Wow, just wow. Yes, anyone who reports racism is ashamed of themselves! This is the sort of backward thinking I only expect to read about in history books.
Evra accuses Suarez of racist remarks | Suarez guilty of racial abuse
- Thread starter Feeky Magee
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Wow, just wow. Yes, anyone who reports racism is ashamed of themselves! This is the sort of backward thinking I only expect to read about in history books.
what.... give her a slap?
Probably opening a can of worms but, to me he's not been branded a racist just found to be guilt of using racial slurs. The point is that there is zero tolerance to those kinds of words is to prevent them from being seen as okay by those that are racist and actually hate people of different races.
I don't think you actually need to be a racist to stupidly use racial slurs, just ignorant/stupid - which isn't right as it continues to fuel those that are racist.
I don't think you actually need to be a racist to stupidly use racial slurs, just ignorant/stupid - which isn't right as it continues to fuel those that are racist.
Hardly opening a can of worms.It's the crux of the debate but the moronic element among football fans have taken it to a new level of stupidity.
I don't see it as the crux of the debate all all, I think the context is more important.
Suarez still hasn't apologized and doesn't seem to understand what's wrong with what he's done. This whole myth about there being no racism in Uruguay is just a cover, and it's being accepted by a lot of people. Uruguay has plenty of problems with racism.
Suarez still hasn't apologized and doesn't seem to understand what's wrong with what he's done. This whole myth about there being no racism in Uruguay is just a cover, and it's being accepted by a lot of people. Uruguay has plenty of problems with racism.
Who said there was no racism in Uruguay? Suarez?
They've gone their way by using those terms as endearment, we've gone ours by cutting out all those terms.
Doesn't change the fact it was said here on a football pitch and he's rightly been done for it. As for the argument he was being 'nice' when he said it, therefore it's not a racist term, then why no apology STILL. He's the one lying here, which is why the appeal will fail and he'll likely get a longer ban. Especially as the scousers have really pissed off the Fa and those old idiots won't like it.
Doesn't change the fact it was said here on a football pitch and he's rightly been done for it. As for the argument he was being 'nice' when he said it, therefore it's not a racist term, then why no apology STILL. He's the one lying here, which is why the appeal will fail and he'll likely get a longer ban. Especially as the scousers have really pissed off the Fa and those old idiots won't like it.
Says it all when the likes of you seem disgusted by the "I would" comment
Luis Suarez Specials Length of Ban After Appeal Deadline Betting Odds | Football Specials Betting
SkyBet appear to see the appeal going differently, albeit only marginally.
That "I Support Luis Suarez" chick is obviously on a piss take. That whole video was an act, dialogue so dumb and scripted, just has to be a piss take.
Obviously it's only an opinion but I can't see how it can happen. He's been found guilty and th Fa won't want to back down on the length, and since he's admitted it he won't get off completely.
It'll be interesting. Mind you not as interesting as the scumbag fan' reaction!
mad aint it....one last time for the cheap seats.Alvaro mate...NOBODY GIVES A FLYING feck WHAT IS AND ISN'T ACCEPTABLE IN feckING URUGUAY!!! HE'S IN ENGLAND AND IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE YOU ABSOLUTE feckING CLOWN.
Alvaro mate...NOBODY GIVES A FLYING feck WHAT IS AND ISN'T ACCEPTABLE IN feckING URUGUAY!!! HE'S IN ENGLAND AND IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE YOU ABSOLUTE feckING CLOWN.
Exactly!
Not sure if you saw the thread on rawk asking if anyone could put their friend in touch with someone at the club - apparently they were an expert in cultural linguistics and lived in South America...they wanted to see if they could help...
There's deluded, and there's deluded.
And then there's rawk
In legal terms, it's commonly known as the Poyet defence.
