Ah, I see. I must have been confused by the part (in your favourite 115 page report) where Suarez stated "I was not trying to calm down the situation, but trying to explain to Evra why I was doing this foul" Maybe the meaning of the word "trying" was lost in translation, eh? I can't imagine how Suarez saying he was trying to do something could ever imply intent. But go on, let's have a bash at this one more time. Please explain to me, ideally without ranting about Utd fans or typing in capitals, exactly what you have concluded happened between Suarez and Evra based on the 115 page report.
Perhaps, as a late comer to this thread, I can add some useful input. The fact that Evra plays for United merely exacerbates. You know only too well that the majority of Liverpool supporters cannot stand the injustice that was meted out to Suarez both within the media AND the FA tribunal. We can prove those facts but cannot change the consequences of the media attack or the FA 'judgement'. As for Cantona. I felt at the time and still do that he should have been banned from football for life. If provocation is no defence on the field of play then is certainly does not constitute a moral defence when a player leaves the field to attack a supporter. He did cross the line but did not suffer the true consequences. I care not the opinion of United supporters. Many players have critically injured other players by both accident and design. Keane was just an idiot for talking about it.
And where, precisely, does that infer that Suarez used the word negro to evra to, in your words, wind him up? Unless, of course, you, like the panel, assume that Suarez not being apologetic about a 'foul' that Evra unsuccessfully tried to get Suarez booked for was in itself provocative: and that any action or spoken words thereafter must be assumed to be pejorative and ergo racist. What do I think happened? Evra tried unsuccessfully to bait and enrage an opponent who'd consistently made him look an old man. He initiated a slanging match in spanish that a sarcastic and unapologetic Suarez wouldn't rise to, which enraged Evra further, especially after he heard the word negro, which pronounced in South American spanish sounds like 'niggra'. Almost plausable, except that Evra tells the referee five minutes later when he's getting booked that he was called a 'black'. Given Evra's passable knowledge of Spanish, the language he initiated the conversation in and which he, De Gea and Hernandez confirm that they've all used the same phrase or heard it used themselves, you cannot help but think that even had he mistakenly thought he'd been called '******' in the confrontation, he knows damn well by time he speaks to the referee that he wasn't. And let's not go into the FA's craven acceptance of this inconsistency, evra's statement to the committee that he couldn't bear to repeat the word '******' and his YouTube antics, eh? Obviously he changed his tune after the game when he spoke to the referee in the presence of Ferguson - then changed it again when the FA convinced him that the only evidence of abuse they had on camera was Evra's own abuse of Suarez at the beginning of the argument, and Suarez's own admission that he'd used the word negro. Strange how Evra came out of that with credit for admitting his part that had been caught on camera anyway, and Suarez got no thanks even though there was no other colloberative evidence to say he'd even said that. The FA needed a head-on-a-stick - quickly. The decision, verdict and sentence were decided weeks before the panel had even been appointed.That is not to say Suarez is some innocent - he's not. I can well believe he initiallyused the word negro in all innocence, as he and several other Latin American players have done in the past; but then saw the reaction from Evra and kept on using it. Trouble is, I can also believe that Evra thought he was called something he wasn't and exaggerated and fabricated the rest. The benefit of the doubt should have gone to Suarez though, not Evra, and I say this because the panel go to great lengths at the beginning of their report to set out the standards of evidence used and burden of proof needed. The investigation is carried out on the basis of civil law and the balance of probabilities - fair enough. But even under civil law an accused (and that is what Suarez is, and Evra is a witness) is afforded the presumption of innocence, and utterly no evidence is offered apart from Evra's word (the word of a man who's changed what, where, when and how many times he's been 'abused' ) for the further six times Suarez is supposed to have abused Evra. James Lawton of the Independent, obviously writing under the blur of a hangover/and or hair-of-the-dog wrote a day after the panel's published findings, stated that there was 'irrefutable' evidence that Suarez repeatedly called evra ******/blackie/ negro seven times - I ask you to find me this 'irrefutable evidence' in the 115 page report. True enough, the panel makes its task somewhat easier on the first charge by adopting the 'subjective' test of whether the abuse was offensive - i.e., does Evra himself find it offensive. And though I disagree that Suarez intends any offence in his initial response, the panel had the right to find Suarez guilty on that first charge and Evra is owed an apology. But by their own standards in the same preamble in the report, they themselves say a high standard of evidence is needed to find Suarez guilty. Where is this for anything other than what Suarez admitted to? And another thing that jumps out glaringly is this: why, in a conversation in Spanish, initiated as such by Evra and therefore Suarez having every right to assume that Evra knows the meaning of the word negro; does Suarez NOT use the word ****** if he's trying to offend or wind-up Evra? So, look, whilst I'll never convince you and you'll never convince me, why do you and your fellow United posters have the right to come onto our board discussing this: yet if I go onto your board and raise the conundrum that if Rio is found guilty of the same E3(2) rule as Suarez and Terry but is allowed into a suggested black players' union, then why isn't Suarez as they're both part black?, am I labelled a racist and part of the KKK? Is it the stance of all United posters that to question the integrity of St Evra of Your Sister's Pussy, Rio X and Martin Luther Ferguson is inherently racist? Evra is owed an apology for being offended by a word he thought he was called but later, and for motives of expediency, admitted he wasn't, but no more. And, gob****e though he himself is, Suarez is owed a bigger apology for being used as the aunt Sally in an exercise by the FA, media and hypocritical fans to prove how right-on and anti-racist they were. And that includes you.
