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

This is what Suarez claims happened:

Kuyt (in Dutch): Hey Luis, what did you say to Evra?
Suarez (in Dutch): I said "why, black?" after he said "Don't touch me you South American"
Kuyt to referee (in English): Luis said he said "because you are black".

Comolli (in Spanish): Hey Luis, what did you say to Evra?
Suarez (in Spanish): I said "why, black?" after he said "Don't touch me you South American"
Comolli to referee (in English): Luis said he said "because you are black".

Yes Luis, both of them misheard what you said you had said, in Spanish and in Dutch, and hugely unfortunately, both misheard it to the extent of both hearing the exact same phrase, which was bizarrely completely different to what you actually told them. That's plausible!
 
Hectic said:
In the report, Suarez claimed: "I would refer to Glen Johnson as 'negro' in the same way that I might refer to Dirk Kuyt as 'Blondie' - because he has blond hair, or Andy Carroll as 'Grandote' - 'Big Man' - because he is very tall.

"Where I come from it is normal to refer to people in this way by reference to what they look like. There is no aggression in referring to somebody in this way and there is certainly no racial connotation."
Click to expand...

The language experts disagreed.

- 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. 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]. 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. 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 negative connotations.
Click to expand...
 
AlwaysRedwood said:
All the comments are about Erva not being punished.

They are insane.
Click to expand...

One thing I have read over and over in this case is that Evra should be punished because he "is no saint himself" or words to the same effect. Beggars belief the idiocy of these people. If the FA suddenly start handing out bans on the basis of the players not being saints we'd only have a handful of footballers left in the game.
 
Hectic said:
In the report, Suarez claimed: "I would refer to Glen Johnson as 'negro' in the same way that I might refer to Dirk Kuyt as 'Blondie' - because he has blond hair, or Andy Carroll as 'Grandote' - 'Big Man' - because he is very tall.
Click to expand...

That's retarded.

Even if he does call Johnson a "negro" which I very much doubt, there is no history of friendship between Evra and Suarez. So one can easily understand why Evra would take it in a negative sense especially considering the heated nature of the match.

Also have blonds or tall men ever been oppressed and enslaved based on being blond or tall? Yeah. Didn't think so.
 
Latest conspiracy theory is because the language experts came from the University of Manchester, they obviously fabricated that "negro" was an offensive word. This will presumably be corrected by unbiased experts in the coming days and the ban will be lifted.

Presumably these experts are London natives, what with no United fans coming from Manchester and all.
 
Feeky_Magee said:
Latest conspiracy theory is because the language experts came from the University of Manchester, they obviously fabricated that "negro" was an offensive word. This will presumably be corrected by unbiased experts in the coming days and the ban will be lifted.

Presumably these experts are London natives, what with no United fans coming from Manchester and all.
Click to expand...

Exactly - surely these Manchester-based experts are City fans who would have loved to find Evra in the wrong, no?
 
Feeky_Magee said:
Latest conspiracy theory is because the language experts came from the University of Manchester, they obviously fabricated that "negro" was an offensive word. This will presumably be corrected by unbiased experts in the coming days and the ban will be lifted.

Presumably these experts are London natives, what with no United fans coming from Manchester and all.
Click to expand...

This is crazy, the two expert actually said that if Suarez is telling the truth - in Uruguay - it wouldnt be racist. But this is of little interest as the FA, the Commission and Liverpool agreed on that what matters whether it is racist in England or not.
 
The fans and the club are now going to do more damage to the club's history than Suarez ever could have.
 
Ignoring Suarez for a bit if Ferguson had acted in the same way as Dalglish, the man would have lost all respect from me and I would have wanted him gone. Dalglish may not be as cnutty as Suarez but he has propped up this whole aftermath.
 
cinc said:
This is crazy, the two expert actually said that if Suarez is telling the truth - in Uruguay - it wouldnt be racist. But this is of little interest as the FA, the Commission and Liverpool agreed on that what matters whether it is racist in England or not.
Click to expand...

Not true. Had Suarez been proven to be trying to be conciliatory he'd have gotten off. What the panel had a problem with was his obviously hostile body language and actions during the incidents they witnessed in the video which made it unlikely that Suarez was using the word in a context that could plausibly be interpreted as friendly. That together with his flip flops as to what he said and his testimony contradicting Kuyt and Commolli is what buried him. The final judgement actually uses the implausibility of Suarez's evidence giving examples e.g. Suarez claim that pinching Evra was meant to diffuse the situation to justify the decision they reached. The panel did accept the argument that Suarez's remarks in some context could be interpreted in a non offensive way. Yet, in light of the evidence still found him guilty because the context in which the words were used was clearly far from friendly, conciliatory or anything of the sort.
 
