That'll wind them up.
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.
That'll wind them up.
bsc's quote from page 97 looks conclusive. However, it troubles me that the ref's testimony isn't mentioned, and also that, effectively, the whole business looks like 'one man's words against another's'. I certainly think Suarez is guilty, but we could do with more impartial evidence.
Slippery feck!
So basically a one game ban for every time he used the word. It's hard to see how they came to an 8 game ban when take in context with the above reasoning for their decision, it should have been much longer.
And for me, the most important bit:
First, there are some black people in Uruguay and other areas of Latin America who object
to the use of the word "negro" as a term of address, as they say it highlights skin colour
when this should be irrelevant. This is the use of the word "negro" (ie as a term of address)
which Mr Suarez contended before us is acceptable, yet his view appears to be contentious
with some in Uruguay and Latin America.
201. Secondly, use of the word "negro" can be seen as offensive or inoffensive in Uruguay and
Latin America. It appears to depend, largely, on the context. It might be seen by some as
inoffensive when used to address relatives, friends or passers-by. However, we note the
experts' comment that in all cases 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 negative connotations. It is important to examine closely the
context in which it is used, and the way in which it is used, in order to decide whether it is
being used offensively and offensively in racial terms.
First, there are some black people in Uruguay and other areas of Latin America who object
to the use of the word "negro" as a term of address, as they say it highlights skin colour
when this should be irrelevant. This is the use of the word "negro" (ie as a term of address)
which Mr Suarez contended before us is acceptable, yet his view appears to be contentious
with some in Uruguay and Latin America.
201. Secondly, use of the word "negro" can be seen as offensive or inoffensive in Uruguay and
Latin America. It appears to depend, largely, on the context. It might be seen by some as
inoffensive when used to address relatives, friends or passers-by. However, we note the
experts' comment that in all cases 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 negative connotations. It is important to examine closely the
context in which it is used, and the way in which it is used, in order to decide whether it is
being used offensively and offensively in racial terms.
I thought Suarez wasnt racist and it was ignorance.
This makes it look really bad.
What a tit
This makes it look really bad.
What a tit
Suarez only admits to this one though and says it was a term of endearment.
However considering the highly charged nature of the match I find it hard to believe that it was used as endearment.
Literally it translates to "Why blackie?". And I feel this is what Suarez meant.
From the Guardian's Owen Gibson:
Owen Gibson@owen_g
Independent panel found Evra to be a "credible witness" and Suarez to be "unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance".
Owen Gibson@owen_g
Independent panel found Evra to be a "credible witness" and Suarez to be "unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance".
That's not going to go down too well in Liverpool.
Unsurprisingly, Liverpool forum members have totally dismissed the panel's findings...again.
I can't wait for Liverpool's response.
This is what happens when you call a fella who looks like he's been sleeping on a park bench all night as a witness.
I suspect most of this is going to send them into mental overdrive. So many different things to not read, misread, ignore and lie about, it must be hard trying to juggle all of that together.
RAWK have closed the shutters
However, this, from a Liverpool board:
The findings reject that Evra accused Marriner of booking him because he was black - that was in Kuyts evidence but the panel found that he'd misheard Evra telling Marriner that he was being called black by Suarez
This makes that statement making out Evra was not a credible witness oh so much more stupid. (I know, I didn't think it was possible either!)
One thing I find interesting in this is that it looks undeniable that he did use the word "negro" and not "negrito"
Given that they have taken Evra's word (which may well be a seperate matter, but they have), then they have given him an 8 match ban for saying he kicked him because he was black etc etc.
That is way too lenient in my opinion. I assumed they'd discounted that and found him guilty on the basis of their interpretation of the word negro the sole time Suarez admitted using it.
He should've had a 12 month ban. That's kicking racism out of football.
Liverpool's actions and defence of Suarez looks even more pathetic and abhorrent now.
That is way too lenient in my opinion. I assumed they'd discounted that and found him guilty on the basis of their interpretation of the word negro the sole time Suarez admitted using it.
He should've had a 12 month ban. That's kicking racism out of football.
Liverpool's actions and defence of Suarez looks even more pathetic and abhorrent now.
The issue of how it was said does, yes. But the use of the word is not in dispute. He's admitted saying it. As far as I'm aware, this is what the ban is based on. As it's the conclusive part of the proceedings. The length is presumably because they found Evra's evidence to be credible & detailed and Suarez' to be inconsistent.
