Yet more indications the FA have been incompetent yet again. I never doubted it, there are lies in statements and no other evidence yet.. never doubted guilty not with a Fergie lover on the panel for a start
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
-
Yet more indications the FA have been incompetent yet again. I never doubted it, there are lies in statements and no other evidence yet.. never doubted guilty not with a Fergie lover on the panel for a start
Found this very good comment in the Independent
robert.siddall1
Collapse
Having read the report in its entirety I surprised that anyone can come to the same conclusions the FA did. The primary justification for finding the case proved was that they believed that Evra was a credible witness and Suarez was not.
Whether Evra lied is not in dispute, he claim he was called a n****r but was in fact called "negro" (not a racist term in Spanish, similar to calling a thin person "skinny"). Either Evra learn't just enough Spanish to be able tell Suarez "to go f*** his sister's c***" but not enough to understand that the term negro was not a pejorative or he did understand Spanish sufficiently but knew that being called negro wouldn't be considered "racist" enough so told all parties he was called n****r. In either case he changed his story speaking in English to the panel, his credibility should have been considered dubious at best.
In addition he told the FA that he was called the term 5 times but told the French media he was called the term more than 10 times. This is not an honest mistake, this is lying. The report makes it very clear that it is the repeated use of the term that made them believe that the term was mean't to offend.
Evra, despite ManU fans protestations to the contrary, has been involved in similar cases before and in one of them Evra was banned and fined for HIS actions.
I reality I suspect that Evra's account is probably accurate and Suarez probably did change his story. My guess would be that the first time Suarez used "negro" he probably mean't it in exactly the way he said he did. Evra, however, probably thought he had just been called n****r. Suarez may not of known this but it was undoubtedly clear that Evra found the term offensive so he kept using it, and this I agree is very naughty. I think when Evra spoke to the ref about being called a f***ing black the penny dropped for Suarez and he stopped saying it after that. Since Evra had also referred to Suarez as a South American, using it as a pejorative, and therefore contravening the same rule they are both culpable. This should have been the conclusion that the FA came to and should have told them both to bugger off and hit them BOTH with a hefty fine for wasting their time.
I'm not surprised LFC are being warned off appealing the decision, a real court will show the FA in a very bad light and it is bad for the game. An eight game ban though is very excessive for what is essentially multi-lingual-handbags and will have a serious effect on Liverpool's season. Suarez is arguably Liverpool's best player whereas Manu wouldn't miss Evra, this is certainly my main reason to wanting to see LFC fight this judgement tooth and nail, if it was a second rate player I probably wouldn't give
robert.siddall1
Collapse
Having read the report in its entirety I surprised that anyone can come to the same conclusions the FA did. The primary justification for finding the case proved was that they believed that Evra was a credible witness and Suarez was not.
Whether Evra lied is not in dispute, he claim he was called a n****r but was in fact called "negro" (not a racist term in Spanish, similar to calling a thin person "skinny"). Either Evra learn't just enough Spanish to be able tell Suarez "to go f*** his sister's c***" but not enough to understand that the term negro was not a pejorative or he did understand Spanish sufficiently but knew that being called negro wouldn't be considered "racist" enough so told all parties he was called n****r. In either case he changed his story speaking in English to the panel, his credibility should have been considered dubious at best.
In addition he told the FA that he was called the term 5 times but told the French media he was called the term more than 10 times. This is not an honest mistake, this is lying. The report makes it very clear that it is the repeated use of the term that made them believe that the term was mean't to offend.
Evra, despite ManU fans protestations to the contrary, has been involved in similar cases before and in one of them Evra was banned and fined for HIS actions.
I reality I suspect that Evra's account is probably accurate and Suarez probably did change his story. My guess would be that the first time Suarez used "negro" he probably mean't it in exactly the way he said he did. Evra, however, probably thought he had just been called n****r. Suarez may not of known this but it was undoubtedly clear that Evra found the term offensive so he kept using it, and this I agree is very naughty. I think when Evra spoke to the ref about being called a f***ing black the penny dropped for Suarez and he stopped saying it after that. Since Evra had also referred to Suarez as a South American, using it as a pejorative, and therefore contravening the same rule they are both culpable. This should have been the conclusion that the FA came to and should have told them both to bugger off and hit them BOTH with a hefty fine for wasting their time.
I'm not surprised LFC are being warned off appealing the decision, a real court will show the FA in a very bad light and it is bad for the game. An eight game ban though is very excessive for what is essentially multi-lingual-handbags and will have a serious effect on Liverpool's season. Suarez is arguably Liverpool's best player whereas Manu wouldn't miss Evra, this is certainly my main reason to wanting to see LFC fight this judgement tooth and nail, if it was a second rate player I probably wouldn't give
a bit annoyed the "powers that be" moved my deliberately separate article into this one. It was fine to "close my article" but not move it...
