UKC

Obviously not got the brains he was born with.

E

In reply to Enty:

If you didn't see it he just refused to shake Evra's hand.

E

In reply to Enty:
Days unlike this you wonder why some players don't realise that being a professional footballer involves being professional in aptitude as well as ability.

The way my weekend's going though, I don't expect Utd to take any points away today...

In reply to Enty: Not learned a lot from his recent experiences, it seems; shame that he's not used his free time to grow up a bit.

T.

In reply to Enty: So Evra and De Gea both grabbed him.....

He's lost 8 games of football for a decision he still believes was wrong - what do you expect??

In reply to bluebealach:

A lot of boos for Evra whenever he's on the ball too- not football's best day.

In reply to hindu: As long as Rooney scores......he's in my fantasy team!!! )

As we say, let the game be known for the football, not the side show!!

In reply to bluebealach:

There is, of course, an opposite view to that.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

I'm not disagreeing.

Just pointing out that some of these Prima Donnas seem to be a law unto themselves....

In reply to Enty:

Apparently, Dalglish has already commented that he didn't see the incident, Suarez didn't see Evra, and shaking hands is not something that happens in Uruguay anyhow. It's a cultural thing... Again.

In reply to bluebealach:

You can say the same about th clubs thou. What I find most objectionable is Liverpool's response to this - supporting their player is one thing but ignoring it and saying, in effect: "he's served an unjust punishment and can pick up where he left off" isn't supporting their player, it's just condoning the player's behaviour and attitudes.

In reply to hindu: I'm not sure where I stand on this one as I really don't know what what the actual mind-set of Suarez is/was in relation to his use of certain words/phrases ect

As for Liverpool, surely Dalgliesh ain't that stupid - he must have taken some legal advice??

In reply to bluebealach: https://t.co/...

In reply to hindu: Back to the football - interesting last couple of minutes, someone will get a red in the second half!!!

In reply to Papillon: Your bringing third parties into this equation.

I don't really think that Suarez/Dalgliesh had a hand in that publication!

In reply to bluebealach:

Handbags in the tunnel too by the look of things.

Some pretty good football being played, Utd should have had a goal through Scholes and Liverpool have been looking good down their right too - insert cliche here about it being wide open!

In reply to hindu: Goal Rooney!

In reply to Enty: Yes 1 - 0

In reply to bobbybin: and 2-0!!!

In reply to Enty: Just saying on 5live that Scholes is running the game, not bad for an old semi retired bloke

In reply to bobbybin:

Horrible mistake from Ferdinand...2-1

In reply to hindu: Didn't watch it all but it sounded like utd found it very easy today - which they should as they're a class above liverpool.

Not sure what Evra got manhandled by the ref for at the end - was he trying to goad Suarez?

In reply to Enty: How many people on here (and elsewhere) who have been saying that Suarez was childish for not shaking Evra's hand MISSED the fact that Ferdinand refused to shake the hand of Suarez??

I did but if we question Suarez, should we now question Ferdinand and is there a bigger picture here??

In reply to bluebealach:

more to the point - who cares?

In reply to Glyno: Errrr, if alleged 'racism' is involved, apparently quite a few on this site..

In reply to bluebealach:

racism - that's been dealt with hasn't it? we're on about a bloke refusing to shake another bloke's hand.

Get a grip.

In reply to bluebealach:

does that mean Ferdinand refusing to shake Suarez's <spits> hand make him a racist?

In reply to bluebealach:

What annoyed me is that before the game, 5 live kept harping on about everyone talking about it all the time and why can't they just let it be then proceeded to talk about it every 5 minutes during the commentary.

Ferguson interviewed afterwards:

"Sir Alex Ferguson pulled no punches in criticising the behaviour of Luis Suarez at the handshake protocol before the start of Manchester United’s 2-1 win over Liverpool at Old Trafford.

Suarez blanked Evra, who had offered his hand to the Uruguayan. The incident added an unnecessary extra dynamic to a match always fringed with tension.

Afterwards Ferguson, asked about Suarez’s ignoring of his French captain, said: “I couldn’t believe it. We had a talk about it this morning and Patrice said he was ready to shake hands. He felt he had done nothing wrong.

“He [Suarez] is a disgrace to Liverpool Football Club. That player should not be allowed to play for Liverpool again. The history that club’s got and he does that. In a situation like today it could have caused a riot. It was terrible. The referee didn’t know what to do with it. It was a terrible start to the game.”