#07 said:
Not true. Had Suarez been proven to be trying to be conciliatory he'd have gotten off. What the panel had a problem with was his obviously hostile body language and actions during the incidents they witnessed in the video which made it unlikely that Suarez was using the word in a context it could plausibly be interpreted as friendly. That together with his flip flops as to what he said and his testimony contradicting Kuyt and Commolli is what buried him. The final judgement actually uses the implausibility of Suarez's evidence giving examples e.g. Suarez claim that pinching Evra was meant to diffuse the situation to justify the decision they reached. The panel did accept the argument that Suarez's remarks in some context could be interpreted in a non offensive way. Yet, in light of the evidence still found him guilty because the context in which the words were used was clearly far from friendly, conciliatory or anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

You're not contradicting me: I've only said that the three parties agreed that it is the commissions' duty to decide whether a behaviour is racist or abusive in England, and whether it is normal or not in Uruguay is a secondary information, not a "case-decider".
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
That's retarded.

Even if he does call Johnson a "negro" which I very much doubt, there is no history of friendship between Evra and Suarez. So one can easily understand why Evra would take it in a negative sense especially considering the heated nature of the match.

Also have blonds or tall men ever been oppressed and enslaved based on being blond or tall? Yeah. Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

It's an unbelievable defence.
 
SteveJ said:
...Otherwise known as Krusty the Clown featuring Sideshow Suarez.
Click to expand...

Krusty's Komedy Klassics

tumblr_lgczgfghM11qazycdo1_500.jpg
 
I've just read the first few pages of this thread. Worth pointing out there are a few embarrassing tribal posts and a couple of posters telling rednev to shut up or feck off or the old "are you calling our player a liar?" schitckaroo for simply saying "let's wait for the evidence/it could be a misunderstanding"

That said there is a good deal of decent posts (nev, Brophs & Heap come out of it well particularly) and obviously now the report is out there and they're still going on about it, it's different, but it's worth pointing out for the "only Liverpool fans could do this" brigade..You know, in the name of objectivity and all.
 
Liverpool's lawyer in the proceedings rejected the notion that it was one man's word against the other, yet the Liverpool fans are still harping about that.
 
They've made themselves out to be right twats in this one, they knew the facts but yet they wore those ridiculous t-shirts and brought out that disgraceful statement.

A public apology to Evra from Dalglish would be nice, but I won't hold my breath.
 
KM said:
Liverpool's lawyer in the proceedings rejected the notion that it was one man's word against the other, yet the Liverpool fans are still harping about that.
Click to expand...

:lol:

There is not way you can change the opinions of or explain to lunatics.
 
KM said:
Liverpool's lawyer in the proceedings rejected the notion that it was one man's word against the other, yet the Liverpool fans are still harping about that.
Click to expand...

Is this in the report?
 
Neo_Mufc said:
Is this in the report?
Click to expand...

Pt. 215
It was accepted by both Mr Greaney and Mr McCormick in closing submissions that this is
not simply a case of one person's word against another. Mr McCormick nevertheless
submitted that the case turns very substantially on the evidence of the two main
protagonists, that we should think very carefully before reaching a conclusion based
solely on the word of the main protagonist for the FA, and that we should look at the
other evidence, and see whether there is other evidence that corroborates Mr Evra's story.
We agree that at the heart of this case is a dispute between Mr Evra and Mr Suarez as to
what was said. Before reaching our decision, we assessed the credibility of those two
individuals and examined all the other evidence with great care to see whether it
supported or undermined Mr Evra's or Mr Suarez's account. We asked ourselves which
account was more probable. We kept in mind the seriousness of the Charge, and the
burden and standard of proof.
Click to expand...
 
Mockney said:
I've just read the first few pages of this thread. Worth pointing out there are a few embarrassing tribal posts and a couple of posters telling rednev to shut up or feck off or the old "are you calling our player a liar?" schitckaroo for simply saying "let's wait for the evidence/it could be a misunderstanding"

That said there is a good deal of decent posts (nev, Brophs & Heap come out of it well particularly) and obviously now the report is out there and they're still going on about it, it's different, but it's worth pointing out for the "only Liverpool fans could do this" brigade..You know, in the name of objectivity and all.
Click to expand...

It's not like both players had a clean slate. Suarez has a reputation. He fought with a teammate over a foul taken, used his hands to stop a goal, bit another player on the neck, etc.

Many of us looked at the men themselves and there is no problem with that. I concluded, based on who both men are, that one was most probably guilty and I was right.

I've got no problem with that. One has to live with their actions and part of living with those actions is the belief that said individual will continue to be an asshole. This was entirely within the realm of his previous conduct.

This isn't a court of law and Liverpool fans were will within their right to back Suarez - to a point. That point was crossed long ago.

Your comparison falls flat.
 
Mockney said:
I've just read the first few pages of this thread. Worth pointing out there are a few embarrassing tribal posts and a couple of posters telling rednev to shut up or feck off or the old "are you calling our player a liar?" schitckaroo for simply saying "let's wait for the evidence/it could be a misunderstanding"

That said there is a good deal of decent posts (nev, Brophs & Heap come out of it well particularly) and obviously now the report is out there and they're still going on about it, it's different, but it's worth pointing out for the "only Liverpool fans could do this" brigade..You know, in the name of objectivity and all.
Click to expand...