This idea that you can go round calling anyone 'negro' and 'negrito' is apparently acceptable because there are no race issues in Uruguay. The idea is that while it makes reference to color, there's no animosity there based on color, so it's not malicious to make such a reference. It's been claimed by some in this thread, but it seems to me the basis of this argument by the Uruguayans that are defending Suarez, its okay here because we don't hate people of color to point out their color as a negative.
TheFA.com - Independent Regulatory Commission release written reasons in Luis Suarez case
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Discipli...Written Reasons of Regulatory Commission.ashx
That's the full judgement. 500 pages, will probably give it a skim now and proper reading tomorrow.
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Discipli...Written Reasons of Regulatory Commission.ashx
That's the full judgement. 500 pages, will probably give it a skim now and proper reading tomorrow.
Will be posting highlights as I read it.
For example
UN fecking believable
For example
UN fecking believable
Holy feck. That must be a thorough ruling.
Looks like it was Negro he used as well.
Can't wait until someone smarter breaks it down for me.
Edit- Those comments are disgusting. And cheers for that Sharky.
Looks like it was Negro he used as well.
Can't wait until someone smarter breaks it down for me.
Edit- Those comments are disgusting. And cheers for that Sharky.
Fuming just a bit now.
Should extend the ban for a frivolous appeal. That's disgraceful language.
Reading that I am disappointed he only got 8 games.
To be fair that's what Evra/the FA are alleging. Suarez' version of events is as follows
The board found the charge proved but not to the extent that the FA had alleged.
The board found the charge proved but not to the extent that the FA had alleged.
....
All the above looks pretty damning for Suarez. But are his words 'proven' though, or are the quotes merely Evra's testimony?
I can see why the FA went with Evra's version, it's much more detailed.
Wow! This gets the blood boiling! 
Come on, Liverpool. Appeal so the FA can triple the ban!
Come on, Liverpool. Appeal so the FA can triple the ban!
Liverpool should be deducted points for the way they've gone on.
Funny to see the evidence provided by Kuyt is taken as bollocks by the FA.
The word "negro" can have pejorative connotations, as it may be associated with low class
status, ugliness, vulgar behaviour, noisiness, violence, dishonesty, sexual promiscuity etc.
In the River Plate region, for example, "los negros" is sometimes employed as a general
term for the lower classes and especially for lower-class people whose behaviour is
deemed vulgar and not "respectable".
171. Thus, the word can be employed with the intent to offend and to offend in racial terms;
often the word would be appended with further insult, as in the example "negro de
mierda" [shitty black].
172. 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".
Though these terms are often used between friends or relatives, they are not used
exclusively so; thus, an individual might call out to a passer-by "ay, negro, querés jugar
con nosotros?" [hey, blackie, do you want to play with us?]; in all cases, however, when
the word is used in this way it implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such
rapport; naturally, if the term were used with a sneer, then it might carry some of the
negative connotations referred to above.
Very important paragraphs IMO.
status, ugliness, vulgar behaviour, noisiness, violence, dishonesty, sexual promiscuity etc.
In the River Plate region, for example, "los negros" is sometimes employed as a general
term for the lower classes and especially for lower-class people whose behaviour is
deemed vulgar and not "respectable".
171. Thus, the word can be employed with the intent to offend and to offend in racial terms;
often the word would be appended with further insult, as in the example "negro de
mierda" [shitty black].
172. 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".
Though these terms are often used between friends or relatives, they are not used
exclusively so; thus, an individual might call out to a passer-by "ay, negro, querés jugar
con nosotros?" [hey, blackie, do you want to play with us?]; in all cases, however, when
the word is used in this way it implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such
rapport; naturally, if the term were used with a sneer, then it might carry some of the
negative connotations referred to above.
Very important paragraphs IMO.
More interesting tidbits
I've been in law school for four years and have never bothered to read such a long judgement before
I've been in law school for four years and have never bothered to read such a long judgement before
Page 97 onwards is the actual verdict
388. Our findings of fact which are directly relevant to the Charge are as follows:
(1) In response to Mr Evra's question "Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in
golpe" ("fecking hell, why did you kick me"), Mr Suarez said "Porque tu eres
negro" ("Because you are black").