Ferguson said he had not witnessed Evra’s effusive, crowd-inciting celebrations at the end of the game when he was steered away from Suarez by referee Phil Dowd.

Informed about Evra’s behaviour by a Sky TV interviewer, Ferguson said: “He shouldn’t have done that.”

Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish refused to answer questions about Suarez’s behaviour before the game, preferring instead to praise both sets of fans"

In reply to Glyno:

........<thinks> of yes, the Suarez ban which brought all this on had nothing to to do with a perceived racist comment did it??

Oh well maybe not, sorry I'm just getting a grip!!

In reply to Glyno: Probably not, just maybe as fecking childish as Suarez, but who will dare call Ferdinand as it is his brother that is the complainant in the John Terry incident??

In reply to bluebealach:

Refused straight after (second in line from Evra) Suarez had turned his hand away from Evra. That might have had some bearing.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt): Quite possibly and it has now emerged that Welbeck also withdrew his hand from the hand of Suarez.

If this sort of behaviour is going to detract from the game, how long will the 'team handshake' survive??

Just seems a mess....

In reply to bluebealach: The fanzine was a disgrace.. KKK hood on the front.. obviously a witty joke..

In reply to bluebealach: i havnt seen owt of todays game. Did suerre refuse to shake evras hand before the rest refused to shake his??

In reply to IainRUK: Unfortunatly LFC are now percieved as a racist. (the image of white players warming up in white t shirts whith red images of suarez on them did nothing to help)

In reply to IainRUK:

Agreed but was it Suarez, Dalglish or any member of LFC who produced that article or publication?? No, it was a small number of redshite fans that produce the fanzine not the club..........

I'm sorry to say that as much as we think racism is abhorrent, racism in society is alive and kicking and will take generations to eradicate. You don't change the mindset of people with a few governmental policies and campaigns.

I think we all need to realise that!!

In reply to bluebealach:

neither team comes out of this with any credit.

Unlike the terry/Ferdinand case, this one had been settled, so both sides should have accepted it and moved on. The players should have shaken hands, and the managers should have taken pre-emptive action to defuse the tension. Neither did, and both are now trying to ratchet it up. Again

In reply to Enty:

You would have that Kenny would have had a word with Suarez before the game telling him that he'd better behave whiter than white, if you'll excuse the pun.

If Suarez had just swallowed a little humble pie then Utd would have been put on the back foot. As it was they were given a golden opportunity to make him look like a nob again and took full advantage of it.

In reply to bluebealach:

You do know it was a United fanzine?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I'm afraid I lay the blame firmly at Liverpool's door for this one. He should have grown up, taken the punishment and behaved like a professional sportsman today when Evra offered his hand.

Dalglish shouldn't defend him, should make an example of him.

Fergie's comments above are spot on. Liverpool should be ashamed of their player and they would get a lot of credit if they dropped/sacked/sold him.

To the guy who said racism still abounds - I agree but attitudes will only stay the same if it is seen as acceptable. Like it or not, footballers are seen as examples by many in society and should behave accordingly. Racially abusing someone on the pitch and then claiming it was taken out of context is pathetic. Perhaps he was unlucky to be singled out but singled out he was and so should show some magnanimity on his return.

A dark day for LFC.

In reply to Fickalli:
I agree with you that LFC have been disgraceful over this, the denial by the club that Suarez had done anything wrong inevitably being copied by the fans, and still going on

This is so bizarre you'd almost think it's a spoof
http://www.thisisanfield.com/

But Ferguson has been doing his utmost to provoke them with his usual mind games. Pre-match taunts over the lack of an appeal, followed by his OTT comments afterwards. He should have been attempting to defuse the situation, not score points.

In reply to Enty:

Surely no-one blamed Wayne Bridge when he refused to shake Terry's hand?

Suarez no doubt sees himself as the wronged party, so it's just a question of degree.

In reply to winhill:
Ain't life fair - piss poor human = multimillionaire. Worthy human beings (nurses, teachers,etc) = not worth a pay rise.
If footballers all disappeared tomorrow the world wouldn't change much, if all nurses and teachers disappeared tomorrow things would change quite quickly.

In reply to Fickalli:


But the point is that it is entirely compatible with the established facts that: (1) Suarez did not racially abuse Evra; (2) Evra's complaint was ill-founded (either because Evra misinterpreted a language in which he is not fluent, or through deliberate exaggeration to get an opponent into trouble and to bolster his complaint, or a mixture of the two); (3) the FA came to the wrong conclusion and issued an unjust ban.

