Suarez Charged

  • 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.
Julius Caesar said:
Who knows how long it takes the paperwork to go through the FA and the clubs as for the witnesses well they weren't needed until now. They dont need the entire club to march over to the referee, but when the investigation started their evidence is needed.

That to me is an admission of using a racial term. Justifyed to himself that others call him it, but it is that question of intent that you raised. The thing is, Do you think that between two players who visably dont like each other, who play on opposite sides of englands biggest rivalry in the derby, that is was friendly banter? Of course there is a grey area where you cannot be sure, but if suarez is found to have said these things i dont think he would fall in it.

As for "why are black people allowed to say it" Because i dont think its possible to racist towards you own race.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of things here which don't quite chime true - but only because context is so very important.

Firstly, the issue of banter. If Suarez is guilty of winding up Evra by using the same nickname Evra's teammates use, and he refers to himself by (Black Gazelle) - sort of "C'mon Black Gazelle, can't you keep up?" or "Black Gazelle? Donkey more like!!" then its ridicule, not racism.

Secondly, of course you can be racist to your own race. Have you never heard the perjorative terms like 'Wigger' or 'Coconut'? They would certainly qualify as insulting and would most likely be used by members of the same race.
 
I don't buy this "lost in translation" defence Liverpool and media seem to be putting forward.

It was just an innocent term of endearment was it? a thing mates call each other? Well suarez isn't evras mate, I doubt anything he had to say to him during that match was chummy and if it regarded the colour of his skin, as it seems he's almost admitted, then its rascist.

On the 22nd of October the FA ask united and liverpool not to discuss the case.
28th October Dogleash calls Suarez a "Great ambassador" and mentions the case.
3rd November Dogleash talks about the case again.
8th November Suarez talks about the case to the press.

I hope when it comes to deciding Suarez's punishment (ive already decided he's guilty) I hope they take into account his dubious character and liverpools repeated discussion of the case despite being instructed not too.
 
Ivor Biggun said:
I don't buy this "lost in translation" defence Liverpool and media seem to be putting forward.

It was just an innocent term of endearment was it? a thing mates call each other? Well suarez isn't evras mate, I doubt anything he had to say to him during that match was chummy and if it regarded the colour of his skin, as it seems he's almost admitted, then its rascist.

On the 22nd of October the FA ask united and liverpool not to discuss the case.
28th October Dogleash calls Suarez a "Great ambassador" and mentions the case.
3rd November Dogleash talks about the case again.
8th November Suarez talks about the case to the press.

I hope when it comes to deciding Suarez's punishment (ive already decided he's guilty) I hope they take into account his dubious character and liverpools repeated discussion of the case despite being instructed not too.
Click to expand...

Well, nice to see the hanging judge is in town - Ivor says "Screw the evidence, I say he's guilty!"

Evra's self-labelled nickname is 'Black Gazelle' - you may notice the 'Black' there. Nothing racist, since its his self-taken nickname. And as such may well be used by his teammates. Using is sarcastically every time you beat the man isn't racist, its ridicule.

Of course, that could be considered literally under the FA's charge as insulting language including a racial term.

If this is the case, and I suspect it may well be, then this is not racism as anyone (expecting Evra) would understand it.
 
Wow just reading some of these comments shows the level some people with stoop over football,

firstly if the fa have charged Suarez over the alleged incident, they must have evidence to support such a claim otherwise, after a 4 week investigation the claims would have been dropped, they clearly think Suarez has a case to answer otherwise there would be no charge, meaning there must be evidence to support the charge.

You dont just get charged of a crime without surficcient evidence to apply a conviction it just does not happen, however, that does not mean suarez is guilty, it just means there is enough evidence for him to now have to face a hearing, he is still innocent till proven guilty and may yet be cleared, but the FACTS are the FA have found surficcient evidence to charge him.

now some people are saying where is the evidence, this is what the hearing will be for, you never disclose information on a crime/charge before a hearing as it will jeopordise it. its basic common knowledge or so you would think.

with regards to the 'no bizzies involved so evra hasnt a leg to stand on' is ******ed at best, the reason the police are involved with the terry incident is because there was a complaint from a member of the public and they have a duty to investigate such a claim. this was not the case in the suarez and evra incident.
 
Suarez-the-recist? said:
with regards to the 'no bizzies involved so evra hasnt a leg to stand on' is ******ed at best, the reason the police are involved with the terry incident is because there was a complaint from a member of the public and they have a duty to investigate such a claim. this was not the case in the suarez and evra incident.
Click to expand...

I agree with the rest of what you've said, but I take a point for the last one. Racism is a serious issue. Patrice Evra is a man allegedly racially abused in his line of work and if he truly felt that he should have made the complaint to the police as well. I suspect that he didn't owing to the amount of evidence being 'he said... I said...' level and that's about it. I don't think that the police would proceed with an investigation on that basis. The level of proof will be different for criminal and private/FA prosecutions.
 