(2) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada"
("say it to me again, I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "No hablo con los
negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").
(3) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada"
("okay, now I think I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "Dale, negro,
negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).
98
(4) When the referee blew his whistle to stop the corner being taken, Mr Suarez used
the word "negro" to Mr Evra.
(5) After the referee had spoken to the players for a second time, and Mr Evra had
said that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him, Mr Suarez said "Por que,
negro?".
We remind ourselves that the test for a breach of Rule E3(1) is an objective test. That
means that it is for us to form our own view as to whether Mr Suarez's words or
behaviour were abusive or insulting. It is not necessary for the FA to prove that Mr Suarez
intended his words or behaviour to be abusive or insulting. We are concerned with
whether the words or behaviour were abusive or insulting when used in a football match
played in England under the FA Rules. Mr McCormick accepted that we should apply
standards that we consider should be applicable to games played under the jurisdiction of
the FA. We are not deciding whether the words or behaviour would have been abusive or
insulting if used in a match in Uruguay. Nevertheless, we have taken account of the fact
that the words were said in Spanish by a Uruguayan player to a French player who speaks
Spanish. We have also had regard to the Spanish language expert evidence about how
particular uses of "negro" and comments using "negro" would or might be understood in
Uruguay. However, ultimately our task is to decide whether in our view the words or
behaviour were abusive or insulting in the circumstances in which they took place in this
match played in England under the FA Rules.
390. Mr Suarez used the word "negro" in his comments to Mr Evra because Mr Evra's skin
colour is black. In our judgment, Mr Suarez's words were insulting when he used the
word "negro" in each of the comments to Mr Evra which we have identified in paragraph
388 above.
391. Taking each of these comments in turn, and referring to the English translation only in this
paragraph (the full Spanish comment being set out in paragraph 388 above):
(1) Mr Suarez used insulting words in telling Mr Evra that he kicked him because he
was black. We do not believe this requires any elaboration. The Spanish language
experts, whose evidence was accepted by Mr Suarez, said that this comment
99
would be interpreted in Uruguay and other regions of Latin America as racially
offensive.
(2) Mr Suarez used insulting words in telling Mr Evra that he did not speak to
blacks. Again, this requires no elaboration. The Spanish language experts said
effectively the same about this comment as they did about the previous
comment.
(3) Mr Suarez used insulting words in saying to Mr Evra "okay, blackie, blackie,
blackie". Here, Mr Suarez was using the word "negro" as part of their argument
in which he was trying to wind up Mr Evra. The Spanish language experts said
that in the context of the previous usages of "negro" and "negros", this usage
would retain its provocative and offensive connotations, even though, in a
different context, the phrase "Dale, negro" could easily be inoffensive in
Uruguay.
(4) Mr Suarez used insulting words when he used the word "negro" when speaking
to Mr Evra just before they were spoken to by the referee for the first time. We do
not know what Mr Suarez said to which he attached the word "negro". However,
given that it was said as part of the continuing confrontation and argument
between the two players, and following the three previous comments when the
word was used in an insulting way, we find that it was also insulting on this
fourth occasion. For a Uruguayan to address a black opponent who understands
Spanish as "negro" in a football match in England, in the context in which the
word was used, is insulting.
(5) Mr Suarez used insulting words when he said to Mr Evra "Why, black?" after the
referee had spoken to them for the second time and Mr Evra had said that he did
not want Mr Suarez to touch him. Again, given that this was said as part of the
continuing confrontation and argument between the two players, it followed the
four previous comments using the word “negro” and, furthermore, given that
Mr Evra had made clear that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him, in all the
circumstances the use of the word was insulting on this occasion also.
100
392. In total, Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros" seven times in the penalty area. On
each occasion, the words were insulting. On each occasion, Mr Suarez breached Rule
E3(1). Accordingly, the Charge is proved.