Gordon Taylor's(protective)reaction towards Cantona. Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the players' union, called for an end to the "lynch-mob mentality" which has emerged since Wednesday night. He also fears Cantona may be lost to the English game for good. "Eric has accepted the decision but you can imagine how he feels. He has the police action against him and he must also face the FA. It's coming at him from all directions" http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...internationals-until-next-season-1570200.html Compare his reaction to Suarez/Evra. The twat should have been banned from the English game for life, giving the away club grief is fair game and always has been. Ask Wenger.
That's a fair post Swarbs, and there's not much I can disagree with there. But, yes, I do think the Suarez stuff will be talked about in 16 years time. Not the incident so much but the stuff afterwards with the t-shirts and such. It will be brought up everytime as a stick to beat Liverpool fans with. Which is what's sad about these type of incidents, I can see someone people are delighted when someone assaults a fan like Cantona or when someone like Shawcross breaks someone's leg. People are genuinely happy when these things happen just so they can use it against rival supporters in petty, point scoring arguments. Even things like Heysel, Hillsborough & Munich are not immune from these types of point scoring arguments. But it is almost the way of football to point score and get one over rivals. It was evident with the Suarez-Evra stuff, that the actual issue of race & discrimination was secondary to people trying to score points & getting one over their rivals. I agree the **** you attitude didn't help, but was that something Liverpool were forced into by Evra going to the media immediately after the game? For me it seemed like Liverpool were forced onto the defensive very early on with these accusations and after he was found guilty by the FA we had been defending him since October so really it was a case of "we have defended him for this long, we'll look really stupid if we go back after everything we've said so we might aswell carry on". The problem was, in hindsight, that the t-shirts made us look even more stupid in the eyes of the press and the watching world.
Whilst Liverpool have been proven to have acted with a great degree of naivety, I cannot agree with you about the rationale for the Suarez issue continuing to be a hot issue for Liverpool fans. The whole t shirt issue will be forgotten very quickly.
donga - wtf are you going on about lad? He admitted using the word negro i.e. Black. In what possible context on the field of play, during an obvious confrontational situation with an opposition player, could this word be used in reference to the colour of the opponents skin & not be meant as an offensive comment????? If he'd have never admitted using the word, he'd have got off. Simple as. As soon as he admitted it's use, he was always going to be found guilty. Your continual defence of the man to the point of you labelling him as the 'victim' is precisely the kind of behaviour that resulted in your entire club coming out of the entire debacle stinking of ****. As it was the ridiculous actions / words of Dalglish et al, combined with the kind of idiotic defence of the indefensible that you're putting up, that made your club a laughing stock over it. Put it to bed & move on ffs, as you're talking out of your hairy hoop lad.
you not think there has been an injustice in Evra not being charged for his comments or Terry only getting half the punishment Suarez got?
Injustice? He got found guilty & got the ban that his actions deserved. Terry got the same ban as Suarez did for the abuse, Suarez got another 4 games for multiple use, as per the FA rules. If you actually step back & think about it, before shouting 'conspirracceee' - the FA finding Terry guilty AFTER a court of law had found him not guilty, was a brave shout. He got the same ban Suarez did. p.s. thanks for the rep bombing
what are you on about TB? rep bombing? i have only ever repped one person on here and that was you, and was positive, but thanks for the insult merry fecking christmas to you too! So what Evra said to Suarez is acceptable? edit i lied damn it! i repped the other lad on the thread Shogun was asking on.