There's not much that could've be said, to be fair...other than, 'shit, that's bad if true...' And 'Rednev's the most racist poster on Redcafe.'
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
From 'Zigi'

It's a bloody lottery isn't it.
Click to expand...

It is. It's just lucky for me that the FA were not covertly surveying my local laundromat that day as at the exact same time I was repeatedly calling an elderly gentleman 'negro' while unloading my clothes from the dryer - as I expect is the case up and down the country, every day of the week. It's a bloody witch hunt I tell thee! PC gone mad!
 
We're all closet racists though aren't we? It's just that poor Luis is taking the rap for all of us. Unfortunate soul
 
AlwaysRedwood said:
It's not like both players had a clean slate. Suarez has a reputation. He fought with a teammate over a foul taken, used his hands to stop a goal, bit another player on the neck, etc.

Many of us looked at the men themselves and there is no problem with that. I concluded, based on who both men are, that one was most probably guilty and I was right.

I've got no problem with that. One has to live with their actions and part of living with those actions is the belief that said individual will continue to be an asshole. This was entirely within the realm of his previous conduct.

This isn't a court of law and Liverpool fans were will within their right to back Suarez - to a point. That point was crossed long ago.

Your comparison falls flat.
Click to expand...

Spoony Youngblood said:
There's not much that could've be said, to be fair...other than, 'shit, that's bad if true...' And 'Rednev's the most racist poster on Redcafe.'
Click to expand...

And yet loads of people decided to try anyway...

Telling someone trying to be objective to shut up or back the player of his team is exactly the kind of thing we've been laughing at 'pool fans for doing all the way through this.

It's belligerent to claim it is ever "justified" to make conclusions on personal bias or perceived personality (you don't know either player) even if it's proved to be correct.

The fact is lots of sets of both fans decided purely along club lines. As it happens, one was proved right. Neither were right to do so though, as one was always going to be.

Obviously, as I've paid lip service to, the fact the argument is still going on after the judgement and release of the report does separate it significantly. The supporting of the statement & T-shirt appeal also goes beyond that.
 
Mockney said:
I've just read the first few pages of this thread. Worth pointing out there are a few embarrassing tribal posts and a couple of posters telling rednev to shut up or feck off or the old "are you calling our player a liar?" schitckaroo for simply saying "let's wait for the evidence/it could be a misunderstanding"

That said there is a good deal of decent posts (nev, Brophs & Heap come out of it well particularly) and obviously now the report is out there and they're still going on about it, it's different, but it's worth pointing out for the "only Liverpool fans could do this" brigade..You know, in the name of objectivity and all.
Click to expand...

Probably because it was rednev, the board's resident contrary asshole. Everyone should tell him to shut up all of the time.
 
No surprise an United forum is tribal particularly when they feel one of their players is victimised. I don't have a problem with Liverpool fans backing Suarez before the conclusion and evidence. I remember backing Schmeichel when he was accused of racism by Ian Wright. If Schmeichel was found guilty of using abuse racist language I would have wanted him gone, not continue to back him as seems to be the case with Liverpool and Suarez.
 
Mockney said:
And yet loads of people decided to try anyway...

Telling someone trying to be objective to shut up or back the player of his team is exactly the kind of thing we've been laughing at 'pool fans for doing all the way through this.

It's belligerent to claim it is ever "justified" to make conclusions on personal bias or perceived personality (you don't know either player) even if it's proved to be correct.

The fact is lots of sets of both fans decided purely along club lines. As it happens, one was proved right. Neither were right to do so though, as one was always going to be.

Obviously, as I've paid lip service to, the fact the argument is still going on after the judgement and release of the report does separate it significantly. The supporting of the statement & T-shirt appeal also goes beyond that.
Click to expand...

I decided not to post here until the verdict's in, but its perfectly normal to have a emotional stance in any debate when there's no information available.

The problem starts when there's information that contradicts the initial stance and you still are being partisan.


I'm sure some here would act just like the guys over on RAWK, but they would be a minority.
 
We shouldn't be judging Liverpool by their fans. Football fans in general are morons or Internet warriors. What should be pointed out is the actions of Suarez, Dalglish, Liverpool FC and the rest of their players. It's altogether quite laughable.
 
Just a quickie -can someone summarise exactly what Johnsons involvement in the entire thing has been? Other than obviously being a black Liverpool player and (presumable) being made to wear the silly t-shirt. Has he actually come out with any comments or any been directed at him? If so I have missed them
 
There would clearly not be as many idiots as over on RAWK. It's a uniquely special place that every set of fans ridicule. And I'm not saying we're as bad as RAWK, or would've behaved like Liverpool did. But I am saying there were a few people making very clear conclusions (i.e Evra's definitely not lying and definitely not mistaken, and Suarez is a cnut) before any evidence and shouting down other posters for not being 100% behind their judgement.

I"m sure these are probably some of the same posters revelling in how spastic RAWK is being too. And they would probably find it very hard to climb down from that lofty judgemental position if proved wrong. Some of them. That's all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.