393. Having found the Charge proved in that Mr Suarez's use of the word "negro" or "negros"
was insulting, we did not find it necessary to consider whether they were also abusive.
394. We make clear that the Charge was not proved in respect of Mr Suarez pinching Mr Evra's
skin. Whilst we considered that action to be reprehensible, we were not persuaded that it
amounted to abusive or insulting behaviour within the meaning of those words in Rule
E3(1). Accordingly, no issue arose as to whether any breach of Rule E3(1) by pinching
included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin, colour or race. In the event, this decision
made no difference to our finding that the Charge was proved. It might conceivably have
made a difference to penalty had we found a breach of Rule E3(1) by pinching and that
this included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin, colour or race. However, that situation
did not arise.
etc etc
388. Our findings of fact which are directly relevant to the Charge are as follows:
(1) In response to Mr Evra's question "Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in
golpe" ("fecking hell, why did you kick me"), Mr Suarez said "Porque tu eres
negro" ("Because you are black").
(2) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada"
("say it to me again, I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "No hablo con los
negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").
(3) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada"
("okay, now I think I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "Dale, negro,
negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).
98
(4) When the referee blew his whistle to stop the corner being taken, Mr Suarez used
the word "negro" to Mr Evra.
(5) After the referee had spoken to the players for a second time, and Mr Evra had
said that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him, Mr Suarez said "Por que,
negro?".
We remind ourselves that the test for a breach of Rule E3(1) is an objective test. That
means that it is for us to form our own view as to whether Mr Suarez's words or
behaviour were abusive or insulting. It is not necessary for the FA to prove that Mr Suarez
intended his words or behaviour to be abusive or insulting. We are concerned with
whether the words or behaviour were abusive or insulting when used in a football match
played in England under the FA Rules. Mr McCormick accepted that we should apply
standards that we consider should be applicable to games played under the jurisdiction of
the FA. We are not deciding whether the words or behaviour would have been abusive or
insulting if used in a match in Uruguay. Nevertheless, we have taken account of the fact
that the words were said in Spanish by a Uruguayan player to a French player who speaks
Spanish. We have also had regard to the Spanish language expert evidence about how
particular uses of "negro" and comments using "negro" would or might be understood in
Uruguay. However, ultimately our task is to decide whether in our view the words or
behaviour were abusive or insulting in the circumstances in which they took place in this
match played in England under the FA Rules.
390. Mr Suarez used the word "negro" in his comments to Mr Evra because Mr Evra's skin
colour is black. In our judgment, Mr Suarez's words were insulting when he used the
word "negro" in each of the comments to Mr Evra which we have identified in paragraph
388 above.
391. Taking each of these comments in turn, and referring to the English translation only in this
paragraph (the full Spanish comment being set out in paragraph 388 above):
(1) Mr Suarez used insulting words in telling Mr Evra that he kicked him because he
was black. We do not believe this requires any elaboration. The Spanish language
experts, whose evidence was accepted by Mr Suarez, said that this comment
99
would be interpreted in Uruguay and other regions of Latin America as racially
offensive.
(2) Mr Suarez used insulting words in telling Mr Evra that he did not speak to
blacks. Again, this requires no elaboration. The Spanish language experts said
effectively the same about this comment as they did about the previous
comment.
(3) Mr Suarez used insulting words in saying to Mr Evra "okay, blackie, blackie,
blackie". Here, Mr Suarez was using the word "negro" as part of their argument
in which he was trying to wind up Mr Evra. The Spanish language experts said
that in the context of the previous usages of "negro" and "negros", this usage
would retain its provocative and offensive connotations, even though, in a
different context, the phrase "Dale, negro" could easily be inoffensive in
Uruguay.
(4) Mr Suarez used insulting words when he used the word "negro" when speaking
to Mr Evra just before they were spoken to by the referee for the first time. We do
not know what Mr Suarez said to which he attached the word "negro". However,
given that it was said as part of the continuing confrontation and argument
between the two players, and following the three previous comments when the
word was used in an insulting way, we find that it was also insulting on this
fourth occasion. For a Uruguayan to address a black opponent who understands
Spanish as "negro" in a football match in England, in the context in which the
word was used, is insulting.
