"Doesn't alter one thing, though: it's been Evra's favourite past time to accuse, and I wonder who's next on his hit list?" You'd have to ask Martin Luther Ferguson to get the answer to that one.
And I actually thought we were having a decent debate. I was considering responding to this properly, but it appears I'm talking to the wrong person. Either you've grossly misinterpreted me or you're simply not open to suggestion. Thanks for pointing out the reasons for disagreeing with me, though...
Even if Suarez was proved a racist, 8 games for a provoked yet racist comment made during a heated game is grossly ott. The FA have only ever handed out 3 game bans in the past for racist comments.
My last thoughts on matter too Yid. I think comparing a deliberate bad tackle on a pitch with comments on a pitch with real life illogical. Me jumping two footed at a person on the street would always get me a harsher sentence (GBH) than shouting "black" at the same person.(racism) Weirdly Suarez is both lucky & unlucky. In "real life" on the street Evra would have had to prove beyond reasonable doubt to get Suarez convicted. However; in most places of work if either person had abused each other like these two did, they'd most likely have been sacked & with Suarez admission he'd have struggled to convince at an appeals tribunal. As it is; in the end it was as arguments go between spoilt & indulged individuals used to getting their own way; an ugly affair that has damaged both players reps in different quarters, neither career is ruined (only rival fans will care about this after the media gets bored) FA should stay out of moralising until they can promote a high standard themselves & not just on racism.
I'm sorry, but if someone said to me now, get off this forum and go and scrub the steps - like me dad used to shout at Thatcher when she was on telly - I would immediately turn round and call them sexist. I don't do that because I'm used to the forum and most of the insults I get here I take with a pinch of salt and I give back as good as I get. But taking the Sky/Talksport example, those sexist comments were borne out of what festered in their minds. What festers in the minds of most men, and many women, too, when it comes to what we think of men, but which most people don't come out with due to a sense of propriety.
Yes, but the point I was making was that sexist and racist comments CAN and DO exist in isolation. Gray and Keys most likely were/are sexist, but they were sacked for the comments alone, not for being sexist. They probably aren't the best example of the point I'm trying to demonstrate, though, so I'll use Suarez. It was found (not proven, but found on the balance of evidence) that his 'racist' comments were designed to provoke and unsettle Evra. In this light, the intent was not to racially offend, but the comments were taken as having racist connotations regardless. They did not, arguably, originate with Suarez's genuine opinion of black people, but with his desire to get a rise from Evra. In the same way I sometimes say 'bloody women drivers' to get a rise out of female company. I don't believe that sex has an impact on driving ability, but I do make such comments for the purpose outlined.
Just found this online and thought I'd throw it in to the mixing bowl Suarez, Evra & Reliable Witnesses The verdict in the Suarez case hung on the reliability of the witness testimony. In blunt summary, the FA decided that Evra was a more reliable witness and therefore found Suarez guilty. Here are the crucial parts of the testimony with some analysis... Is the Word “Negro” Racially Offensive? The panel of language experts used by the FA described the connotations of the word “negro” as follows: “It is important to grasp that the word "negro" is ambiguous in all countries and regions of Latin America. The word "negro" is by no means, however, always used offensively. The term can also be used as a friendly form of address to someone seen as somewhat brown-skinned or even just black-haired. It may be used affectionately between man and wife, or girlfriend/boyfriend, it may be used as a nickname in everyday speech, it may be used to identify in neutral and descriptive fashion someone of dark skin; several famous people in Uruguay are known as "el negro/la negra such-and-such". The experts concluded that if the panel believed Evra’s version of events, they could assume the word "negro" was used in a racially offensive way. However, they say of Suarez’s version of events: “The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez's account as follows. If Mr Suarez used the word "negro" as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America.” The panel therefore needed to deem one of the accounts to be false in order to establish guilt, since Suarez’s defence was proved to be inoffensive in racial terms. How Events Transpired The conversation began with Evra saying "Concha de tu hermana" which translates as "your sister's pussy". Evra says he meant “****ing hell”. There is no dispute about who started the argument: it was Evra. There is no dispute about who threw the first insult: Evra. The dispute is whether Suarez’s reaction used racially offensive words. The