Did he say he 'kicked him because he's a negro' or 'I don't talk to negros' or something like that ? I thought thats what Kuyt said ?
Suarez *Evidence*
- Thread starter Magic Ted
- Start date
-
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
-
No - Suarez targetted his attack on Evra because he's a twat, and made the mistake of mentioning he's black. I've seen the 'clash' five minutes before the 'incident' where Evra was writhing around in 'agony' holding his knee. It looked like their knees clashed and Evra went down like a 6 pound lump hammer had been forcefully applied to his patella.
jason roberts is due a kicking for coming out and getting involved in something thats nothing to do with him so next visit to ewood (seeing blackburn are going down) he should be sorted out.
Go on then wums call me something!
Naughty naughty MITO!
Like every rent-a-quote, Jason was asked for his opinion and he gave it from his position of ignorance of the facts.
Can't hate him for it; he just needs 'education', a bit like real racists...
Evra wasn't the only player doing that. I recall Downing going to ground like he had been shot.
Agreed - this rolling around trying to get an opponent a card is appalling. The ref should be alive to the challenge, the outcome is immaterial as to whether a caution is given...
Cannot stand the play acting or waving cards at the ref. Did you see Stoke's Cameron Jerome waving for a red card against Wigan the other night? Cheating ball bag! Cannot stand that. I remember Rafael doing something similar and Rio telling him off. Not saying Man Utd are perfect when it comes to ref's and play acting, but I wish they could be more like Rio that day all the time.
Did you see Mancini doing it against Liverpool the other day aswell ? I really don't like this card waving bollocks.
"considered racially offensive in Uruguay and other regions in of Latin America" according to experts."
What utter selective ****e. The same 'experts' from Manchester (who have since been roundly criticised by actual experts from South America itself) gave as much weight to the fact that 'negro' could have been used in a concilitery manner. Suarez's reward for quoting this fact was that the panel deemed that as he doesn't speak much English and used the word concilitary he must have made up this interpretation when he read the expert report). But lets's get to the gist here - the noble cause of anti-racism has been wonderfully furthered by using some greasy, rat-faced dago, suspending the presumption of innocence against an accused man; bamboozling all any anamoly his evidence with an assumption that he must be lying with his hesitance in understanding the procedure and questions he was asked in a language he barely speaks; and accepting that every contradiction, inconsistency and anamoly in his accuser's account could be coached and trained out of him by an FA that acted as the prosection, but withheld vital evidence from the defence until the actual afternoon of the hearing.
Mike dennis has been on today saying that because every single commentator is against Liverpool, then ergo they are wrong. Er, excuse me, since when did weight of numbers ever prove the veracity of evidence? as said, those very same papers and journalists (especially The Express) were the same ones that immediately urged the club to condeemn its fans for breaking down the gates at Hillsborough, as there was 'irrefutable' evidence from the police and FA that we did, and when that lie was exposed the self same papers were then quick to latch on to the smokescreen of 'urinating on brave coppers' and 'picking the pockets of the dead'. 'Sorry seems to be the hardest word' indeed, as your paper, for one Mike, has never apologised at all. And while you're at it bud, look up the editorial in the Express by Charles Moore at the time, who somehow linked the resistance on Merseyside to accept the initial, vile accusations with the national dock strike at the time. Unprincipled opportunism masked as a concern about a cause then too.
But, for all people at Anfield are saying about moving on, it won't. A precedent has been set that on the uncollaborated accusation of one man (who must, apparently, be black) you can suspend all the tenets of English Common Law to pillory another man (who mustn't be wholly black, or it doesn't work) especially if he is dodgy foreigner who hasn't had the good sense to learn the language of the country he had been in for less than a year when he was 'tried'. It's the worst of all worlds now - that 'trial' was full of more holes than swiss cheese, as evidenced by the fact that even the prematurely ejeculating Lawton in the Independent, who was extolling it before he'd read it beased on the number of pages in it, have now shifted to calling detractors who've read the whole document as being 'nit-picking'. It's now in limbo-land as an opportunity to smash this ducking-stool justice in a proper court (never mind appealing to the same United-controlled FA) has been turned into an open-goal were our blowhard opponents can simply say 'You're not appealing 'cause you've got no grounds'.
