuse to oust Terry because Rio is Anton's brother.
Click to expand...

<applause>.
 
I've just been listening to TalkSport,apparently it doesn't matter what Pearce said as he apologised after.This is the same Talk Sport who pilloried Sepp Blatter who said racist comments should be settled with a hand shake and apology
 
goonercymraeg said:
I've just been listening to TalkSport,apparently it doesn't matter what Pearce said as he apologised after.This is the same Talk Sport who pilloried Sepp Blatter who said racist comments should be settled with a hand shake and apology
Click to expand...

It depends a bit on the manner of the apology and whether lessons have been learned. For example " What I said was racist, I've now reconsidered these views, they are abhorrent to me and I've changed my behaviour completely since then" is a lot different from "I regret any offence caused".

And on earlier posts surely people can see the difference between Stuart Pearce having a brother who is a BNP member (which is irrelevant unless he shares the same views) and Terry wanting to play alongside or even captain the brother of someone against whom he is alleged to have commited a criminal offence.
 
As much as I enjoy the embarrassment this must have caused the F.A today, I think it's a bit ridiculous this being front page news. But then this is the scum we are talking about.

I think whilst the racism thing is a hot potato at the moment, if Pearce apoligised at the time and it was in the heat of the moment, I don't really see that much of a problem. It's hardly like he attended KKK meetings.

I think it's similar with Terry, if he said what was alleged it is poor and not befitting of an England captain. However in the heat of the moment we all know these things can get said. It's not the end of the world and as has been proven by the Pearce incident, is not a new issue.

The real shame is that the Terry and Suarez incidents have made it seem as if racism is rife in the game where as I suspect it probably isn't. If anything, the F.A attempts to be seen to be taking a hard line has probably made the English game look worse for racism and leads to stupid chants etc at games ala Liverpool and Chelsea fan/s.
 
chelsea - over 100 years of history said:
As much as I enjoy the embarrassment this must have caused the F.A today, I think it's a bit ridiculous this being front page news. But then this is the scum we are talking about.

I think whilst the racism thing is a hot potato at the moment, if Pearce apoligised at the time and it was in the heat of the moment, I don't really see that much of a problem. It's hardly like he attended KKK meetings.

I think it's similar with Terry, if he said what was alleged it is poor and not befitting of an England captain. However in the heat of the moment we all know these things can get said. It's not the end of the world and as has been proven by the Pearce incident, is not a new issue.

The real shame is that the Terry and Suarez incidents have made it seem as if racism is rife in the game where as I suspect it probably isn't. If anything, the F.A attempts to be seen to be taking a hard line has probably made the English game look worse for racism and leads to stupid chants etc at games ala Liverpool and Chelsea fan/s.
Click to expand...

Good points.
 
I think it was silly of The Sun to bring this up. Why wasn't this same outrage shown while he has been the manager of the u20s England team? Sensationalism at its best (or worst). At least Pearce had the decency to apologize for what he did unlike other footballers who show defiance while their fans wear t-shirts of the guilty, chanting his name while vile racist chants are being made.
 
Foredeckdave said:
Sorry Swarbs but you are wrong. LFC were not limited to an appeal to CAS. They could have gone to the UK courts. However, it is highly likely that the publication of the decision was accompanied by 'private' pre-emptive messages from the FA to LFC that any attempt to do do would only result in a pyrrhic victory at best.
Click to expand...

No you couldn't. Not unless you wanted to become the UK equivalent of FC Sion. Had Liverpool appealed to the UK courts they would have gotten us suspended from international competition - Blatter would've jumped at the chance.

Foredeckdave said:
Please don't refer to Suarez changing his testimony without also pointing to Evra's changes plus the coaching that he received prior to the hearing.
Click to expand...

Problem was, the whole crux of the case was whether Suarez said "Why, negro" or "because you are black". Given that Kuyt, Commoli and Dalglish all stated that Suarez told them he'd said "because you are black", he was undermined right from the start. As for coaching, don't be so naive - every expensive lawyer worth their salt coaches their clients on exactly what to say in court, particularly if that individual is not a native speaker. As long as the lawyer is not encouraging his client to lie then coaching is perfectly acceptable - if Liverpool's lawyers didn't see fit to coach Suarez on how to present himself in a positive light then more fool them.

Foredeckdave said:
In your heart of hearts you know that the Tribunal was deeply flawed. The decision itself was not based upon the balance of probability but on what the FA believed was their responsibility to be seen to implement their policy on racism. That is why so many Reds are so incensed at what happened. It has very little to do with either Suarez or Evra (they are probably both ****s) but it does have everything to do with justice.
Click to expand...

I agree that the FA wanted to be seen to crack down sharply on racism, and are probably happy with the outcome, but the way Liverpool and Suarez constructed their case made it very easy for them. Suarez' testimony was contradicted by three members of his own club, and he changed his testimony whilst giving evidence to the panel. Like I said before - he won't be the last person to be convicted purely because his story broke down under close examination. His own actions tilted the balance of probability against him, even tho I agree that the version of events the DC decided on is probably not what actually happened.
 
saintanton said:
Hmm..., so being inarticulate in your defence makes you guilty?
Click to expand...

Not in and of itself. But if one side of the case puts their case across clearly and the other side cannot create a coherent argument then one side is clearly going to be at a strong advantage. It's one of the reasons the US has the 5th amendment - to prevent inarticulate defendants from talking themselves into trouble or saying something they will regret.

But like I said, that's why we have trained, professional lawyers. That's what surprises me - the fact that Liverpool's legal team put together such a weak and contradictory case for such an important matter. I can only assume that the club initially thought nothing would come of it and so allowed individuals to give witness statements without being briefed by the lawyers first. Then by the time he was charged it was too late to undo the damage.
 
goonercymraeg said:
I've just been listening to TalkSport,apparently it doesn't matter what Pearce said as he apologised after.This is the same Talk Sport who pilloried Sepp Blatter who said racist comments should be settled with a hand shake and apology
Click to expand...

****ers <ok>
 
Swarbs said:
Not in and of itself. But if one side of the case puts their case across clearly and the other side cannot create a coherent argument then one side is clearly going to be at a strong advantage. It's one of the reasons the US has the 5th amendment - to prevent inarticulate defendants from talking themselves into trouble or saying something they will regret.

But like I said, that's why we have trained, professional lawyers. That's what surprises me - the fact that Liverpool's legal team put together such a weak and contradictory case for such an important matter. I can only assume that the club initially thought nothing would come of it and so allowed individuals to give witness statements without being briefed by the lawyers first. Then by the time he was charged it was too late to undo the damage.
Click to expand...
We keep talking about an FA tribunal as though it is a quasi-legal court. It isn't. It is not subject to the rigorous burden of proof required in a court of law and it doesn't have the pursuit of justice as its sole, or even major, priority.
The possible agenda behind the decision has been discussed ad nauseum already and there's no need to repeat it here. A look at the report however (not just the selected extracts the idiot rags use to back up their diatribe) shows that they consistently dismissed evidence which cast doubt upon a verdict they seemed to have already decided upon.
To suggest that LFC should have made a better case for the defence disregards the fact that the evidence -or rather the lack of it- should have been enough in itself to show that they couldn't possibly come to a fair decision. It all came down to a highly subjective interpretation of what little there was to go on- and this after they had declared their intention to treat the whole matter objectively.
They should have dismissed the whole thing and given Suarez a warning as to his future behaviour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back