FA ruled that it did. So, how unreliable a witness was Suarez, and how reliable was Evra? Immediately after Evra’s insult, the video evidence that can be lip-read shows Suarez saying "What did you say?" Suarez, before this video evidence came out, told the FA he said “What did you say?" That is a reliable statement. They both agree that Evra then said "Why did you kick me?" What they dispute is the answer. Evra claims Suarez said "Because you are black". Suarez claims he said "it was just a normal foul" then shrugged his shoulders. The video evidence shows Suarez shrugging his shoulders, backing up his testimony. So far, the video evidence supports Suarez. Next comes the crucial piece of Suarez evidence, the part the FA panel relied heavily on to find him guilty. Suarez said in his statement “I was trying to defuse the situation”. Under cross examination, Suarez more or less admitted that he was not trying to defuse the situation. The FA used this admission to discredit Suarez as a witness. The really important thing he says comes just after this comment: “Under no circumstances was this action intended to be offensive and most certainly not racially offensive. It was not in any way a reference to the colour of PE's skin.” This, the FA deemed, was also untrue. The other evidence the FA panel relied on was the fact that Suarez’s story changes slightly. However, all of the changes can be fully explained by the fact that the situation happened very quickly and the fallibility of memory means that the exact sequences of events often merge into one. The FA acknowledge this as a possibility but do not accept it as an excuse. There are inconsistencies in Evra’s testimony. In his evidence, Evra states that he told the players after the game that Suarez said he kicked him "porque tu eres negro" (“because I am black”. None of the four Spanish speaking Manchester United players recalled Evra saying this in their witness testimonies. In the FA’s report, they confirm this is the case but state that it is possible the players simply forgot he said it. They do not point to the other possibility: that he did not say it. Under this scenario, it could be used as evidence that Evra is an unreliable witness. There were four pieces of evidence presented by Suarez's lawyer to the FA that suggest Evra is an unreliable witness. The interesting one is the coin toss. Here is the transcript of that incident: “Mr Marriner explained that he used a FIFA coin which is blue on one side and yellow on the other. He asked Mr Evra, as the visiting captain, to call the colour. Mr Marriner tossed the coin, it came down yellow, and he awarded it to Steven Gerrard who elected to stay in their current ends. Manchester United had kick off. Mr Evra remonstrated that he had called correctly but, Mr Marriner said, he had not. Mr Evra then spoke to Ryan Giggs about it, and Mr Marriner walked over to Mr Evra to assure him that he (Mr Marriner) had got it right. Mr Evra's evidence was that when such a coin was used, he always called yellow given that the alternative, blue, is a Manchester City colour, which he would never call. The toss came down yellow and so Mr Evra knew that he had won it. He particularly wanted to change ends at the start, he explained to the referee that he had called yellow, and why he had done so. Mr Evra was angry but the referee did not change his mind.” Evra either could not remember what colour he chose or lied about it afterwards. This at best questions his reliability as a witness and at worst suggests he is willing to lie to gain an advantage. Crucially, he reacted outwardly far more to the coin toss than he did in the goalmouth when he claimed that Suarez used the word “negro” five times. Had that really been the case, surely Evra’s reaction would have been much stronger? Another inconsistency is Evra's use of the term "ten times" to describe how many times Suarez allegedly said "negro". Evra has retracted this claim and said it was a "figure of speech". Really? What about previous form? Suarez has no history of any form of racism and is an ambassador for racial equality. Evra, on the other hand, has been at the centre of a racism scandal in the recent past. It was alleged that ground staff at Chelsea racially abused Evra in 2008. The allegation was thrown out and here is how the panel described Evra's testimony: "We find Mr Evra's description exaggerated... There was no good reason for Mr Evra to have run over and barged Mr Griffin as he did. It was unnecessarily and gratuitously aggressive of Mr Evra... Mr Evra's suggestion that he was concerned about Mr Strudwick's safety is farfetched. They were two grown men having an apparently strong verbal disagreement but no more than that. The clear implication by Mr Evra that Mr Griffin's pitchfork gave some reason for concern about Mr Strudwick's safety is ridiculous...We find Mr Evra's account exaggerated and unreliable. It is an attempt to justify a physical intervention by him which cannot reasonably be justified..." Compare this to the conclusions drawn by the panel in the Suarez case: "We considered it improbable that Mr Evra would act in such a dishonest way in order to damage the reputation of a fellow professional whose footballing skills he admires, with whom he had had no previous run-ins, and who he does not think is a racist." There is therefore evidence to suggest that both Suarez and Evra made statements that were not 100% true during this case, and that Evra has a history of doing this. By using Evra’s account as “the truth”, the FA have concluded that Suarez’s entire evidence can be completely discredited whilst the inconsistencies in Evra’s testimony, and past, can be ignored
