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

If the FA let this go on a technicality and clear Suarez, it is going to look extremely bad for their image, in terms of how they deal with racism. They really have to ban him, given his admission of the word he used, and the clear evidence that he was not being 'friendly' during the game in his constant contact with Evra
 
It's irrelevant what it means 15,000 miles away. There are certain countries where giving someone a thumbs up sign is a mortal insult. If you spend any time whatsoever in one of them, you know this. Let alone 5 years in Europe, as Suarez has.

He knew full well what he was saying, and should have the book thrown at him.

Ps...funny comment by the best United blogger out there on Twitter about the middle finger gesture to Fulham fans last night:

"Haha. Yes. Sticking the middle finger up is a term of endearment in Uruguay. How could I forget? Thanks for reminding me. Ban Evra."
 
Good blog article I read - highlights how LFC's behaviour has affected this whole incident. At the very least they should be warned regarding their future conduct

The Guardian’s Marina Hyde wrote an incisive article framing the slightly absurd aftermath of the Patrice Evra-Luis Suarez incident. If you happened to miss the storm, Evra accused Suarez of racially abusing him at least ten times during last weekend’s Liverpool-Manchester United match. Hyde’s basic point was a simple one: when it comes to the he said-she said, don’t jump to conclusions. But there is one conclusion that is safe to draw from this saga: when two people take diametrically opposing views on whether an incident of this nature happened, not once, but ten times, someone is engaging in high-level, pre-meditated fabrication.
Now, no question, Evra’s allegation is a serious one, but it isn’t the only serious issue raised by the incident. The reaction by the players’ respective clubs should at least raise an eyebrow, if not both.
Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson took the more measured approach. Rather than adamantly stating publicly that his player was victimized, he simply said of the allegation, “We spoke to Patrice today and he’s adamant that he wants to follow it on.” He continued, “Obviously Patrice feels very aggrieved at what was said to him and it rests in the hands of the FA now.”
Contrast Ferguson’s comments with those made by a Liverpool spokesman in the aftermath. “Luis is adamant that he has not used language of that nature and the club is totally supportive of the player.” Liverpool went further to suggest that Evra should be banned if his allegations prove groundless. That’s quite an aggressive public statement of support.
Notice both clubs reference how both of their players are “adamant.” However, under the circumstances, it’s clear that one is simply adamantly lying, which raises a question: Should a club publicly take sides in these types of incidents purely based on a player being adamant? I think not. Why? Because it sends a very troubling signal.
In a case where a player is accused of racially abusing another player ten times, the signal sent when a club publicly stands up based on a player being adamant is that a club’s first priority isn’t the truth, rather, it is, first and foremost, to protect the word of its prized asset. What makes this situation particularly troubling is that one player is lying, a reality that should elicit a measured reaction, not a lawyerly proclamation that leaves an aftertaste of innocence.
A club taking a public position is understandable when the situation involves determining the intent of a player’s seemingly malicious tackle. As we well know by now, intent is often a very difficult thing to prove. In the absence of the ability to be in a player’s head, standing up for a player based on known character can be understandable. But this is different. Evidence of intent is often speculative. Evidence of racial abuse, ten times, in front players, cameras and millions of fans is much less so. That’s what makes Liverpool’s public comments so curious. To take it a step further, such a stance by a club suggests something a bit more sinister underlying its public representations (and no, not just with Liverpool).
Too often we conflate the posturing that takes place in a legal defense with a club’s posturing after an incident, a reflex that understood properly raises questions about the responsibility clubs claim they have in the community. It’s an important distinction that is often overlooked in our real world arguments.
A defense attorney’s job is to make the other side prove its case, to meet the required burden of proof. A defense attorney’s job is not to determine truth. When a club publicly acts like a defense attorney, they are implicitly saying that they are not interested in truth, but in protecting their asset by any means necessary. This is a difficult position to reconcile with a club that also consistently positions and presents itself as a righteous, moral pillar of the community, and a supporter of kicking things out, things like racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything else kickable.
If clubs want to act like lawyers in public, they can have little expectation for the rest of us to trust their word, which is a pretty dangerous precedent (one which may already be set). It means that their words are intended for advocacy on behalf of their client-assets, and we should always view their positions with asset-colored glasses, regardless of the topic. If we can’t trust them to, at a minimum, refrain from prematurely standing with a liar (and again, we know someone is lying), why should we trust their communications when it comes to finances, governance, harsh tackles or anything else?
Ultimately, Hyde’s salient point that conclusions shouldn’t be drawn before evidence is heard shouldn’t just apply to spectators; it should also apply to clubs. You can’t kick out racism on one hand, and impede the process from determining whether a racist incident occurred on the other. In Liverpool’s case, that doesn’t mean that Suarez is guilty. It simply means that it might have served them well to be a bit more measured with their public comments until the facts are flushed out.
Click to expand...

