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

Nate Dogg said:
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..
Click to expand...

I almost feel sorry for Johnson, it probably just escalated in front of him as he couldn't blink with the disbelief. He might be thick.
 
Nate Dogg said:
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..
Click to expand...

They've all behaved atrociously IMO, every one of them from the top to the bottom
 
Feeky_Magee said:
Michael Shields (yes, THE Michael Shields) on Twitter:

"the only evidence is evra`s word"

:lol:
Click to expand...

Funny how he has chosen to use an acute instead of an apostrophe. It's almost as if it has been chosen to represent the image of a paving slab being hurled through the air towards a cowering letter 's'...
 
Feeky_Magee said:
It says why in the report.
Click to expand...

And if they came to that conclusion through evidence we haven't seen, I'd like to see it. Again, what's the harm?

moses said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. And I'm sure they'd fight tooth & nail even if there was a crystal clear recording of him audibly saying it whilst doing a monkey impression, but this is hardly a matter of national security. I can't see the harm in all the evidence being released.
 
Nate Dogg said:
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..
Click to expand...

There is reference to Suarez also using the word to Yaya Toure last season.

Need to read the judgment again for the full context.
 
Took the best part of a few hours but managed to get to the end :lol: Quite interesting stuff how they built it all together and came to the different conclusions regarding evidence and charge etc.
 
Liverpool's lawyer claimed it was all made up by Evra because he was annoyed that Suarez didn't apologise to him for fouling him earlier.

336. We return to Mr McCormick's submission that Mr Evra told his team-mates (and the referee) straight after the game that Mr Suarez had said "No hablo con los negros" ("I don't speak with blacks") knowing that this was invention, and that he did so in order to exact vengeance for Mr Suarez's refusal to apologise for the foul. We considered the submissionto be unrealistic and we rejected it.
Click to expand...

Muppets.
 
Unam333 said:
:wenger: RAWK still defending Suarez.
Click to expand...

263. The whole episode in the match starting with Mr Suarez's foul on Mr Evra in the 58th minute, and continuing with their encounter in the penalty area in the 63rd to 65th minutes was confrontational and hostile. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra fired the first verbal assault and Mr Suarez responded in a hostile fashion judged by his demeanour as shown on the video footage and his pinching of Mr Evra's skin. When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, it was less than 10 seconds after the pinching in the goalmouth. This is when Mr Suarez claimed to have used the word “negro” for the one and only time. The players' demeanour, as shown in the video footage, showed that the exchanges continued to be confrontational. This was followed, after the referee had spoken to the players, by Mr Suarez putting his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head in a way which, in our judgment, was intended to aggravate Mr Evra.
Click to expand...

The Commission clearly misunderstood. Suarez's visibly aggressive expression is actually just his way of making friends...
 
Mockney said:
And if they came to that conclusion through evidence we haven't seen, I'd like to see it. Again, what's the harm?
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I just think the release of the video footage would simply be met with "where's the evidence?" as they haven't lip-read it or anything, merely carefully looked at it in relation to the step-by-step accounts of both and explained how it disagrees with Suarez's exact account. Perhaps if it was overlapped with text explaining how it disagrees with Suarez's version, but that would be an unusual step. As far as I know courts don't release video footage and overlap it with exactly how they think a murder took place if someone's been found guilty partially based on CCTV.
 
Ole'sbodyguard said:
There is reference to Suarez also using the word to Yaya Toure last season.

Need to read the judgment again for the full context.
Click to expand...
Yep, says he denied saying "Dale negro negro negro" to Evra but in separate testimony said he said "Dale negro" to Yaya Toure, Commission found that it was unlikely Evra would make up exactly a phrase which Suarez has himself said he used not then but on another occasion.
 
I can't believe there are Liverpool supporters still screaming about a lack of evidence(actually I do believe it).

People keep saying minority/vocal minority...I'm not so sure anymore.
 
