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

Case closed. Anyone trying to defend Suarez's actions after this should be dismissed out of hand as a WUM.
 
Bryan_Munich said:
Do we know how many times he admitted to?
Click to expand...
Once, but he changed his story 3 times about when he said it and the Commission said this seemed like an attempt to make his story fit with the video evidence he had seen. However, they had seen extra angles and shots which contradicted each testimony.
 
Kraftwerker said:
Dalglish is a disgrace.

His first response to Dowd was 'hasn't he done this before.'

There's a man taking the allegation seriously.
Click to expand...

And Dalglish gave evidence saying Suarez made a reference to Evra's skin colour!

146. Mr Marriner's evidence as to Mr Dalglish's explanation of what happened was as follows: "Dalglish said to me that Suarez had told him that he had said to Evra "you are black", having been taunted by Evra with the comment "you are South American".

147. Mr Dalglish's evidence of his explanation was in the following terms:
"I said to the Referee that LS had told me (meaning in the general discussion to which Damien Comolli was a party as well) that he had referred to PE being negro (black) and that PE had referred to LS as "South American".”
Click to expand...
 
Mockney said:
If there's video evidence, Liverpool wont be happy until it's released. It probably should be too.
Click to expand...
They made the point that they could not or had not lip read the extra video evidence, merely that it contradicted Suarez's account of proceedings. If it was released you'd simply get Liverpool fans saying "You can't see him say anything! How did they find him guilty based on this?!"
 
Liverpool seem to obviously not done their own internal investigation, or they would have noticed the inconsistency in Suarez's story. They had a lot of time to get their stories straight and they couldn't, and then they got pinned up against the video evidence.

Regardless of what Suarez claimed to Dalglish, they can't just go off of that, they've got the whole club hanging in the balance.
 
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...

You raise some very good questions.

The owners needs to take a deep breath and figure it out how to do some damage control before it's to late. After this written verdict there is no more escape route's before the real damage is impossible to escape.

The thing that is most damaging is the written statement on the clubs official site and the t-shirt protest. Both events where badly prepared and without a proper consequence analyze. That's a chocking move for a club of that size. Another thing is why Dalglish was aloud to speak like a supporter when he was the clubs most influential representative. Who authorized his comments?

But the worst part for Liverpool is that they have lost tons of credibility with this verdict. To support a lying player is bad but to fully back him up and use the clubs good reputation when accusing Evra and the FA to be biased is truly damaging for one of the biggest clubs in the world.
 
One of the most damning parts:

The position, therefore, is as follows. Mr Suarez spoke in Spanish to Mr Comolli soon after the game about this serious allegation. Mr Suarez also spoke in Dutch to Mr Kuyt. Both Mr Comolli and Mr Kuyt understood Mr Suarez to have told them that when he spoke to Mr Evra he said words which translate into English as, "Because you are black". According to Mr Suarez, Mr Comolli misheard what Mr Suarez said in Spanish, and Mr Kuyt misheard what Mr Suarez said in Dutch."
Click to expand...
 
Essentially Liverpool fecked up from the off in their "defense." By trying to circle the wagons in the latter meetings and square away everyone's responses, they shot themselves in the foot.

And that so often happens when a party is guilty.
 
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?".
Click to expand...

wow! no defense for that. what an idiot.
 
I can't see Liverpool appealing based on this evidence. It will be funny to see them go back on their statement after the ban was announced or see what grounds they have to appeal on. They should throw the book at Suarez if they appeal. Complete embarrassment from LFC from start to finish reading this. I hope some journos summarise it for the common fan to read so everyone knows.
 
Changing the wording in his statements to try and please the panel,

261. Whilst Mr Suarez had, in his interview with the FA, said that he had used the word "negro" towards Mr Evra in a "friendly and affectionate" way, the first time that he used the words "conciliation" and "conciliatory" was in his witness statement. This was signed after Mr Suarez had received the experts' report which referred to the possibility that Mr Suarez's use of the term was intended as an attempt at conciliation. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Mr Suarez used the words conciliation and conciliatory to describe his use of the word "negro" because the experts had used those terms to describe the circumstances in which the word would not generally be offensive in Uruguay.
Click to expand...
 