I'll blog it instead so yah boo to the mods.
IMO the full text is a little disappointing in how it sets out what i thought was a good timeline of events and then proceeds to ignore it and start adding up how many words suarez might have said, in fact each word they added (from no evidence really) pushed towards an interesting but clearly unwritten ruling that somehow allowed them to set a match abn then double it for the type of offesen then double it again. I would have hoped for a much better logic in the sentancing part but as i did suspect the sentance had little to do with the rule and more to do with politics.
What is important though is that the timeline of evidence lends itself to a hypothesis or two... I have a qualification in forensic engineering (or the study of failures/accidents and testimony in court to you guys)
I found that quite reasonable and i found the testing of said hypothesies easonable too... I didn't find the treatment of evidence in conclusion reasoned i nthe end however.
It was clear something happened but totally unclear to the extent of what happeened of important detail. Further it was quite clear to me at least that the referee's report was not a statement of fact but rather a report of an incident. Dalglish and comolli really did poorly out of it IMO, they are in fact the ones who gave conflicting second hand details out not suarez and they deliberately kept him away form the ref. I think that both parties were goading each other and i think suarez said something. I think appying a 4 match ban would have been ok and then going on a fresh offensvie on the publicity side using suarez to help as he would have done so.
The leaking of evidence is also clear for all to see though from whom is not known generally..... All in all a difficult case for the FA to deal with but not one that the result could be sustained from. I think they've gotten it wrong and it won't go away. That's no reflection on evra or utd as I've no probelm there at this point, I think the FA have erred in trying to come down hard on an offense without good supporting evidence but its only if you read it and see how amteurish liverpool were.... well put it llike this if our team admin had not been listening in and the ref had come into our dresing room looking for a statement then there would be a lot less damage done to the case.... others may feel thats a good thing to stop a cover up.... As for me I think evra has had to admit to being a bit of a clown as well to put his case over and suarez looks every inch of the type of guy I suspected wehn i saw him pull rafaels hair sneakily at old trafford. LFc need to learn hard lessons from the case as it is the management who created the issue even if we are kind enough to say it was a language thing. 4 matches, quite fair... 6 matches harsh given the actual evidence... 8 matches is politics and i think it could go to a higher court someplace.
I'll blog it instead so yah boo to the mods.
IMO the full text is a little disappointing in how it sets out what i thought was a good timeline of events and then proceeds to ignore it and start adding up how many words suarez might have said, in fact each word they added (from no evidence really) pushed towards an interesting but clearly unwritten ruling that somehow allowed them to set a match abn then double it for the type of offesen then double it again. I would have hoped for a much better logic in the sentancing part but as i did suspect the sentance had little to do with the rule and more to do with politics.
What is important though is that the timeline of evidence lends itself to a hypothesis or two... I have a qualification in forensic engineering (or the study of failures/accidents and testimony in court to you guys)
I found that quite reasonable and i found the testing of said hypothesies easonable too... I didn't find the treatment of evidence in conclusion reasoned i nthe end however.
It was clear something happened but totally unclear to the extent of what happeened of important detail. Further it was quite clear to me at least that the referee's report was not a statement of fact but rather a report of an incident. Dalglish and comolli really did poorly out of it IMO, they are in fact the ones who gave conflicting second hand details out not suarez and they deliberately kept him away form the ref. I think that both parties were goading each other and i think suarez said something. I think appying a 4 match ban would have been ok and then going on a fresh offensvie on the publicity side using suarez to help as he would have done so.
The leaking of evidence is also clear for all to see though from whom is not known generally..... All in all a difficult case for the FA to deal with but not one that the result could be sustained from. I think they've gotten it wrong and it won't go away. That's no reflection on evra or utd as I've no probelm there at this point, I think the FA have erred in trying to come down hard on an offense without good supporting evidence but its only if you read it and see how amteurish liverpool were.... well put it llike this if our team admin had not been listening in and the ref had come into our dresing room looking for a statement then there would be a lot less damage done to the case.... others may feel thats a good thing to stop a cover up.... As for me I think evra has had to admit to being a bit of a clown as well to put his case over and suarez looks every inch of the type of guy I suspected wehn i saw him pull rafaels hair sneakily at old trafford. LFc need to learn hard lessons from the case as it is the management who created the issue even if we are kind enough to say it was a language thing. 4 matches, quite fair... 6 matches harsh given the actual evidence... 8 matches is politics and i think it could go to a higher court someplace.