If Suarez considers himself to be the aggrieved party, and considers that Evra told a lot of untruths to the FA, then his stance and refusal to shake Evra's hand is understandable.

In reply to Enty:
disagree.
Its his choice whether he shakes someones hand.

Too much is being made of it by the media again.

In reply to Enty: If you watch the clip care fully it is Evra who doesn't attempt to shake hands, not Suarez. Suarez had his hand out to shake but Evra makes no move at all. Not a surprise that the Evra does that TBH, after all he managed to pin the blame for nothing on Suarez once, might as well do it again. Typical Manc.

Andy F

In reply to Coel Hellier: That's not an accurate account of events. Suarez admitted to using the word 'black' in an exchange.

If a student was late for a tutorial and you said 'what time do ou call this?', no problem. If you said 'what time do ou call this, black man', you would be in trouble. The FA has been consistent with what would happen in other UK workplaces.

In reply to Papillon:
I've not been following it fully, but I thought he admitted to using the word 'negrita'.

Maybe that Mick Jagger's one of them racists too? 'Hey, Negrita' anyone?

In reply to andy farnell:
After reading that hypothesis on the thisisanfield website, I have watched the clip a number of times and I still can't see how anyone could claim that it was Evra who didn't want to shake hands.

But then again, I'm a neutral

In reply to Anonymous: 'Negro', black in Spanish.

In reply to Papillon:


What I said was that it had not been established that Suarez "racially abused" him. Yes he did use a Spanish word that means "black", but that in itself does not establish his remarks as "racially abusive"; Suarez maintained that it was not intended as racially offensive and that in his culture/language what he said would not be interpreted as racially abusive.

For the part of the conversation that Suarez accepted he had said, it was accepted by the Evra side that that part was not racially abusive.

However, Evra also asserted that there were other parts of the conversation that were racially abusive. Suarez disputes and rejects that claim. The FA seem to have accepted Evra's claim on this *disputed* section of the conversation (hence the ban) -- the part of the conversation that Suarez accepted he had said was not the reason for the ban, since all sides accept that that was (relatively) innocuous.

In reply to Anonymous:


Suarez should be a fan of The Clash, particularly 'I fought the law and the law won'...

T.

In reply to bluebealach:

Anton Ferdinand hasn't made a complaint against Terry.

In reply to Enty:

Is Dalglish dragging LFC's reputation into the gutter?

http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/feb/11/liverpool-kenny-dalglish-...

In reply to Papillon:


Here is the crucial disputed section of the conversation (translated from Spanish):

Evra's version:

PE: Why did you kick me?
LS: Because you are black
PE: Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you.
LS: I don't speak to blacks.
PE: OK, now I think I'm going to punch you.
LS: OK, blackie, blackie, blackie

Suarez's version:

PE: Why did you kick me?
LS: It was just a normal foul <shrug shoulders>
PE: OK, you kicked me, I'm going to kick you.
LS: (Paraphrase): "I told him to shut up and made a brief gesture with my left hand like a "quacking" motion as if to say he was talking too much and should be quiet".

Neither player could give corroboration of these radically different versions, hence it ended up Evra's word against Suarez's.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Suarez admitted using the word negro while arguing with Evra which therefore couldnt be taken as friendly like he claimed by the FA panel. When it comes down to it if he actually had any brains he would have apologised for causing offence even if he didnt mean it and it wouldnt have been a problem I would imagine. However from the start he lied, tried to blame Evra and came up with ridiculous excuses like he cant be racist because his granda is black. To me Suarez is actually now coming across as properly racist instead of just someone who made a stupid remark in the heat of the moment and I think that shows how badly Liverpool have handled the whole thing as a club.

In reply to The New NickB: And Anton is Rio's cousin

In reply to Coel Hellier: Word!! ( seriously how gives a f@k)

In reply to ajsteele:


If it was simply a matter of the part of the conversation where he accepted that he'd used the phrase "Por que, negro?" (once) then he might well have been willing to apologise for that. However, he was being accused of the vastly worse section of conversation outlined above. In that circumstance an apology could have been taken as an admission of guilt to the much worse conversation.


Really? What lies did he tell? As I recall, he admitted to the "Por que, negro?" usage readily and early on.


In what way? His issue with Evra is that he considers that Evra told a pack of lies to the FA (see the above two conversations).

In reply to Coel Hellier: Where is that transcript from?