I just want to say thank you to the FA. Racism is a very delicate issue and I'm glad they took it seriously. Based on the current reading, I'm surprised Luis only got 8 games but at the same time, a precedent was set. As a black man, all I wanted to see was the right course of action taken. Indeed so it has and hopefully now, we can all make that one step further to progress.
 
Reading paragraph 299 its incredible how both Damien Commolli and Dirk Kuyt contradicted Suarez and Suarez claims they misunderstood him. Even though he spoke to Commolli in Spanish and Kuyt in Dutch. There you go lads. Its not just us. Suarez is simply misunderstood full stop...
 
If one of United players were found guilty of such behaviour, and the club supported him I'd seriously give up my season ticket. It's shocking players, fans and the club are supporting him to such an extent. Liverpool FC should distance themselves immediately and make Suarez apologise for any offence caused.
 
Sultan said:
If one of United players were found guilty of such behaviour, and the club supported him I'd seriously give up my season ticket. It's shocking players, fans and the club are supporting him to such an extent. Liverpool FC should distance themselves immediately and make Suarez apologise for any offence caused.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Liverpool's stance against racism has been shown to be entirely hypothetical.
 
#07 said:
Reading paragraph 299 its incredible how both Damien Commolli and Dirk Kuyt contradicted Suarez and Suarez claims they misunderstood him. Even though he spoke to Commolli in Spanish and Kuyt in Dutch. There you go lads. Its not just us. Suarez is simply misunderstood full stop...
Click to expand...
Yep, and both misunderstood him to the extent where both said the exact same phrase, markedly different to what he claimed he said.
 
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...

Maybe that's a little harsh. I can understand Dalglish's first reaction being this, given that it might have been a vague recollection relating back to the Chelsea groundsman episode.

However, once the dust had settled, and it became clear that at least something had been said, Dalglish (as well as Liverpool as a club with their website statement and t-shirt debacle) has embarrassed himself by continually asserting Suarez' innocence.
 
bsc said:
No linguistic nuance or cultural misunderstanding. Quite simply a word that simply isn't acceptable on the football pitches of this country.
Click to expand...

Quite

You're playing in England. We all have to abide by the laws of the country we live and work regardless of our previous cultures.
 
#07 said:
Reading paragraph 299 its incredible how both Damien Commolli and Dirk Kuyt contradicted Suarez and Suarez claims they misunderstood him. Even though he spoke to Commolli in Spanish and Kuyt in Dutch. There you go lads. Its not just us. Suarez is simply misunderstood full stop...
Click to expand...

He needs to borrow Balotelli's Why Me t shirt then
 
354. Mr Suarez sought to persuade us that when he used the word "negro" to speak to Mr Evra he was acting in a conciliatory and friendly way, without intent to offend and in a way that would not be seen as offensive in Uruguay. He also said that when he pinched Mr Evra's skin he was trying to defuse the situation.

355. We rejected the evidence of Mr Suarez on these points. The pinching of the skin, and Mr Suarez's admitted use of the word "negro" when speaking to Mr Evra, took place in the context of heated exchanges between the players. Mr Suarez had fouled Mr Evra in the 58th minute. Mr Evra confronted Mr Suarez in the 63rd minute and complained forcefully about the foul. Their facial expressions, gesturing and physical movement showed their mutual animosity throughout these exchanges.

356. Mr Suarez's pinching of Mr Evra's skin was not an attempt to defuse the situation. On the contrary, it was an attempt to aggravate Mr Evra and to inflame the situation. Mr Suarez's admitted use of the word "negro" when speaking to Mr Evra was not conciliatory and friendly. It was unfriendly and was used as part of Mr Suarez's attempt to wind up Mr Evra. The whole tenor of the exchanges was confrontational and argumentative. Adopting
the words used by the Spanish language experts, Mr Suarez did not use "negro" with any sense of rapport or in an attempt to create such rapport.