The Evra vs. Suarez Racism Extravaganza: When Clubs React and Shouldn
 
It's been 2 months since the incident.

If there's a reason they're taking so long, they'd better share it with us. Do they think it's making it easier on Suarez to delay the decision?

I guess footballers don't have the right to a speedy trial.
 
They're making absolutely sure that there is no piece of evidence left unexamined. I don't know.. that's the best I could come up with as counsel for Lucifer.
 
that is a very well written article (the perspective is just about perfectly balanced). get the writer a column in one of your papers.
 
Not too surprised that the racist charge process is taking so long. It is a pretty delicate subject and must be investigated thoroughly.

But I'm surprised he is getting so much time to respond to the Fulham charge. Rooney was banned for swearing on camera within a week.
 
Even though Rooney's mistake was worse, both incidents were clear open and shut cases.

How the FA can get Rooney suspended so quickly and yet take so long to proceed Suarez's case is beyond me. Totally hypocritical.
 
Luis Suárez and Patrice Evra racism case: FA hearing begins in secrecy
• Disciplinary case into claims against Suárez is under way
• Case set to last two days, with both players giving evidence


The FA hearing into the racism case involving Liverpool's Luis Suárez and Manchester United's Patrice Evra is under way. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters
Luis Suárez's disciplinary hearing for allegedly racially abusing Patrice Evra has begun in secrecy, the Guardian can reveal.

The case is expected to last two days, with Suárez and Evra both giving evidence to determine the chain of events that has led to the Liverpool striker facing a long ban if he is found guilty.

Evra claims that Suárez used a racist word "at least ten times" during Manchester United's 1-1 draw at Anfield on 15 October. Suárez denies the allegations and has been given Liverpool's full backing as he tries to overturn a case that threatens to have huge ramifications for the club's season.

The hearing centres on a disputed version of what was said between the two players. Suárez has admitted words were exchanged but the Uruguayan's defence is understood to focus on the nuances of the Spanish language and

cultural differences, arguing that what he said would not be considered offensive for someone of his background in South America.

The complexities of the case have led the FA to look closely at the semantics issue and explain why the case is expected to take longer than usual.
Click to expand...

Luis Suárez and Patrice Evra racism case: FA hearing begins in secrecy | Football | guardian.co.uk
 
Why in secrecy?

I don't get it. If neither club or player has anything to hide, then why bother. The result will be known, either way.

This just goes against the FA's anti racism campaign in my eyes.
 
That article seems to suggest it would be too severe to give Liverpool and their owners the stigma of being involved in racism, so we should say it's 'one man's word against another' and let it go.

I wonder if United will bother to bring in an expert on linguistics of their own. You can find an 'expert' who believes about anything.
 
fishfingers15 said:
Luis Suarez racism hearing: reputations at stake as panel attempt to unravel most complicated of cases - Telegraph

Wow, just wow.
Click to expand...

rightthere.jpeg


All that article is missing is "..... as part of his defence, Suarez is expected to point to the fact that some of his very best friends are black."

Have a funny feeling this is taking so long so the FA can brush it under the carpet without it coming back to bite them.
 
It's a fecking disgrace that he's allowed to print that.

Claiming Evra wrongly accused the ground staff at Chelsea of racism when Evra said himself that he heard nothing of the sort and it was in fact Mike Phelan that heard the comments. And the Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime of the British ABU nation lap it up.

Wankers
 
One quick question: Has anyone currently at Manchester Utd ever used the word negro, negrito, or a variation with one another? For whatever reason? If you don't know, do you believe it may have been uttered?

(and you're right, I am looking in Hernandez's direction)
 
Key to this whole thing is why does Suarez feel the need to use any racially descriptive word at all? Why not just call him Patrice? Or Pat? Or French man?

Why bring a racilally descriptive word (as he claims) at all. Its obvious ... because he knew that it would offend Evra. And thats just pure logic talking and not as a United fan
 
Dumbstar said:
One quick question: Has anyone currently at Manchester Utd ever used the word negro, negrito, or a variation with one another? For whatever reason? If you don't know, do you believe it may have been uttered?

(and you're right, I am looking in Hernandez's direction)
Click to expand...

:lol:

Because that was exactly the same thing.
 
Dumbstar said:
One quick question: Has anyone currently at Manchester Utd ever used the word negro, negrito, or a variation with one another? For whatever reason? If you don't know, do you believe it may have been uttered?

(and you're right, I am looking in Hernandez's direction)
Click to expand...

I'd like to think no one at Man United has called a black opponent a negro during an on-pitch argument.

I wouldn't want them at the club if they had.
 