Let's just think about things here. Kenny's misguided weird and dysfunctional collapse into wearing homemade Suarez shirts with the rest of the team, came before all of this, and before there was anything to actually dispute, given their reasons weren't open to access. Now it is, god knows what they are going to take from the independant panel's reasoning behind the decision, and put some cringe spin on it, to turn the club into even more of a mockery than it currently is.
I might be wrong but from the start I've thought that the ref bottled this - I think he was well aware of Suarez's misdemeanours but didn't take action.
He's a liar, a bad one it seems.
The "His account seemed to change in an attempt to fit in with the video evidence." makes me think there is something caught on tape and Suarez didnt expect that.
Racist twat
Racist twat
Looks like the information the written media had was largely accurate.
Think how many thousands of pages on RAWK have been wasted discussing the various connotations of the word 'Negritos'.
Doesn't look like the Uruguayan Nick Griffin has much of a leg to stand on.
Also, worth noting, the panel found Evra a more credible witness as Suarez's version changed in line with the video evidence that was presented.
edit- I'm sleeping today. I see it's been mentioned above
edit- I'm sleeping today. I see it's been mentioned above
Wow, now 8 matches don't actually seem enough. Suarez, what a cnut.
It can be pretty difficult in fairness. I remember when I was learning French when I first heard a full blown conversation at full speed it all seemed like gibberish, you wouldn't have been able to pick out separate words etc.
From D Taylor
This might be key line in FA findings: Suarez's explanation for calling Evra a negro "was unsustainable and simply incredible"
This might be key line in FA findings: Suarez's explanation for calling Evra a negro "was unsustainable and simply incredible"
Yeah. On second thought, he got off lightly.
Hopefully its increased on grounds of frivilous appeal.
I'm struggling to see with how they decided 8 games was a fair ban with the information released today.
That's the sweetest part of it.
With those matters in mind, we turn to consider what Mr Marriner was told. Mr Dalglish
told him that Mr Suarez had said "you are black". Mr Comolli told him that Mr Suarez
said "Tues negro". As Mr Dowd told us, Mr Comolli spelt "Tues negro" and Mr Dowd
noted it down. In cross-examination on this point, Mr Comolli agreed that he told Mr
Marriner that Mr Suarez had said "Porque tu es negro". But, he denied that he dictated all
the words. He said that he just said "negro", that Mr Dowd asked Mr Comolli to spell
"negro", and he did not remember dictating the full sentence. We were surprised by Mr
Comolli's evidence that he only dictated the word "negro" in view of the contents of Mr
Marriner's report, and his and Mr Dowd's witness statements. Mr Dowd stated that he
asked Mr Comolli to spell "Tues negro" and Mr Dowd then noted it down. Those words
appear in Mr Marriner's report. Mr Marriner's and Mr Dowd's witness statements were
accepted in full by Mr Suarez. We find that Mr Comolli told Mr Marriner that Mr Suarez
had said "Porque tu es negro" to Mr Evra, and that Mr Comolli spelt "Tues negro" for Mr
Dowd, who wrote it down.
Is it me or is that shocking from Comolli
told him that Mr Suarez had said "you are black". Mr Comolli told him that Mr Suarez
said "Tues negro". As Mr Dowd told us, Mr Comolli spelt "Tues negro" and Mr Dowd
noted it down. In cross-examination on this point, Mr Comolli agreed that he told Mr
Marriner that Mr Suarez had said "Porque tu es negro". But, he denied that he dictated all
the words. He said that he just said "negro", that Mr Dowd asked Mr Comolli to spell
"negro", and he did not remember dictating the full sentence. We were surprised by Mr
Comolli's evidence that he only dictated the word "negro" in view of the contents of Mr
Marriner's report, and his and Mr Dowd's witness statements. Mr Dowd stated that he
asked Mr Comolli to spell "Tues negro" and Mr Dowd then noted it down. Those words
appear in Mr Marriner's report. Mr Marriner's and Mr Dowd's witness statements were
accepted in full by Mr Suarez. We find that Mr Comolli told Mr Marriner that Mr Suarez
had said "Porque tu es negro" to Mr Evra, and that Mr Comolli spelt "Tues negro" for Mr
Dowd, who wrote it down.
Is it me or is that shocking from Comolli
'Mr Evra' is trending on twitter. This makes me laugh for some reason!
And yet, the people to get the biggest backlash out of this will still be the people not involved, like the FA and Stan Collymore.