Luis should walk and Kenny should resign. They should then both take the FA to the courts themselves. Oh, and please, please God, someone in the CPS decide to take both Suarez and Evra to criminal court (as Luther Blisset wishes) and let's have the evidence truly tested. THAT would serve the cause on anti-racism at lot better than lynching the dirty, non-English speaking gaucho in the cause of race relations.
What utter selective ****e. The same 'experts' from Manchester (who have since been roundly criticised by actual experts from South America itself) gave as much weight to the fact that 'negro' could have been used in a concilitery manner. Suarez's reward for quoting this fact was that the panel deemed that as he doesn't speak much English and used the word concilitary he must have made up this interpretation when he read the expert report). But lets's get to the gist here - the noble cause of anti-racism has been wonderfully furthered by using some greasy, rat-faced dago, suspending the presumption of innocence against an accused man; bamboozling all any anamoly his evidence with an assumption that he must be lying with his hesitance in understanding the procedure and questions he was asked in a language he barely speaks; and accepting that every contradiction, inconsistency and anamoly in his accuser's account could be coached and trained out of him by an FA that acted as the prosection, but withheld vital evidence from the defence until the actual afternoon of the hearing.
Mike dennis has been on today saying that because every single commentator is against Liverpool, then ergo they are wrong. Er, excuse me, since when did weight of numbers ever prove the veracity of evidence? as said, those very same papers and journalists (especially The Express) were the same ones that immediately urged the club to condeemn its fans for breaking down the gates at Hillsborough, as there was 'irrefutable' evidence from the police and FA that we did, and when that lie was exposed the self same papers were then quick to latch on to the smokescreen of 'urinating on brave coppers' and 'picking the pockets of the dead'. 'Sorry seems to be the hardest word' indeed, as your paper, for one Mike, has never apologised at all. And while you're at it bud, look up the editorial in the Express by Charles Moore at the time, who somehow linked the resistance on Merseyside to accept the initial, vile accusations with the national dock strike at the time. Unprincipled opportunism masked as a concern about a cause then too.
But, for all people at Anfield are saying about moving on, it won't. A precedent has been set that on the uncollaborated accusation of one man (who must, apparently, be black) you can suspend all the tenets of English Common Law to pillory another man (who mustn't be wholly black, or it doesn't work) especially if he is dodgy foreigner who hasn't had the good sense to learn the language of the country he had been in for less than a year when he was 'tried'. It's the worst of all worlds now - that 'trial' was full of more holes than swiss cheese, as evidenced by the fact that even the prematurely ejeculating Lawton in the Independent, who was extolling it before he'd read it beased on the number of pages in it, have now shifted to calling detractors who've read the whole document as being 'nit-picking'. It's now in limbo-land as an opportunity to smash this ducking-stool justice in a proper court (never mind appealing to the same United-controlled FA) has been turned into an open-goal were our blowhard opponents can simply say 'You're not appealing 'cause you've got no grounds'.
Luis should walk and Kenny should resign. They should then both take the FA to the courts themselves. Oh, and please, please God, someone in the CPS decide to take both Suarez and Evra to criminal court (as Luther Blisset wishes) and let's have the evidence truly tested. THAT would serve the cause on anti-racism at lot better than lynching the dirty, non-English speaking gaucho in the cause of race relations.
downing dived again v city btw... if you read marriner's statments in the 115 page report its a blueprint for refs.
"didn't hear"
"didn't see"
"told them the game was going well"
I actually translate it as I didn't want to know.... Refs steadfastly refuse to give a card for dives unless its some well known guy, away from home and the card will get applause form the partisan crowd. the amount of times (and its safe form me to target him) suarez has been told to get up is ridiculous. either pull out a card or blow the whistle.. refs should not be allowed to tell a player to get up.
we then had the ludicrous case of phil dowd as 4th official who proceeded to take 5 short bullet points on a scrap of paper... i mean come on he's another pro ref who should know how to write a "report" why are 4th officals who are after all full refs not empowered and indeed forced to write report, flag issues and generally act as a PROPER offical?
why are they on a sideline tlkaing to managers? why are they not in a stand reviewing tv footage to help make a call?