357. Not only did we reject this evidence of Mr Suarez, but we found it remarkable that he sought to advance a case that was so clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of what happened. Even Mr McCormick accepted in his closing submissions that the pinching could not reasonably be described as an attempt to defuse the situation. To suggest otherwise, as Mr Suarez did, was unarguable. Mr Suarez's evidence on these
topics, which was shown to be flawed, profoundly undermined our confidence in the reliability of his evidence.

358. Mr Suarez's account of his admitted use of the word "negro" changed several times. He seemed unsure of when the admitted use took place and what triggered it. His account seemed to change in an attempt to fit in with the video evidence.
Click to expand...

The F.A. clearly have no appreciation of RAWK logic...:p
 
:lol:

Read from around 280-300

Kuyt and Comolli both said in their initial statements that Suarez said "because you are black" to Evra and then claimed that both must have "misheard" him because he only said "why, black?". Even the interpreter said that "why, black?" does not make sense and that he thought that the correct meaning was "because you are black."

Utterly ridiculous, I hope they extend his ban for a frivolous appeal.

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...
 
The best thing is, CAS also works on the balance of probabilities, so even if they appeal all the way they'll still lose :D

RAWK doesn't understand that this isn't a criminal case, so (unlike Terry's?) it doesn't matter that it isn't "beyond reasonable doubt"... they don't need to to find him guilty.
 
cheesy said:
After that, I think that anyone who has criticised Evra should really come out and take a good, long look at themselves.

It's not just Liverpool fans, as well. All over, I've seen plenty of people coming out and criticising Evra, saying that he should just let it go, and that he is playing the race card. Personally, I find that disgusting, as he's conducted himself well throughout the whole case. He could've come out and thrown non-stop accusations at Suarez, but he didn't, and he even defended him in a way.
Click to expand...

I'm very happy with Evra's reaction. The fact that he stayed somewhat composed after being insulted like that is admirable. I know a lot of people that would have punched Suarez and went apeshit. Justice is served and now Evra can be at peace.

The people that criticized him must feel like cnuts now! That's why it pays to reserve judgment until all the facts are out idiots!
 
Having read the full account...Suarez should have been banned for the rest of the season.

Absolutely disgraceful.

As have been Liverpool's actions following the incident. Unless they reverse their postion very quickly and very publicly, they should be called to answer for their actions, which have sought to diminish the racist aspects of the incident and try to turn this into a tribal Liverpool versus the FA situation, and to try and position Suarez and themselves as victims.

Racism is founded on ignorance. But Liverpool's continued stance ignoring the racist incident (even so far as to accuse and disparage the accuser) is, in my opinion, much worse and potentially more damaging.

And they need to be held accountable for why they have chosen to act in this manner.
 
415. Mr McCormick emphasised that we have a discretion as to whether to increase or reduce the penalty from the entry point. He accepted that if Mr Suarez had been sent off for insulting language, he would be automatically suspended for the next two first team competitive matches. He suggested that he could not take issue with a two match suspension as the entry point.

416. Mr McCormick then responded to the FA's submissions on mitigation. As for the notion of deterrence, Mr McCormick submitted that our penalty would be known fairly promptly by people interested in football. The deterrence for others would lie in the knowledge that if they used inappropriate words then they would end up before a Commission and be punished.

417. So far as Mr Suarez's international status is concerned, Mr McCormick submitted that because of this the damage to his reputation would be all the greater, which would
amount to a punishment for him without the need for an increased sanction to reflect that status.

418. Mr McCormick submitted that we should decide on the penalty that we considered appropriate, having regard to any mitigating factors, and not be concerned with how that penalty might be interpreted by the wider public in terms of the message sent out as to the importance attached by the FA to anti-racism campaigns.

419. Mr McCormick did not accept that the fact that this was a match between Liverpool and Manchester United should affect the penalty. He submitted that those watching the match would not have understood that Mr Suarez had used insulting words referring to Mr Evra's colour, and that it was Mr Evra's interview on Canal+ and his reference to "ten times" that had brought matters into the public domain. Mr McCormick did not accept that criticism of Mr Evra in the media and on social networking sites could be laid at the door of Mr Suarez.