If what PE is saying is correct then LS is a nasty piece of work, using racism to goad PE. And LS should be sacked by LFC.

If what LS is saying is the correct version then I can fully see why he feels aggrieved. And PE should be banned for a long time and should be sacked by MUFC.

I wasn't a witness so I don't know who is telling the truth. I guess we will never know the truth unless either one of them own's up.

Whether LS should have shaken hands is a moot point but PE grabbing LS's arm only drew attention to the incident.

In reply to ajsteele:
>To me Suarez is actually now coming across as properly racist instead of just someone who made a stupid remark in the heat of the moment...

Does he? Ignoring absolutely everything else, why d'you think that? Is Rio Ferdinand a racist because he didn't shake Suarez's hand? I assumed he didn't because he thinks he's a tw*t. Could it just possibly be the case that Suarez thinks Evra's a tw*t too?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


It's from the FA report. You can read extracts at http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jan/01/fa-report-luis-suarez-patric...

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


I don't know which one is true either. But a couple of remarks:

If Suarez was guilty of the conversation that Evra claimed, then why would he have admitted early on to the one usage "Por que, negro?" in a different part of the conversation? Surely (by then realising he was in trouble) he'd deny the whole thing. He seems to have been penalised by the FA for this admission, since if he accepted the one relatively innocuous usage, then he must be guilty of the whole of Evra's claim.

Second, the conversation above happened in a crowded 6-yard area at a corner, with at least one other Spanish speaker around (Man U goalkeeper Gea). If Evra was on the receiving end of such a conversation, might be not have immediately turned to others and asked them whether they'd heard it? He didn't do that.

Lastly, when it comes to accusing someone of fairly serious offences, it is usual to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. In this situation there was no corroboration of either version of the conversation, and thus it came down to which the FA thought the more credible witness. Surely in that situation justice demands "not proven", in that it might be true, but we can't be sure enough. Certainly in a law court, not the FA tribunal, it would have been "not guilty" for that reason.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

why didn't Liverpool appeal against the ban?

on the Racism thing - The FA themselves in their statement say Suarez is not a racist. The ban came down to one mans word against another remember the accuser has got form of telling lies to get others in to trouble. Suarez shouldn't have used language that could be deemed to be of a racist nature however,

Rightly or wrongly the FA sided with Evra and handed out a ban. The ban has been served so the alleged racism issue is finished with and over. I just wish the media would leave it at that. No criminal charges against Suarez!! not like our great England captain!!

Today comes down to one man refusing to shake the hand of another man.....who gives a shi&? Its not a news worthy event it happens every day in workplaces up and down the country. I really cant believe how the media especially are talking about this every 5 minutes.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I think hes starting to come across as properly racist because quite simply in a arguement he admitted saying "why blackie" (por que negro) and yet still thinks he has been hard done by and now refuses to acknowledge the man he offended originally.

And no he didnt admit to por que negro early on that only came out at the trial up until then he had said he called him "negrito" an apparantly friendly term in latin America. As I recall the reason the FA didnt accept Suarez version of events becuase his story changed multiple times and often to suit new evidence.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

And a couple more points: Suarez's version has Suarez shrugging his shoulders, Evra's does not, and a shoulder shrug would not be in keeping with what Suarez is accused of saying. According to the FA report: "At this point on the video footage Mr Suárez's face is obscured but he does appear to shrug his shoulders".

Secondly. The "Por que, negro?" statement from Suarez occurs a bit after this. Now, recall that Evra, when on the pitch, interpreted this word as meaning "ni*ger" and that he later reported to his team and the referee that he'd been "repeatedly called a ni*ger". Later, he accepted that it meant only "black".

Now, the reaction to this "Por que, negro?" statement was (again quoting from the FA report about the video evidence) "there is a facial reaction by Mr Evra, akin to a look of surprise". Now, why would Evra be "surprised" at hearing this word from Suarez if shortly before he'd heard it 6 times?

This all suggests to me that it is entirely compatible with the evidence that: (1) Suarez did only use the word once in the "Por que, negro?" question; (2) Evra interpreted this as "ni*ger" and was surprised and upset. (3) He invented the earlier part of conversation to bolster the claim; out of annoyance with Suarez; and to get an opponent into trouble.

That might not be the case, but surely there is sufficient doubt here, and thus Suarez may be the more-wronged party.

In the space of little over 12 months, Suarez has served bans for Biting an opponent, making an obscene gesture to Fulham fans, and for racially abusing Patrice Evra.