So should Carragher also have been banned for life for throwing a missile into the Arsenal crowd and injuring two entirely innocent people, one of who could have been blinded? If the Utd fan who threw a bottle at Bellamy and the City one who hit Rio with a coin should have been banned for life, surely Carragher could not face a more lenient punishment? And what about Diouf spitting into the crowd, or Bellamy punching a fan? If leaving the field to attack a supporter is wrong then why is punching a supporter on the pitch any better? I can agree with you there. Ultimately, however you look at the actions of the two players, in all probability Suarez has used the word negro in recognition of the fact it was pissing Evra off. Which is not something that can ever be condoned or overlooked regardless of the initial intentions or actions of the other player. As Dave says, provocation is no defence. I personally don't think that merited an eight game ban, but as soon as the "r" word gets into the media then the FA is always going to be between a rock and a hard place with 24 hour news channels and **** rags all looking to stir up controversy wherever they can. Like I say, I still see parallels with the Cantona case, where the FA saw the pressure from the media and just threw the rule book out the window and made up a punishment they thought would make them look tough. You weren't banned just for bringing it up, you were banned from dragging it into endless unrelated threads and generally pissing everyone off. I only brought it up as the whole point of this thread is about Suarez, and the issue was already being discussed. As you've said, you and the vast majority of Utd fans will not agree on this, so why bang your head against ChristianSmith et al? It serves no purpose other than to wind both of you up and piss off everyone else on the Utd board. How long do you think I would last on the Liverpool board if I posted half a page about the FA being corrupt and anti Utd for banning Cantona for eight months but Carragher for three games every time Cantona or any even semi related topic was mentioned? And how this proved all LFC fans were one eyed Utd haters who tried to use Cantona to grab the moral high ground? Then abused any LFC fan who rightly told me to **** off. I reckon your mods would lose patience a lot quicker than ours did. Not sure how you include me in that sentence? As I've said before, Suarez has been harshly treated - the man made a mistake and was harshly punished let's move on. Off the field he seems to be a decent human being and I'm glad the abuse he gets just runs off his back. That said, I'm still going to take the piss at every chance I get, just like I know Liverpool fans will do to Giggs, Rooney, Rio and every other Utd fan who shirt number is higher than their brain cell count. That's just football - I think Suarez understands that better than anyone. The Evra one is a funny one - the rules say he should be punished, but the FA have a history of just ignoring the language used on the pitch unless it crosses some ill defined line. Anton wasn't punished for his comments about Terry, which were arguably more abusive than what Terry called Anton, cos there was no mention of race. The rules undoubtedly need to be changed in this area, but I think the FA is unwilling to bring the abusive comments players use all the time into the light of day - they are only punished when the FA loses face, like Rooney into the camera. The Terry one definitely shows the subjectivity of the system. Suarez was essentially hung out to dry for presenting a relatively poor defence with some inconsistencies, whereas Terry was forewarned and thus came up with something that was more consistent, if not more credible. But then that's the same in all jurisdictions - the difference between a rapist walking free and serving time often comes down to the quality of their legal team and the case they put forwards. There's no real solution to that problem unfortunately.
There you go again! The discussion had nothing to do with Carra and my comment related directly to Cantona. I will therefore dismiss your arguments as mere tribalism.
As said Tobes, I don't agree with the assumption that as it was a confrontational situation and Suarez used the word 'negro' he was, by definition, using it in a pejorative sense, and should you wish me to bore you further on this point I can present the parts of the evidence provided by the language experts in the case (and also their assertion that Suarez would never had used the words or form of Spanish attributed to him by Evra) and several eminent professors of Spanish from Montevideo who state that the use of the word 'negro' even in a conffrontational situation is no worse than you or i using the word 'pal' or 'mate'. But, reluctantly, I accept that the FA does have in its remit as set out at the begining of the report the power to find against Suarez on this, his admitted use of the word (as you confirm) based upon the subjective test of evra's emotions. What I cannot accet, and for which there is not one shred of evidence apart from Evra's word, is the further punishment for repeated use of the word. Considering that under civil law, upon which the tribunal was formed, Suarez is owed a presumption of innocence regardless of the standard of evidence used, I ask you, and Swarbs, James lawton, Martin samuel, Oliver Holt, henry Winter, Matthew Sayed and all the other sages of race-relations, to point out exactly where in the 115 pages that this assertion is proved or justified. The FA have now taken the pdf version of the 115 page report down, but if you need a copy I'm certain I can find a working link. But I downloaded my own copy last year, and I can look up anything in it should you need assistance. Good luck - maybe YOU can be the first?
FFS... He got banned, he's disliked and no matter how whining anyone does it won't change! MOVE ON!!!
