Evra accuses Suarez of racist remarks | Suarez guilty of racial abuse

bsc said:
This is the crux of the matter

AiA64buCQAALN6z.jpg


SIMPLES
Click to expand...

Still find their subsequent actions odd. They knew why he was charged, they knew what he said, Saurez admitted his use of 'negro' and said won't use it again on the pitch...yet everything that followed defies belief. But yeah it's a case of digging and digging and digging.
 
Spoony Youngblood said:
Still find their subsequent actions odd. They knew why he was charged, they knew what he said, Saurez admitted his use of 'negro' and said won't use it again on the pitch...yet everything that followed defies belief. But yeah it's a case of digging and digging and digging.
Click to expand...

Think "odd" is a huge understatement!!
 
I'm about the third of the way through.

Kuyt is a huge cnut. Read 111-116 and he's clearly lied about Evra saying that ref only booked him because he's black. And he said "stand up you fecking prick" to him when Suarez smashed him in the knee.
 
"Mr Evra was speaking a mix of Spanish and Portuguese. All the Spanish and Portuguese
players at Manchester United speak to each other like this so that they can all understand
and talk to each other."

I found this really cool.
 
Spoony Youngblood said:
Still find their subsequent actions odd. They knew why he was charged, they knew what he said, Saurez admitted his use of 'negro' and said won't use it again on the pitch...yet everything that followed defies belief. But yeah it's a case of digging and digging and digging.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, Spoons. I think if Liverpool accepted the word used was wrong, issued an apology about "cultural misunderstanding" and attempted to move on, so would this whole case.

Instead, they immediately launched a character assassination, hatchet-job on Evra's credibility. The two biggest clubs in the land head-locked over something as serious as this had to be referred to an independent panel, who had to exhaust every possible avenue.
 
bsc said:
Negrito is a complete fallacy and sidetracked a very serious issue. People were jumping the gun instead of waiting for an very serious and detailed report to be published.
Click to expand...

So, in Uruguay is calling a black person "negro" offensive or not?
 
Unam333 said:
So, in Uruguay is calling a black person "negro" offensive or not?
Click to expand...

Quoted from the verdict

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.
Click to expand...
 
Are there already any articles on Liverpool fans' blogs about it?

I mean, fans' opinion, but not from the RAWK.
 
Spoony Youngblood said:
Still find their subsequent actions odd. They knew why he was charged, they knew what he said, Saurez admitted his use of 'negro' and said won't use it again on the pitch...yet everything that followed defies belief. But yeah it's a case of digging and digging and digging.
Click to expand...

They can't let their star player virtually admit to being a racist in ignorance or intent.
 
So, will Liverpool effectively declare war by taking this case beyond the FA's jurisdiction - if they can - or will they just crumble, mumble to themselves & let Suarez's ban proceed?
 
Paragraph 246:

"MR GREANEY: Mr Suarez, the first thing I would like to ask you, now that we have seen those again, is: is it correct, as you say in paragraph 27 of your witness statement, that you were trying to defuse or calm down the situation in the goal mouth?

A. That's why I was explaining to him that it was a normal foul.

Q. Let me be as clear as I can. Was your aim, when you were in the goal mouth, and speaking to Mr Evra, to calm down the situation?

A. I wasn't thinking about speaking to anyone. He was the one to come to me and speak to me.
Q. What we want to know, or at least I do, is what was in your mind? Was it in your mind to try to calm down the situation?

A. He was asking me, "Why did you kick me?" Those were football conversations, and I replied, "This is a normal foul. What do you want me to do?"

Q. Do you see paragraph 27 of your statement? Does it read: "I was trying to defuse or calm the situation"?

A. By the gesture I was doing with my hands, I could show that I was trying to explain the situation, because these are conversations that you have in the field.

Q. Mr Suarez, I have to suggest to you that my question is really a very simple one. In the goal mouth, and in particular as you pinched the skin of Mr Evra, do you say you were trying to calm the situation?

A. Not after the pinch, because he was saying that he was going to hit me.

Q. I'll just make one more attempt, and then we will move on. In your
statement, over which we have understood you took some care, you have said of the pinching: "I was trying to defuse the situation." All I wish to know is whether that is true or not.

A. I was not trying to calm down the situation, but trying to explain to Evra why I was doing this foul, and when - then he replied, "I'm going to hit you", and I was trying to show him that he was not untouchable, not in the foul and not by the gesture that I did with the - by the pinch I was doing to his arm, that he wasn't untouchable."
Click to expand...

No wonder they found him guilty with inconsistencies like that.
 
I hope that someone digs up Dalglish's bullshit on lying and then calls for Kuyt to be banned and Suarez banned for even longer.
 
BBC article - "Suarez was found guilty on the "balance of probability" - a lower standard than the criminal standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt".
 
bsc said:
Oh I agree, Spoons. I think if Liverpool accepted the word used was wrong, issued an apology about "cultural misunderstanding" and attempted to move on, so would this whole case.

Instead, they immediately launched a character assassination, hatchet-job on Evra's credibility. The two biggest clubs in the land head-locked over something as serious as this had to be referred to an independent panel, who had to exhaust every possible avenue.
Click to expand...

Surely their owners've had an input, which would be shocking if true, it's almost as if Dalglish's running the damn ship. I wonder how their sponsors'll react. Not good at all for them as club. They should've distanced themselves from Suarez, and handed him a ban a la United and Cantona - even a two game ban would've sufficed. But yeah...initially I thought they could've put it down to a cultural misunderstanding but that was on the undestanding that the word used was 'negrito', however 'I don't speak to Blacks' is pretty much indefensible...and that's why they panicked.
 