Did anyone else notice that evra gets 'credit' with the panel for admitting what he said about Suarez's sister and provoking the confrontation, even though Suarez didn't hear it? Makes him a credible witness, even though he didn't admit it until he saw the video evidence that was denied to Suarez. Yet Suarez admitting he used the word negro is deemed to have changed his evidence, even though none of the video evidence could prove he said anything racist, intent or otherwise. And could people on here and SkySports (those proven vote-riggers and liars) stop saying that the Manc-appointed linguistic experts said that word negro could only have been construed to have been insulting: they didn't - they equally accepted it could have been used in 'concilitary' terms. This all comes downs to intent, which even in a civil court cannot be deemed purely from subjective evidence and balance of probabilities. I know this from sitting on both sides of tribunals as a manger and a union rep. You can't sack someone for fiddling, for instance, unless you have objective evidence of intent (in which case you should be taking the miscreants to a criminal court too), but you can dismiss them for false accounting or incompetence. the parallel with this case being that a man is now to banned for a considerable time because the interpretation of rascist behaviour is simply to mention another person's skin colour, whereas to instigate an argument with intent to unsettle an opponent by calling them a Sudac and denigrating their sister is apparently okay. Every contradiction and error in evra's evidence is glossed over or coached out of him by the very panel that pretends to be even-handed: just contrast that with the reception of any inconsistencies in Suarez's submissions. As skewed and bent as a civil case could get. And to those dimwits that keep parroting that civil cases are decided like this all the time - are you really trying to hold up the verdicts of the Family Law Courts as some sort of exemplar of best practise? Having initially been on the wrong end of such a judgement , and having then spent over £15k to get this overturned (she was on Legal aid, 'natch) let me tell you that you CAN oppose subjective, non-evidence based whimsical verdicts by judges and panels. It will take time and persistence, just like we had to show against the press and the FA after the initial lies and propoganda after Hillsborough, and we'll never 'win' per se, just as for every lie exposed about Hillsborough they just kept on moving the goalposts and trotting out the same bile anyway (or telling us to hurry up and get the semi-final played while we were still burying our dead, as in the case of the FA), but WE'LL know we never let one of our own walk alone. And that's why we MUST back Suarez regardless of the spite and posturing of the FA, the media and MUFC.
Evidence? But what evidence? Hearsay! All this has been one-sided hearsay, too. Hearsay is not evidence, even if what Kuyt and Comoli (keep spelling his bloody name wrong!) said may have implicated Suarez. 'A desire to get a rise out of Evra'? Yeah, it did that all right! He went whining to the FA...
Classic british institutional fear and over reaction to accusations of racism esp against black people. The british now carry a burden similar to the germans over WW11
>>>WE'LL know we never let one of our own walk alone. And that's why we MUST back Suarez regardless of the spite and posturing of the FA, the media and MUFC. Donga Darko Bravo... YNWA even if you are found guilty of racist actions.
I know it isn't. When I said 'on the balance of evidence' I meant what was presented to them generally - video footage, witness accounts etc. Sorry, I should have made it clear that I meant it this way. By the way, it appears you have the impression I think Suarez is guilty. I don't, and I've said as much. I said the FA report makes it difficult to come down on either side of the dispute, being based on so many 'probables' as it is.
Same points are being made over and over again. We are going to add up all the people who think he is racist and the ones who think he isn't the majority wins.
"Bravo... YNWA even if you are found guilty of racist actions. " If Suarez had been found guilty in a court of law, fair enough. This self-contradicting, comically one-eyed kangaroo court manned by United assosciates is another thing. Do what Luther Blisset suggested and take it to a criminal court - for BOTH of them.
I've had a better idea, Evra and Suarez have a game of Roulette if it lands on black then Suarez is guilty if it's red then Evra is a liar.
No NO NO you racist! you automatically associated black with guilty. 8 day ban from the forum for you i think! PS and a £40,000 fine