Suarez-the-recist? said:
StJohn_Red_Legend, you cant be racist to the same race? what in gods name are you talking, i didnt know suarez was black senegalese? am i missing something here?
Click to expand...

Julius Caeser said you can't be racist to your own race. I pointed out that you can actually be racist to your own race. I wasn't talking in this specific case. Hope I've cleared that up.
 
And you are the proof that when a case like this goes public all advantage is with the accuser not the accused.

1) public accusation made
2) accusation denied
3) sides taken based largely around club affiliation; all statements from participators read with presumptions in place.
4) due to the politically sensitive nature of the accusation the organizing body is under great pressure to find something. If they don't those who assume guilty already accuse the body of sweeping it under the carpet. Guilt still there just lack of evidence to prove it.
5) all evidence finds in favor of the person accused? The accuser shrugs & calls it a misunderstanding. Walks away unpunished; the misunderstanding/lost in translation apparently not allowed as a defence however by the accused.

Now I have seen both extremes on here. Suarez is guilty because he's been charged/bites/handballs.
Evra is lying because he's got form/is French??/fergies his manager.

All rediculous. If Suarez has used a word that another player finds offensive he & everyone
else should be made clear that it is not acceptable & a reasoned punishment be meted out. My earlier questions were important though. If a foreign player has witnessed a competitors team mates call him a name which he (Evra) accepts & promotes, a word that is also universally accepted in his (suarez) home nation by all ethnicities then labeling him a racist in the same category as the BNP is just ludicrous!

Again it should be explained by the FA to EVERYONE that this word & ANY others will not be acceptable under any circumstances. This is how it is in the real world. I can not "banter" with my black colleague using racial terms just because HE accepts the intent. I have to consider those that wouldn't.

Again I repeat: potential victims of racism have got to stop attempting to "own" the terms because it creates hiding places for true racists and despite being an LFC supporter I admit that MIGHT include Suarez

If the terms are not used by anyone it's easier to spot the racist and no excuse can be made.

Now united fans: after reading the first part of my post are any of you willing to accept that Evra MIGHT have had something to gain/nothing to lose in making a heat of the moment false or exaggerated accusation just as I am willing to concede that Suarez MIGHT have deliberately used a banter term in dark & cowardly manner??
 
Dirtyfrank said:
And you are the proof that when a case like this goes public all advantage is with the accuser not the accused.

1) public accusation made
2) accusation denied
3) sides taken based largely around club affiliation; all statements from participators read with presumptions in place.
4) due to the politically sensitive nature of the accusation the organizing body is under great pressure to find something. If they don't those who assume guilty already accuse the body of sweeping it under the carpet. Guilt still there just lack of evidence to prove it.
5) all evidence finds in favor of the person accused? The accuser shrugs & calls it a misunderstanding. Walks away unpunished; the misunderstanding/lost in translation apparently not allowed as a defence however by the accused.

Now I have seen both extremes on here. Suarez is guilty because he's been charged/bites/handballs.
Evra is lying because he's got form/is French??/fergies his manager.

All rediculous. If Suarez has used a word that another player finds offensive he & everyone
else should be made clear that it is not acceptable & a reasoned punishment be meted out. My earlier questions were important though. If a foreign player has witnessed a competitors team mates call him a name which he (Evra) accepts & promotes, a word that is also universally accepted in his (suarez) home nation by all ethnicities then labeling him a racist in the same category as the BNP is just ludicrous!

Again it should be explained by the FA to EVERYONE that this word & ANY others will not be acceptable under any circumstances. This is how it is in the real world. I can not "banter" with my black colleague using racial terms just because HE accepts the intent. I have to consider those that wouldn't.

Again I repeat: potential victims of racism have got to stop attempting to "own" the terms because it creates hiding places for true racists and despite being an LFC supporter I admit that MIGHT include Suarez

If the terms are not used by anyone it's easier to spot the racist and no excuse can be made.

Now united fans: after reading the first part of my post are any of you willing to accept that Evra MIGHT have had something to gain/nothing to lose in making a heat of the moment false or exaggerated accusation just as I am willing to concede that Suarez MIGHT have deliberately used a banter term in dark & cowardly manner??
Click to expand...

I get what your trying to say, but are you really suggesting that if one player offends another then he should be banned. If this was the case there would be 4 or 5 case's per game and football would be a laughing stock, not to mention the many false case's brought by disgruntled players(lets face it there not the brightest). IMO although racism has no part in the game, but banter is inevitable when you have some of the most competative athletes in the world trying to win a game.
 
Ivor Biggun said:
I don't buy this "lost in translation" defence Liverpool and media seem to be putting forward.

It was just an innocent term of endearment was it? a thing mates call each other? Well suarez isn't evras mate, I doubt anything he had to say to him during that match was chummy and if it regarded the colour of his skin, as it seems he's almost admitted, then its rascist.

