‘Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black…He has played with black players and mixed with their families whilst with the Uruguay national side and was Captain at Ajax Amsterdam of a team with a proud multi-cultural profile, many of whom became good friends.’
The barrel is now truly being scraped. My “best friends” argument is one that reeks of desperation. And proves nothing anyway, being irrelevant to the case, except for the mention elsewhere of the panel wanting to have a very strong burden of proof.
‘We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult.’
And now the barrel has been scraped out of existence – having run out of arguments, let’s try and blame the other guy instead eh? And we are expected to give a player credit for admitting to have not heard something?!
And then there was the T-shirts. Just thinking about them makes me cringe. Let’s be clear, the judgement was not that Suarez was inherently racist, but that he made a racist comment, which is a different thing altogether. And the document’s findings took away any doubt. The panel that came to pass judgement was independent, and was approved by Liverpool. The panel hired two experts in South American linguistics. Lawyers aplenty were involved, as always. Other players gave evidence. Dalglish openly criticised the delay in a decision in a press conference – yet Suarez’s representative had asked for a delay in proceedings so that they could collate evidence – which the FA mostly granted. The FA didn’t grant the full period delay asked for as they argued it was in the player’s interests to conclude matters as soon as possible.
Even if the terms Suarez admitted to using are acceptable in Uruguay, it is not a valid excuse. Suarez was not in Uruguay, and what’s more has been in Europe for five years, so should have some idea by now about what is and what isn’t right. He admitted to the panel that it wasn’t acceptable, and he wouldn’t do it again – that’s what is commonly known as an admission of guilt. A key point in the decision was the simple fact that Suarez was seen as an unreliable witness. And the key example of this was his account of pinching Evra on the arm.
Suarex claimed initially in his statement that it was done to diffuse the situation – but at the hearing, after being asked six times, that this wasn’t the case. This changes everything, as it discredits the claim that Suarez said the word negro in a friendly manner in the middle of a heated argument – this claim is simply close to unbelievable, as the report mentioned. The changing of accounts made matters worse – Liverpool blamed it on “bad drafting” yet Suarez’s representative had already commented on what great care had been applied to constructing the statement.
The 115-page report makes clear references more than once that Suarez’s account of events was inconsistent with the video evidence, unlike Evra’s, and what they repeatedly mention is that no attempt was made to explain away the discrepancies. What’s more, Suarez’s account in his witness statement contained three differences in all to his account given at the hearing in November.
And it wasn’t just Suarez. When Comolli (Liverpool’s Director of Football) reported to the referee after the match what Suarez claimed to have said, there were further discrepancies with Suarez’s own account of what he said. And yet despite all this, the club continue to claim it is the FA’s errors that have led to this outcome. But as the report said: ‘
‘The impression created by these inconsistencies was that Mr Suarez’s evidence was not, on the whole, reliable. He had put forward an interpretation of events which was inconsistent with the contemporaneous video evidence. He had changed his account in a number of important respects without satisfactory explanation.’
The media should be blamed. The t-shirts was to support a man they believed had been unfairly judged. Wrong? no Racist? no. They never defended racism, they defended the right every man has for justice. The FA report is a joke, and this article is as biased and little original as every other article that has been written on this case from every major newspaper.
Funny You should mention it,which witnesses and pieces of evidence are You referring to in the following sentence:
“Every angle had been covered, every piece of evidence obtained, every possible witness spoken to”.
The worst impact of the FA decision is not the ban itself, but that Mr. Suarez has been found to be a racist, even though the accuser and FA says he`s not. If You are sentenced for murder or any other crime, You will always, if not forever, be regarded as a murderer, burglar or whatever name Your wrongdoing might get.In my opinion, this is what the club has tried to avoid in supporting Mr. Suraez so strongly.If FA doesen`t react strongly on every other related incident rather immediately, this decision is forever wrong and unfair.
While the English press and the EPL (the FA, English anti-racism campaigners, football media pundits) are all carefully trying not to use the wrong words whilst describing certain ethnicities, whilst simulataneously completely dismissing anything that Liverpool FC does or says – the majority of the rest of the world is laughing at you. We’re also bored of this storm in a teacup.
England has become a whipped State of fear – with everyone apologising for everything because of ‘offense’ caused.
The sad thing is that you’ve convinced yourself that all of this is true now. Liverpool defended their player on the grounds that he’s not racist and didn’t appreciate the suggestion that he was. Liverpool also managed to unwittingly highlight the inequality of how it’s an 8-match ban to mention skin-colour, but it’s apparently ok to mention where someone comes from.
This whole incident smacks of scapegoating, and it’s an absolute joke that this hasn’t been highlighted by anyone outside of Liverpool. Suarez deserved a ban for what he said, but no more than Evra did. And the demonising of Luis Suarez has totally undermined anything achieved by these anti-racism groups now – the ambiguity of the charges and the evidently biased handling of the case has merely served to add to the confusion.
the 2 past allegations by this may not have been INITIATED by him – but they were certainly used by him – he gave evidence at the time which the FA said was exagerated etc – HE DID HAVE FORM!
he has also been filmed ranting and using the N word in anger – something he denied he could actually say due to its upsetting nature – he used this as an excuse for not telling the referee at the time of the incident – MORE LIES
You are such a cock. I read the start of this before my 1st comment and I’ve just finished the rest of it. HAHA!