I suspect by the end of next season at the most, he'll no longer be playing in the English Premier League.

In reply to andy:

I think Rio and Welbeck not shaking Suarez hand had more to do with him refusing to shake Evras hand than a racial undertone on their part.

If it was down to just thinking someones a tw*t nobody would ever shake hands with Suarez and lots of other players.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Or they're both a pair of lying prima donnas.

If Evra was so upset he could have done a Zidane, instead of wailing like a pussy.

FIFA fined (and banned) both Zidane and Materazzi after that incident, Materazzi reportedly saying similar to that which Evra said in this incident, so the equivalent punishments in this case may have been a 3 match ban for Suarez and a 2 match ban for Evra.

In reply to The New NickB:

Didn't need to did he, a member of the public, who can obviously lip read did it for him.

Having said that, he didn't seem exactly happy during his discussion with JT on the pitch. Would he have made a complaint if the MOTP hadn't stepped in first?

In reply to ajsteele:


If he is not guilty of the above conversation as claimed by Evra than he is indeed hard done by. The "why blackie?" on its own does not merit an 8-match ban, as indeed the Evra side accepted. It was the disputed conversation that resulted in the long ban.


Those two are much the same word, and can be used interchangeably. Suarez maintains that it was not intended offensively, and the statement about exactly what the wording was also comes from Suarez (there is no video of it). Anyhow, that was not the central part of the conversation as regards the ban.


OK, now give specifics to support that. I've quoted quite a few specific bits of evidence from the FA report.

In reply to ajsteele:

That was my point - nobody's suggesting Ferdinand had any racial motives for not shaking his hand - he did it because he thinks Suarez is a tosser for racially abusing his team-mate and then refusing to shake said team-mate's hand.

Now just for a moment imagine that Suarez believes he has been genuinely falsely accused by Evra, who has made up a whole load of lies to have him vilified and banned (which according to the panel he didn't, but if in Suarez's head that's what happened): D'you think he might just possibly think Evra is a bit of a tosser (regardless of race)?

In reply to the thread:

I don't speak Spanish so have no idea how reliable this is, but make of it what you will:

By: Professor in Hispanic Studies at Brown University, Aldo Mazzucchelli

I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn’t use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolli apparently stated), which are grammatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Comolli reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don’t know what Comolli heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong–unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish…

What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said–if at all he said anything– “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound implausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.

Read the rest at:

http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/threads/289785-Professor-in-Hispanic-Studies-d...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Im on my phone so I couldnt really be bothered typing the whole thing out but from paragraph 245 to paragraph 269 the report deals with changes to Suarez story to suit evidence at the trial. Then from paragraph 282, I think, to 319 i think they deal with inconsistencies in Suarez evidence over time.

You are obviously not going to accept my view of it though and Im not going to come round to your point of view either as its a very entrenched argument because of the football rivalries so this will be the last I post on it as to be honest im knackered and going to bed.

In reply to Enty:

Dalglish clearly does not have the ability to deal with this.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

ah yes, bound to be an unbiased view on a LFC forum.

jesus wept.

In reply to lowersharpnose:

maybe he'll bail out as he did last time the heat got to him at Liverpool?

...and Celtic
...and Newcastle

In reply to Glyno:

So you think the proff wrote it specifically for the Lfc forum? If not why does the fact that it was repeated there undermine it?

In reply to Enty:

Don't think much of the away kit for Liverpool. horrid.

In reply to Glyno: Of course it's not unbiased - the opinion is that of a Uraguayan (and maybe even an LFC fan) who probably feels, as Gus Poyet does, that his nation has been maligned by the FA effectively marking them all as racists because the words Suarez admitted to using are words that are in common use and are not racially offensive.

Personally I have no doubt that whatever term Suarez used was not meant to be remotely affectionate, and I suspect he had a pretty good idea that using "negro" or "negrito" would wind Evra up (and who knows - maybe get him to do something that would get him sent off), but for people to now claim he's some sort of closet white supremacist is bonkers.

I also think his behaviour today was infantile and unnecessary - a bit like that of Evra at the end of the game. From all the interviews I saw I think Rooney was the only one with any sense.

In reply to Glyno:

Didn't he get sacked at Newcastle?

In reply to Enty:

I thought Evra was guilty of winding/setting up Suarez big time. The way he he held his hand low on the walk past was deliberately designed to make Suarez miss it! Probabably not a popular viewpoint but IMHO it takes two to tango!