On the 22nd of October the FA ask united and liverpool not to discuss the case.
28th October Dogleash calls Suarez a "Great ambassador" and mentions the case.
3rd November Dogleash talks about the case again.
8th November Suarez talks about the case to the press.

I hope when it comes to deciding Suarez's punishment (ive already decided he's guilty) I hope they take into account his dubious character and liverpools repeated discussion of the case despite being instructed not too.
Click to expand...

anything, i mean,anything on the internet is for public use. suarez need not be his mate to call him by his public nick-name. case dismissed!
 
Ivor Biggun said:
I don't buy this "lost in translation" defence Liverpool and media seem to be putting forward.

It was just an innocent term of endearment was it? a thing mates call each other? Well suarez isn't evras mate, I doubt anything he had to say to him during that match was chummy and if it regarded the colour of his skin, as it seems he's almost admitted, then its rascist.

On the 22nd of October the FA ask united and liverpool not to discuss the case.
28th October Dogleash calls Suarez a "Great ambassador" and mentions the case.
3rd November Dogleash talks about the case again.
8th November Suarez talks about the case to the press.

I hope when it comes to deciding Suarez's punishment (ive already decided he's guilty) I hope they take into account his dubious character and liverpools repeated discussion of the case despite being instructed not too.
Click to expand...

anything, i mean,anything on the internet is for public use. suarez need not be his mate to call him by his public nick-name. case dismissed!
 
That's exactly what I mean. I'm ginger. According to some I can argue that my mates calling me Ginge is acceptable but being called a ginger b*stard in an argument in work is unacceptable based on it being linked to my ethnicity or gene make up. Taken to rediculous big nosed eared people could argue the same. It's confusing racial abuse with standard abuse. My work code of conduct stipulates all abuse is a disciplinary offence. Why should footballers get a blank card for one but have to live up to the other.

The FA code of conduct already covers abusive/unsportsmanlike/ unprofessional behavior.

What I'm suggesting is that if we are to successfully divide abuse under the above and racial abuse we need identify & make clear that all those words phrases which will COULD be considered racist to use with any intent good or bad are disciplinary matters. False accusers are a risk in any profession in fact I'm less likely to have 25 cameras & a dozen microphones around to absolve me if falsely accused.

I've seen people say on here it's ok for black people to call each other "******". Ask the generation of black people that risked their lives for racial equality in the 50's/60's & they will tell you they fought to NEVER hear it again and are appalled that their children use it now!
 
If Suarez is racist for calling Evra black, does that mean Evra's racist for calling himself the black gazelle? I mean whats he trying to say, that gazelle's can't be white? He could have been the fast gazelle or the prancing gazelle, but he chose to bring race into it, Isn't that racist?
 
timmy5x said:
If Suarez is racist for calling Evra black, does that mean Evra's racist for calling himself the black gazelle? I mean whats he trying to say, that gazelle's can't be white? He could have been the fast gazelle or the prancing gazelle, but he chose to bring race into it, Isn't that racist?
Click to expand...

I see what your getting at timmy but its the use of the 'n' word thats the bone of contention in the case(apparently).
 
Exactly! It continues to allow a grey area into what is racist & what is not. I believe the problem occurs quite understandably in trying to balance stamping out racist abuse and convincing people of different ethnic backgrounds to be proud of their colour.

Colour shouldn't come into it. We as a society decided the colour of ones skin is irrelevant. So when promoting cultural diversity & pride it should be about language the arts food etc not "yay I'm black/white/yellow"

Evra should promote his Senegalese/French heritage and so should his team mates. Or his speed/athleticism. Not the completely irrelevant fact that he has black skin. NowI'm in no way saying that he is "asking for it" just that he has created an opportunity for doubt where there doesn't need to be any.

Racial issues should be clear cut. Back to my ginger scenario. I'd make a complaint just at being abused in the office. I wouldn't automatically go straight for the ginger part.

If however I'm told I didn't get a job because I'm ginger then I consider it racism and complain along those lines.
 
Dirtyfrank said:
Again it should be explained by the FA to EVERYONE that this word & ANY others will not be acceptable under any circumstances. This is how it is in the real world. I can not "banter" with my black colleague using racial terms just because HE accepts the intent. I have to consider those that wouldn't.
?
Click to expand...

You cannot ban words of themselves. The FA does not have the power to do that. If they did then they would have to ban the word black. One it is a colour and two it is a term used by some players and former players to describe themselves. They will never be able to prescribe words that may or may not be used on the field of play.

If Suarez used the term "Black Gazell" then Evra has already tacitly condoned its use by allowing it to be used as his nickname. If Suarez called him "negritto" then Suarez has the defence that this is a term of affection used commonly in Spanish and Portugese speaking countries around the World without any racial intent. Evra would then be guilty of ignorance and misunderstanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back