(5) Mr Suarez used insulting words when he said to Mr Evra "Why, black?" after the
referee had spoken to them for the second time and Mr Evra had said that he did
not want Mr Suarez to touch him. Again, given that this was said as part of the
continuing confrontation and argument between the two players, it followed the
four previous comments using the word “negro” and, furthermore, given that
Mr Evra had made clear that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him, in all the
circumstances the use of the word was insulting on this occasion also.
100
392. In total, Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros" seven times in the penalty area. On
each occasion, the words were insulting. On each occasion, Mr Suarez breached Rule
E3(1). Accordingly, the Charge is proved.
393. Having found the Charge proved in that Mr Suarez's use of the word "negro" or "negros"
was insulting, we did not find it necessary to consider whether they were also abusive.
394. We make clear that the Charge was not proved in respect of Mr Suarez pinching Mr Evra's
skin. Whilst we considered that action to be reprehensible, we were not persuaded that it
amounted to abusive or insulting behaviour within the meaning of those words in Rule
E3(1). Accordingly, no issue arose as to whether any breach of Rule E3(1) by pinching
included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin, colour or race. In the event, this decision
made no difference to our finding that the Charge was proved. It might conceivably have
made a difference to penalty had we found a breach of Rule E3(1) by pinching and that
this included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin, colour or race. However, that situation
did not arise.
etc etc
Wow. Suarez is a dickhead.
Can't see Evra making up all of these kind of allegations.
Can't see Evra making up all of these kind of allegations.
This bit in particular is important:
Mr Evra stated that the goalmouth incident started when he addressed Mr Suarez,
beginning with the phrase "Concha de tu hermana". According to the experts, the literal
translation is "your sister's cnut" and it can be taken as a general swear word expressing
anger, although the word "concha" is not as taboo as the English word "cnut". It is thus
equivalent to "fecking hell" or "feck me". If directed at someone in particular, it can also be
understood as "[you] son of a bitch".
179. Assuming Mr Suarez responded with "Porque tu eres negro", this would be interpreted in
Uruguay and other regions of Latin America as racially offensive. When the noun is used
in the way described by Mr Evra, it is not a friendly form of address, but is used in an
insulting way: it is given as the rationale for an act of physical aggression (the foul), as if
the person deserved such an attack since they are black. The term is not being used as in
paragraphs 172 and 173 above, but in the sense of paragraph 171
Mr Evra stated that the goalmouth incident started when he addressed Mr Suarez,
beginning with the phrase "Concha de tu hermana". According to the experts, the literal
translation is "your sister's cnut" and it can be taken as a general swear word expressing
anger, although the word "concha" is not as taboo as the English word "cnut". It is thus
equivalent to "fecking hell" or "feck me". If directed at someone in particular, it can also be
understood as "[you] son of a bitch".
179. Assuming Mr Suarez responded with "Porque tu eres negro", this would be interpreted in
Uruguay and other regions of Latin America as racially offensive. When the noun is used
in the way described by Mr Evra, it is not a friendly form of address, but is used in an
insulting way: it is given as the rationale for an act of physical aggression (the foul), as if
the person deserved such an attack since they are black. The term is not being used as in
paragraphs 172 and 173 above, but in the sense of paragraph 171
Also I've just realised its 500 paragraphs not 500 pages
Clearly just mates talking........8 games wasn't enough.
A list of the proven offences relevant to the 8 game ban:
But,,,,, but,,, its a term of endearment.
The key for me is Suarez admitted saying Negro and the version of events both started the same way. Once that was established a ban was more than likely, the severity of the ban depends on what was said in the conversation but the way the clubs acted in the aftermath may have influenced the FA in deciding who to trust.
Also that "sudaca" word was completely made up. fecking idiots spreading shit like that.