Get over it Howard. Everyone else has…
But the subsequent release of Evra’s display calling Chelsea players Mother F…..g N.gg.rs surely bears witness that this players testimony is not credible. How can someone aho uses such descriptions claim that Suarez’s comments offended him ???
I believe that the FA and their independent panel should now be very embarrassed by their finding.
The guy who wrote this article is blatently a man utd fan..lol he obviously hasn,t read up on the time evra accused the senagles fans of being racist against him in a game agains france?
put in mind evra is from senegal….get your facts right pal!
to me it sounds like evra’s the one thats get desperate and use the race card because he has a rubish game and his team looses.
if the Uruguay player paulo alvaro who is black says ” I think man und tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of liverpool best players from playing”
“If im called negro , i laugh but know its a crim to say something on the pitch”
“if this would of happend in south america every one would be arrested”
paolo alvaro:quote.
so in the way this article is written is just adding fuel to accuse suares of being a racist when hes not!… so fix up writer! keep your blatent one sided opinion to your self and write something worth writing!…twat!
The self-righteousness of the English press is absoutely astounding. For a nation that has never apologised for initiating the concentration camps which killed tens of thousands of boer women and children, laid the foundations of Apartheid, ran the slave trade, refused Jewish refugees access to freedom during the holocaust, they have NO right to criticise Liverpool’s defense of Suarez based on cultural differences. I hope the press are silent on cultural differences the next time some British citizen is arrested in the Middle East for having sex in public. The English are xenophobes.
Please lipread all comments by players in every game since the start of soccer on TV, and You will find a lot of players that should have been banned for life, if FA would use the same logics as in the Suarez case. If action is not taken against other players, their verdict will forever be a scapegoat decision.
If anything, The Suarez-Evra case has revealed deep rooted xenophobia since the media has been frenzied in its attack on Suarez even before the verdict but a certain John Terry has a case against another Englishman Anton Ferdinand backed up by video evidence that has been largely ignored so that the focus is on a Uruguayan and a Frenchman therefore projecting the impression the English no longer have a racism issue.
John Barnes sums it up well here http://news.sky.com/home/video/health/video/16144726
this is not only about racism – this is as much about man utd as it is about the fa – i notice evra changed his tale after speaking to fergusson and then used some cock and bull story about why he didn’t originally tell the referee the n word had been used – this was all about getting suarez removed from a team that had battered man utd on the day and a man who had run rings around their defence – typical of the man – using friends in the fa to ruin a player’s reputation and livelihood
Suarez did admit saying the word; Evra admitted to that he got the translation wrong. On that basis Suarez deserves a ban BUT to come up with such a damning summary on the “balance of probability” where there is absolutely no evidence is irresponsible.
ON every point where there was a difference between the 2 sides, the panel opted on the side of Evra. On the balance of probability, what is the likelihood of that being fact.
When Evra was interviewed by the FA it was done by going through video evidence, Suarez was interviewed was not given that benefit. Is it any wonder that Evra’s evidence was more in line with the video?
On the balance of probability, what is the likelihood of the offensive word being said so many times without another player hearing anything in a packed penalty area?
Representatives of Liverpool sat throughout the whole hearing. They were clearly shocked at the outcome, do you really think they are so blinkered as to think that without having good reason.
Why would Liverpool mention omissions from the report unless there were some – it is easily proven?
And if you still have problems then please answer this question. With all the bad publicity Liverpool risk losing millions if revenue from corporate sponsorships. Do you really think the club would suddenly change its values and ethos on a whim to support a player?
It is irresponsible to deliver such a verdict and damage to any individual’s character and reputation without any evidence at all. A much more sensible outcome, taking into account the lack of evidence, would have been a shorter ban and education.
Whoever has written this piece should be sacked!!
The sad bit is that NOTHING in defence of Evra is true
Ken
this article reminds me of the ramblings of an idiot.
Please put this whole case into context, especially the verdict, step back and look at it, what is the message. Blatant racial abuse is WRONG, we can agree on that, but let`s look at this case, the verdict and what it says. Keep in mind that the meaning of the word “negro” depends on context and the intent of the user and Suarez admitted freely that he used it, but not in a bad way. Was that intelligent or ill witted, is that what a guilty man would do when there is lack of hard evidence. Evra use a bad word admittedly without being punished, what kind of message that sends.
The message the verdict sends is this, words hurt more that sticks and stones, if you intend to abuse, kick the opponent, do not say anything to him, you will most likely get a shorter ban. Every black player who utters the N word to another black man on the pitch MUST get an eight game ban at least, period. Rooney’s F word case says that anyone who uses the F word on the pitch must get a ban as well, even if it is not directed towards the camera, the attendees deserve to be protected in the same manner as the TV viewers, they have the same rights. Rules are rules, either they are or they are not rules, if they are rules, then they must then apply to EVERYONE, no matter the background, according to this case. If Suarez acted as a racist, then he should be punished, but so should all competitors in all divisions under FA authority. Is the FA as inept in this matter as others like many suspect, time will tell. The FA could easily stamp out player aggression and verbal abuse towards referees, rugby has, but they don’t, a real authority one could respect would, do that and many other negative aspects of this great game would vanish as well.
how long must i await moderation? does it bother you that i have said something you don’t like ?nearly 3 hrs now – embarressing eh? sussed !!!