Why are you posting a comment from another fan? This has no more authority anyone else here on this forum. It is all opinion.
Despite all these screamings and shoutings, the club will wisely accpet the verdict, apologise to Evra and move on. I do not think the club is that stupid to jeopardise their world wide reputation for the sake of one rogue player who could not keep his mouth shut.
You have very little understanding of corporate America if you feel that FSG would be unwilling to take legal action against either the FA or Evra.
The FA say Suarez is not a racist. Evra says that he does not believe that Suarez is a racist. Both the senior staff and the players of Liverpool state that Suarez is nota racist. Hence FSG will have no problem with squaring action to defend S uarez with their stance on racism.
keep trying Christian, one day you may actually get your 'facts' right
Because i belive that he has made some good points and i never said it was fact...you moron.
Don't worry, mate. Christiansmith is a first class window licker with a moral and intellectual deficit that only oxygen thieves usually achieve
The concept of reasoned debate long since passed him by, a bit like fashion, anti-perspirant and washing...
The concept of reasoned debate long since passed him by, a bit like fashion, anti-perspirant and washing...
Afternoon,
I have no problem with you posting views of others. However his view seems slightly strange. Where the cut off happens at the end is he saying he wouldn't be bothered if it was a fringe player ? If so then he loses all credibility.
There are a few other things he has got wrong in his point aswell but I can't really be arsed for this to get too involved in that as it will rumble on and on.
Christian - the Americans would no doubt try to sue the FA if they feel strongly enough about it, however Dave, it would be highly doubtfull in my opinion that they would try to sue Evra.
Good fun this Suarez / Evra thing isn't it
I am afraid you are the moron for copying some other fan's opinion and think it is any good. These views have been aired many times here and have not added anything new.
As I said, I would wait to see what the owners do but I would be very surprised if they fight the FA, not after such a comprehensive report. There has only been one loser in all of this and it has been the club not Suarez (whose reputation has been tainted a long time ago , not Evra not the FA.
Anyway, my team for tonight against City:-
Jones, Flanagan, Robinson, Carragher, Amoo, Wilson, Wisdom, Coady, Suzo, Shelvey and Sterling. I don't think we should name any substitutes, but we should bring Jones off at half time, withdraw Carra after an hour and then Shelvey on 75 mins, and for the last 10 minutes take the rest off and just leave 11 # 7 Suarez shirts on the goalline.
Jones, Flanagan, Robinson, Carragher, Amoo, Wilson, Wisdom, Coady, Suzo, Shelvey and Sterling. I don't think we should name any substitutes, but we should bring Jones off at half time, withdraw Carra after an hour and then Shelvey on 75 mins, and for the last 10 minutes take the rest off and just leave 11 # 7 Suarez shirts on the goalline.
'Course you would .
Think you're getting yourself confused with that other Liverpool player ( and his 5 mates ) and a DJ with insufficient access to records by The Pet Shop Boys
"There has only been one loser in all of this and it has been the club not Suarez (whose reputation has been tainted a long time ago , not Evra not the FA."
All the more reason to take it to a competent court and get Evra and Ferguson in the dock. And the FA themselves, whilst we're at it.
And FIFA needs to step in and replace the corrupt figures in all of this charade such as \ferguson with figures of a more honest standing, like Blatter or Jack Warner.
All the more reason to take it to a competent court and get Evra and Ferguson in the dock. And the FA themselves, whilst we're at it.
And FIFA needs to step in and replace the corrupt figures in all of this charade such as \ferguson with figures of a more honest standing, like Blatter or Jack Warner.
I know I am winning an argument when the other side resorts to swear words...
When the club and/or Suarez apologise to Evra, I expect all of you scousers fans to come here and say that Christiansmith has been right all along.
As the previous poster has said, this is great fun at the expense of the scousers...
Either they lose their best striker for 8 matches or they are forced to eat humble pie and apologise to the great Evra...
This is what I mean. You prove my point. I do not have to use swear words hidden with *s. My argument stands by itself.
"it would be highly doubtfull in my opinion that they would try to sue Evra."
And why is your legal opinion so ****ing important? Are you another United-associated QC? If so, just wait there a moment or two and you'll be appointed to an 'independent' commission by the FA when Martin Luther Ferguson gets Evra to stitch up another opponent.
And why is your legal opinion so ****ing important? Are you another United-associated QC? If so, just wait there a moment or two and you'll be appointed to an 'independent' commission by the FA when Martin Luther Ferguson gets Evra to stitch up another opponent.
What do you expect from this particular poster? Most of his posts do not make much sense anyway....