"didn't hear"
"didn't see"
"told them the game was going well"
I actually translate it as I didn't want to know.... Refs steadfastly refuse to give a card for dives unless its some well known guy, away from home and the card will get applause form the partisan crowd. the amount of times (and its safe form me to target him) suarez has been told to get up is ridiculous. either pull out a card or blow the whistle.. refs should not be allowed to tell a player to get up.
we then had the ludicrous case of phil dowd as 4th official who proceeded to take 5 short bullet points on a scrap of paper... i mean come on he's another pro ref who should know how to write a "report" why are 4th officals who are after all full refs not empowered and indeed forced to write report, flag issues and generally act as a PROPER offical?
why are they on a sideline tlkaing to managers? why are they not in a stand reviewing tv footage to help make a call?
Did he say he 'kicked him because he's a negro' or 'I don't talk to negros' or something like that ? I thought thats what Kuyt said ?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! FFS, how many times! The one, undisputed time Suarez said negro was in reply to 'Don't touch me Sudaca" to which he replied "Por que, negro?". It has two interpretations, por que 'why' and 'because'. Kuyt and Commolli, who don't speak the Latin American Spanish, assumed he meant 'because'. Suarez mainted he ALWAYS said 'why'?
That's buried in the 115 pages if you care to read it. So is evra's three initial accusations about what and how many times Evra said he was called '******' and 'Blackie' - before he was coached out of that before the hearing by the FA after they'd heard Suarez's admission of using the word negro. Unfortunately the tapes of those interviews between the FA and evra are not available. Don't be surprised if they go the same way as the CCTV tapes that police said were 'stolen' from the control room at Hillsborough.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! FFS, how many times! The one, undisputed time Suarez said negro was in reply to 'Don't touch me Sudaca" to which he replied "Por que, negro?". It has two interpretations, por que 'why' and 'because'. Kuyt and Commolli, who don't speak the Latin American Spanish, assumed he meant 'because'. Suarez mainted he ALWAYS said 'why'?
That's buried in the 115 pages if you care to read it. So is evra's three initial accusations about what and how many times Evra said he was called '******' and 'Blackie' - before he was coached out of that before the hearing by the FA after they'd heard Suarez's admission of using the word negro. Unfortunately the tapes of those interviews between the FA and evra are not available. Don't be surprised if they go the same way as the CCTV tapes that police said were 'stolen' from the control room at Hillsborough.
Is this KPR in disguise? Are you implying that the experts that were consulted since they teach at at the University of Manchester that they are not impartial.
. Their CV's as described by the FA are impressive and not to be sneered at just because their view of what was apparently said doesn't agree with yours or other commentators.
i don't hate him i merely want to see someone drive their boot though his achilles then bend over him and speak in Spanish too him and see how he reacts? will he run to canal+
come on then someone take issue with that!
come on then someone take issue with that!
Is this KPR in disguise? Are you implying that the experts that were consulted since they teach at at the University of Manchester that they are not impartial.
His point is that the experts suggested that the word 'negro' can be used concilitary, as well as offensively.
Yeah, I saw that Eric. It's bad enough when a player does it, never mind a f..king manager
I think he is implying that the experts the FA used where not impartial as he has before claimed this was a witchhunt against Suarez and Liverpool.
You must log in or register to see images
. Besides didn't the FA decide that after viewing the TV footage that the context was in their opinion not concilitary?
Suarez is guilty of making racist insults. He has even admitted it. Ignorance is not an excuse. If you go to live in a different country it is down to you to learn the laws and culture of that country.
Do I think Saurez is a racist? No, but he was right to be punished for making comments deemed racist in Great Britain. What is acceptable in Uruguay is not always the same here. Saurez not a child, he's an adult therefore he should know better, he is old enough to educate himself on foreign cultures.
I dare anyone to go to a country like the United Arab Emirates and ignore their culture and laws.
He is a fantastic player, so I hope he learns a lesson from this and we don't see a repeat of this incident. I for one will miss him on the pitch!
Do I think Saurez is a racist? No, but he was right to be punished for making comments deemed racist in Great Britain. What is acceptable in Uruguay is not always the same here. Saurez not a child, he's an adult therefore he should know better, he is old enough to educate himself on foreign cultures.
I dare anyone to go to a country like the United Arab Emirates and ignore their culture and laws.
He is a fantastic player, so I hope he learns a lesson from this and we don't see a repeat of this incident. I for one will miss him on the pitch!