420. Mr McCormick then advanced a number of points of mitigation on behalf of Mr Suarez. First, he pointed to the fact that the conversation and aggression in the goalmouth was started by Mr Evra.

421. Secondly, Mr McCormick pointed to a number of factors in Mr Suarez's experience. These had been deployed by him in support of Mr Suarez's denial of the Charge. He now relied on them for mitigation. Mr Suarez is from a mixed race family background, and his
grandfather was black. That showed, Mr McCormick submitted, that the potential
consequences of our decision are all the worse for him. He grew up in a town and then a
city where there were lots of black people. He had no problems with them and had many
black friends. It was important to emphasise this point lest Mr Suarez be unfairly and
unjustifiably portrayed as a racist as a result of our decision.

422. Mr McCormick submitted that when Mr Suarez played for Ajax, the squad featured a
number of black players. He never had any problems with them, used to socialise with a
number of them and they became good friends. He was made Club captain. This would
not have happened had he displayed any racist tendencies. Mr Suarez plays alongside
black players in the Uruguay national team and has no problems with them. They and
their families mix together when on international duty.

423. Mr McCormick referred to Mr Suarez's involvement in the charitable enterprise following the World Cup in South Africa to which we have already referred in paragraph 340 above. The central theme of the film that was made is that the colour of a person's skin does not matter, they can all play together as a team. The allegations made by Mr Evra had distressed Mr Suarez as evidenced by his postings on Twitter, Facebook and his website soon after the allegations became public.

424. Mr McCormick placed reliance on the fact that there was nothing presented to us to suggest any history of racist behaviour by Mr Suarez. Mr McCormick said that Mr Suarez felt shame and embarrassment not only in terms of his family but also the Uruguayan people, whom he felt he had let down. Mr McCormick stressed that Mr Suarez did not mean the word "negro" in the way that Mr Evra took it.

425. In the light of all these circumstances, Mr McCormick submitted that we could not be justifiably criticised if we took the view that Mr Suarez will undoubtedly have learned his lesson, that he will speak very carefully to people in future, certainly on the pitch in a game of football in England, and that we did not see the need for an increased sanctionabove the entry point of two games.
Click to expand...

I believe this is called the "feck we've been found out lads" stage. Love how he still manages to get a dig at Evra in there, yeah it's his fault he's getting abused on twitter and facebook. If he'd just stayed quiet he'd only get abused on the pitch.
 
After reading the FA document i am now of the opinion that the 8 game ban is not enough.

If we are to "kick out racism" then Suarez should be served with a permanent ban or suspended for the rest of the season.

I recall Rio was banned for a number of months for simply missing a drug test, and Cantona was banned for a few months for kicking a racist supporter, so surely Suarez's racial abuse against Evra warrants a more significant ban than 8 meagre matches!!!
 
Edmeiste said:
I'm very happy with Evra's reaction. The fact that he stayed somewhat composed after being insulted like that is admirable. I know a lot of people that would have punched Suarez and went apeshit. Justice is served and now Evra can be at peace.

The people that criticized him must feel like cnuts now! That's why it pays to reserve judgment until all the facts are out idiots!
Click to expand...

If you have a look on rawk, then I don't think this is the case.

They are still feeling outraged at how Suarez the Innocent has been treated.

In fact, Liverpool's initial statement was so strong, that they are almost in a position where they can't back down.

Will be interesting to see how they react. Am guessing that they will not be asking another 12 year-old rawkite to write their official statement....
 