Looks like their entire defence was based around the fact that he said it in the chummy sense (like a lot of us thought), and the judges weren't buying it.

267. Once more, we were troubled by the fact that Mr Suarez advanced this case to us and relied on it to the extent that he did, when it was unsustainable. The suggestion that he behaved towards Mr Evra at this time in a conciliatory and friendly way, or intended to do so in using the word "negro", is, in our judgment, simply not credible. His evidence is again inconsistent with the video footage. Once again, there was no satisfactory explanation for this inconsistency.
Click to expand...
 
116. We found the evidence of Mr Marriner on this point to be credible and plausible. He recalled Mr Evra telling him that he was being called black. This is consistent with Mr Evra's evidence of what he told Mr Marriner at that time, and also with Mr Giggs' evidence of what Mr Evra said to him shortly afterwards. In light of this, we reject Mr Kuyt's evidence that Mr Evra said that the referee was only booking him because he was black, however certain Mr Kuyt was that he heard it. Moreover, it would make no sense in the circumstances for Mr Evra to accuse the referee of only booking him because he was black. Not only had Mr Evra pushed Mr Kuyt away, which he is likely to have realised had led to his booking, but his concern at that stage was that he had been called black (bearing in mind that, at the very least, Mr Suarez admits having called Mr Evra "negro" by this stage of the game).
Click to expand...

Can't blame the RAWKites for trying to slander Evra when they've got the good example of players like Dirk Kuyt...:nono:
 
don't know if making the testamony public was/is the norm but in this case i'm sure glad they did. sure makes pool/dalglish look very foolish and suarez look/sound racist. all credit to evra for standing tall.
 
TLW just as bad as RAWK:

I'm just going to say it now, anyone who has read that and still comes to the conclusion that Luis Suarez is guilty, is a complete cnut.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
x42bn6 said:
Liverpool (and most of its fans) are happy to ignore the evidence - what good would more evidence do?
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, the accusation of how it was said and how many times IS one man's word against another. If the panel actually believed Evra wholesale they should've banned him for months (which I feel a lot of pool fans are missing) I'm personally in favour of releasing anything and everything connected with it.
 
Michael Shields (yes, THE Michael Shields) on Twitter:

"the only evidence is evra`s word"

:lol:
 
Mockney said:
Well to be fair, the accusation of how it was said and how many times IS one man's word against another. If the panel actually believed Evra wholesale they should've banned him for months (which I feel a lot of pool fans are missing) I'm personally in favour of releasing anything and everything connected with it.
Click to expand...
The Commission found that he had said negro seven times Mockney.
 
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.
Click to expand...

But RAWK said it was friendly...:rolleyes:
 
They all seem to be convinced they'll tear it apart in court. Seems absolutely watertight to me.
 
So he calls Glen Johnson a "negro" in training...

WTF, Johnson is a fckn disgrace if that is indeed true, and if Daglish/Commoli and Kuyt are involved in a cover up then they should also be made accountable.

In fact LFC should be questioned on the way they conducted themselves during the whole affair..
 
Mockney said:
Well to be fair, the accusation of how it was said and how many times IS one man's word against another. If the panel actually believed Evra wholesale they should've banned him for months (which I feel a lot of pool fans are missing) I'm personally in favour of releasing anything and everything connected with it.
Click to expand...

While I agree, on the longer ban and any additional evidence as it's getting silly at this point. Overall the call for all the findings to be released is a bit worrying in that it has been used as an excuse to just have a go at the committee by certain folk. lLike the verdict is not enough ... and until we see proof they are not swindlers it's open season on them and their verdict. No repsect for anything, this is how the riots started.
 
I do love the idea that Suarez walks into Liverpool and starts calling Glen Johnson negro and he's okay with that. Utter bollocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.