Liverpool FC statement
31st Dec 2011 - Latest News

The Club can confirm that they received the written reasons from the Regulatory Commission at short notice last night on the evening of the game against Newcastle United.

The player, the Club and our legal advisors will now take the necessary amount of time to read, digest and properly consider the contents of the 115 page judgment and will make no further comment at present.
 
Eugenius said:
I'm about the third of the way through.

Kuyt is a huge cnut. Read 111-116 and he's clearly lied about Evra saying that ref only booked him because he's black. And he said "stand up you fecking prick" to him when Suarez smashed him in the knee.
Click to expand...

No wonder the scousers love him, he's one of them
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
They should've said that the first time. Evra should sue them for libel.
Click to expand...

He could definitely at the very least get them to apologise and make a retraction on their website

But now you see why they have tried to discredit Evra with the claims about previous "unfounded accusations"

As it does seem like this has come down to credibility, credibility of the evidence


As an aside, I want to commend the FA, it's not often they get praise in these situations, but they've been completely transparent in this process, this kind of publishing of hearings is unheard of. And upon being given the decision by the independent panel, they've taken a hard stance against racism and racists

Well done to the FA. Or as Andy Gray would say, take a bow
 
x42bn6 said:
"Balance of probabilities" works for civil cases, though.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Outside the context of the criminal law, balance of probabilities is the orthodox standard of proof. For example, it's what an Employment Tribunal would use or a First Tier Tribunal for social security law.
 
Mr Marriner said that he could not recall what was being said to him. He explained that he wanted to take control of the situation, that the game had gone “swimmingly” up until that point
Click to expand...

I didn't know people still used the term "Swimmingly" anymore.
 
Unam333 said:
So, in Uruguay is calling a black person "negro" offensive or not?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

As it says in the report, it is an offensive term that can sometimes be used in a friendly way, but never when scowling, which apparently Suarez was doing. It would be rare to do it with someone you don't know, though it does sometimes happen when try to pal up to someone, apparently.

It's basically like 'nigga', if you're in Compton and you are black and you say it to someone who is also black in a friendly way, you're okay. If you're white and they're black, never okay.

All kinds of otherwise insulting language is used between friends, that's basically the gist of it.
 
Ah so the whole "You're only booking me because I'm black" thing is from Kuyt.

Mr Kuyt said that he was very close to Mr Evra and the referee at this time. He said he was "absolutely certain" that he heard Mr Evra say that the referee was only booking him because he was black
Click to expand...

Whereas Evra says he was saying "He just called me black", I can kinda understand if Kuyt misheard that as something else.
 
Doesn't seem to have been pointed out so far that the Commission found that Suarez did say all those extra things, they found he used the word negro 7 times in total, due to video evidence and cross-referencing that to the various testimonies, as well as inconsistencies in Suarez's account.
Commission Report Summary said:
In total, Mr Suarez used the word negro or negros seven times in the penalty area. On each occasion, the words were insulting
Click to expand...
 
Feeky_Magee said:
Doesn't seem to have been pointed out so far that the Commission found that Suarez did say all those extra things, they found he used the word negro 7 times in total, due to video evidence and cross-referencing that to the various testimonies, as well as inconsistencies in Suarez's account.
Click to expand...

Do we know how many times he admitted to?
 
This makes me think that Dalglish wrote part of the Liverpool statement.

144. Mr Dowd then left the Liverpool dressing room and went back to the referee's room. Moments later, Mr Dalglish came into the referee's dressing room. Mr Dalglish was on his own. Mr Marriner asked Mr Dalglish why Mr Suarez was not with him. Mr Dalglish said that he had not brought him because Mr Suarez does not speak English. Mr Marriner explained to Mr Dalglish what had been reported to him by Sir Alex and Mr Evra. Mr Marriner said in his witness statement that Mr Evra had told him that Mr Suarez had said to him "I don't talk to you because you niggers", although Mr Dalglish told us that he did not remember the referee saying that to him. Since Mr Suarez accepted Mr. Marriner's witness statement, we accept Mr Marriner's evidence that he said this to Mr Dalglish.

145. Mr Dalglish said, "hasn't he done this before?". This was the evidence to us of Mr Dowd, which was also accepted by Mr Suarez. Mr Dowd remembered this as it caused him to consciously stop and think whether he was aware of any previous allegation involving Mr Evra.
Click to expand...
 
Bryan_Munich said:
Do we know how many times he admitted to?
Click to expand...

According to his statement, once.

I'd suggest when you get the chance to read the entire judgment. It's the only way you will understand the issues and how the FA reached their decision on the facts.

RAWK can cry injustice all they want but the findings of fact are fairly well made IMO. The Commission subjected Evra's account to close scrutiny due to Suarez's multi cultural background.
 
Spoony Youngblood said:
Surely their owners've had an input, which would be shocking if true, it's almost as if Dalglish's running the damn ship. I wonder how their sponsors'll react. Not good at all for them as club. They should've distanced themselves from Suarez, and handed him a ban a la United and Cantona - even a two game ban would've sufficed. But yeah...initially I thought they could've put it down to a cultural misunderstanding but that was on the undestanding that the word used was 'negrito', however 'I don't speak to Blacks' is pretty much indefensible...and that's why they panicked.
Click to expand...
Can someone screen shot the "I don't speak to blacks" part please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.