Mr Dalglish told the referee that Mr Suarez responded with "you are black" having first
been taunted with "you are South American". Mr Comolli is not recorded as using the
word "taunted", but said that Mr Evra said "you are South American" to Mr Suarez who
responded with "Tues negro" which translates "you are Black". There is no suggestion here
that Mr Evra had said "Don't touch me", yet this seems now to be an essential part of Mr
Suarez's evidence. We were not given any explanation as to why the referee was not told
that Mr Evra had said "Don't touch me, South American", as opposed to "you are South
American". Secondly, at least as expressly reported by Mr Dalglish, Mr Suarez's remark
was a riposte to being taunted by Mr Evra. If that is correct, it would suggest that Mr
Dalglish understood Mr Suarez's comment to be in the nature of retaliation for having
been called "South American". But that would suggest that the riposte "You are black" was
used in a derogatory sense, which is contrary to Mr Suarez's case. In fact, Mr Suarez told
us that he did not consider being described as South American to be derogatory, so it is
difficult to understand why this was referred to as a "taunt".
Click to expand...

Enough said
 
I genuinely can't believe you can read the report in full and not come to the same conclusion that the Commission did. Suarez changed his story multiple times, his evidence didn't fit with those even on his side, didn't fit with the TV footage... bloody hell it's about as clearcut as they come.
 
Feeky_Magee said:
I genuinely can't believe you can read the report in full and not come to the same conclusion that the Commission did. Suarez changed his story multiple times, his evidence didn't fit with those even on his side, didn't fit with the TV footage... bloody hell it's about as clearcut as they come.
Click to expand...

Completely agree.

Not that I am trying to defend rawk, but fans will often follow the lead of the club.

Also, it should be noted that there are a number* (granted, a minority) on rawk who are saying that based on the report, they have changed their view on the situation.

*I am guessing that we can refer to these as banned/former posters on rawk!
 
swooshboy said:
If you have a look on rawk, then I don't think this is the case.

They are still feeling outraged at how Suarez the Innocent has been treated.

In fact, Liverpool's initial statement was so strong, that they are almost in a position where they can't back down.

Will be interesting to see how they react. Am guessing that they will not be asking another 12 year-old rawkite to write their official statement....
Click to expand...

Forget RAWK, i'm talking about his uruguayan mates. Fools. There was another guy that said Evra should have kept it on the field. Those guys should feel sick to their stomachs. That's what you get for making premature accusations.
 
Dion said:
The best thing is, CAS also works on the balance of probabilities, so even if they appeal all the way they'll still lose :D
Click to expand...
How does this Balance of Probabilities work then? The commission states Suarez uttered the word negro 7 times, while Evra says he was called by that word 10 times. That's 70%!

Hang the fecker.
 
I'm sure this has been posted at least a 100 times, but I'm gonna say it again....

Liverpool were a part of these proceedings - they knew what some of the key points in the final report would be(Suarez changing his story repeatedly, his hilarious lost in translation excuse for both Comolli and Kuyt, along with a whole host of other things), yet they released that horrible, potentially libelous statement after the verdict was announced.

How? Why? WTF?

Is Liverpool FC actually run by brain damaged Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime?
 
MauritianRed said:
How does this Balance of Probabilities work then? The commission states Suarez uttered the word negro 7 times, while Evra says he was called by that word 10 times. That's 70%!

Hang the fecker.
Click to expand...

Evra basically had to convince the board with a 51% certainty that his was the likely version of events. Suarez lying through his teeth served it up on a platter for him.
 
He should have been banned for 16 matches. 8 for his initial offence, and another 8 for trying to mislead the panel in such an amateurish manner.
 
Suarez has made a liar out of Kuyt and Comolli, put Dalglish in a position that makes him look like an ignorant moron at best.

I'd want him out of the club to be honest.
 
Aporkalypse said:
Suarez has made a liar out of Kuyt and Comolli, put Dalglish in a position that makes him look like an ignorant mor
Click to expand...

I wonder if Dalglish is not the main culprit in all this. Suarez is understandably at the centre of this shitstorm, but it appears that Dalglish has taken this to another level. I just don't buy the idea that he has been misled; rather that he stupidly tried to add fuel to fire and failed miserably.

I never thought there would be another person more despicable than Keown, but KK is now on his own on top in my eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.