Dumbstar said:
One quick question: Has anyone currently at Manchester Utd ever used the word negro, negrito, or a variation with one another? For whatever reason? If you don't know, do you believe it may have been uttered?

(and you're right, I am looking in Hernandez's direction)
Click to expand...

What are you on about?
 
Kenny's recent comment:

"We have said many times before we cannot say anything which will be prejudicial," he said.

Backtracking. Suarez and Kenny should have kept their mouths shut from the start.
 
Dumbstar said:
One quick question: Has anyone currently at Manchester Utd ever used the word negro, negrito, or a variation with one another? For whatever reason? If you don't know, do you believe it may have been uttered?

(and you're right, I am looking in Hernandez's direction)
Click to expand...

oh dear.
 
Dumbstar said:
One quick question: Has anyone currently at Manchester Utd ever used the word negro, negrito, or a variation with one another? For whatever reason? If you don't know, do you believe it may have been uttered?

(and you're right, I am looking in Hernandez's direction)
Click to expand...

The "context" is everything

Was Hernandez being affectionate or abusive?

Was Suarez being affectionate?

Was he feck
 
Red4Ever said:
The "context" is everything

Was Hernandez being affectionate or abusive?

Was Suarez being affectionate?

Was he feck
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the answer is yes. I know Pacheco has used the same term lovingly with someone else. Maybe Suarez has a thing for never going back? :nervous: ;)
 
Dumbstar said:
I'm guessing the answer is yes. I know Pacheco has used the same term lovingly with someone else. Maybe Suarez has a thing for never going back? :nervous: ;)
Click to expand...

:lol:

Grabbing his ankles so early in the season - settled in well on Merseyside then!
 
Dumbstar said:
I'm guessing the answer is yes. I know Pacheco has used the same term lovingly with someone else. Maybe Suarez has a thing for never going back? :nervous: ;)
Click to expand...

or... maybe he used the word negro to piss Evra off in an argument.

It's pretty darn obvious the way this went, rather than sticking up for your player you should be disgusted at him.
 
The Hernandez argument is a red herring. Evra once called Lampard and Hasslebaink motherfecking niggas and told Lampard to suck his pussy while going crazy in a hotel room, that doesn't mean it's acceptable for opposition players to start using that sort of language towards his teammates.
 
sammsky1 said:
Key to this whole thing is why does Suarez feel the need to use any racially descriptive word at all? Why not just call him Patrice? Or Pat? Or French man?

Why bring a racilally descriptive word (as he claims) at all. Its obvious ... because he knew that it would offend Evra. And thats just pure logic talking and not as a United fan
Click to expand...

That's fair enough, and he could get done for that.

But isn't the latest (and I'm only going on what's available in the press) that he tried to pat Pat on the head and make up. Thus 'lovingly' calling him negrito at that point rather than the abusive?

Anyway, I guess we'll have to wait for the full transcript of the case which may be tomorrow.
 
Kraftwerker said:
It's one thing being a stupid fecker, but trying to trivialise racist abuse is a bit of a new low, even by your standards.
Click to expand...

Yes, because you know my background so well and where I was raised. :wenger: I expected nothing less from you Kraft, nothing less.
 
Dumbstar said:
One quick question: Has anyone currently at Manchester Utd ever used the word negro, negrito, or a variation with one another? For whatever reason? If you don't know, do you believe it may have been uttered?

(and you're right, I am looking in Hernandez's direction)
Click to expand...

The thing with Suarez is he said it when he and Evra were in a heated argument on the pitch. He quite clearly didn't mean it in a friendly way and anybody who thinks he did is a moron.

"The key is the tone in which you say those words," Sebastián García, the South American football writer for Mundo Albiceleste, explains. "It can be extremely friendly to call someone negrito but it can also be very offensive."
"It all depends on the connotation, the way it is used, the tone, the intent."
Click to expand...
 
Dumbstar said:
That's fair enough, and he could get done for that.

But isn't the latest (and I'm only going on what's available in the press) that he tried to pat Pat on the head and make up. Thus 'lovingly' calling him negrito at that point rather than the abusive?

Anyway, I guess we'll have to wait for the full transcript of the case which may be tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Lovingly calling him negrito. :lol:

Yea right. He was trying to wind him up. Why would you call someone a negro who clearly isn't your friend?

Patting on the head is also a condescending gesture, coming from someone you've been in a heated argument with. In fact it's a condescending gesture in most cases - like something you do to a small child or a pet.


Dumbstar said:
Yes, because you know my background so well and where I was raised. :wenger: I expected nothing less from you Kraft, nothing less.
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with anything?

I couldn't give two fecks where you're from.

Next you'll be telling me you've got black friends.
 
As I've said from the start there's a clear difference in calling your friends "ma niggas" than calling someone you don't personally know...one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.