In reply to andy:

oh yes. sorry, my mistake.

In reply to Glyno:

He may have handled this incident very badly (IMO) but it's very unfair to suggest he "bailed out" last time around. The strain of hillsborough was immense. I don't know how many funerals he went to, but I know it was a lot.

And of course he won the league with Blackburn

In reply to JimR:

I don't know about being a popular viewpoint, but having seen the incident a number of times, it is not one that merits any serious consideration.

In reply to The New NickB:

hmmm , I've also watched it quite a few times from different angles...suggest you watch it again

In reply to JimR:
A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Very true!!!


Applies to us all though, even you!

In reply to JimR:

know its a liverpool site but the stills are interesting

http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/02/video-evra-refuses-suarez-handshake/

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Its actually 'hears' or is that being pedantic......)

In reply to JimR: As I said earlier, Evra is the guilty party, Suarez the victim. It would appear to be a Suarez/LFC witch-hunt in the media.

Andy

In reply to andy farnell:
I wouldn't want to shake the hand of a man who accused me of being a racist either and I don't see anything wrong with Suarez making a stand, it worked for Fergie for 7 years. <the BBC 'I'm not talking to you anymore' row>

In reply to andy farnell:

ha ha, the self-pity bandwagon well into overdrive I see

In reply to andy farnell:

Brilliant!

In reply to andy farnell:

Priceless.

In reply to blanchie14c:

I pretty much agree - the pre-match hand-shaking protocol is such a load of bollocks. It's almost pathetic to hear the will they/won't they being discussed before the match. F*cking save it for the match!

In reply to andy farnell:

Ah the famous scouse paranoia!

In reply to blanchie14c:

Except Suarez is a professional footballer who is governed by the FA. The hand shaking is part of an FA campaign so regardless of whether he likes Evra or not he should have done it.

No one is asking them to be friends, he was expected to behave like a grown up, as anyone else would be expected to at work.

As has been said before, he was found guilty of an offence, he served the punishment, now he should move on. If he was disgruntled / disagreed with the punishment then he should have appealed it at the time, or LFC should have done.

In reply to Enty: not just him its Dalgleish et al to blame...to much money involved to sack him..

In reply to ajsteele: Who benefits from the lack of the handshake? If the handshake had happened then it would appear that Evra had forgiven Suarez for what he claims was said to him. The fact is that Evra didn't go to shake Suarez's hand (watch the vids carefully, Suarez had his hand out, Evra makes no move towards him) but made it look like he was the innocent party just puts Evra in a good light and makes Suarez out to be the guilty party.

A handshake involves both party's moving, in this case only one went for the move, Suarez. There was only a very brief window of opportunity for it to happen, and when Evra missed it he then made out it was Suarez's fault by grabbing him after he had moved on.

Andy F

In reply to Fickalli:

Hmmm .. I'm no Liverpool supporter (in fact I'm a long time Killie supporter) however I do detest witch hunts based on fleeting glimpses. The camera evidence I've seen suggest that Evra dropped his hand and pulled back his shoulder slightly as Suarez passed with his outstretched hand at the same level. Then immediately reacted with extreme outrage, it looked to me like a premeditated act rather than a spontaneous outflow of emotion.


I certainly hope that there is a full and impartial inquiry set up into this incident, because if Evra had acted with intent to "get" Suarez (partic if acting in concert with the young MU goalie) then that is really a whole load more serious than the other scenario of Suarez immaturely refusing to shake Evra's hand. I rather suspect theres a load more to this than we are aware of.

In reply to andy farnell:

absolutely brilliant.

...can we expect a week-long candle-lit vigil in self-pity city?

(excuse the hyphens)

In reply to Fickalli:

Campaign it may be but it isn't a rule saying he HAS to do it. There are other deeper polictics about guilty or not too, LFC could have appealed but I understand they didn't on the grounds that if the appeal failed Suarez could have been banned for longer than the original punishment.
If this week teaches us anything then it teaches us that both sides of the argument can be correct - Fabio stands by his principles and resigns as he isn't allowed to manage the national side without FA restrictions. The FA also may have acted correctly by not allowing a racist <alleged> to captain the national side.

Fergies comments after the game mean nothing, he thinks football fans forget what has gone before and this is why a lot of folk don't hold much respect for him. Without doubt Sir Alex is one of the greatest managers of our time but a good honest humnan being he is not. Its only news because fergis says it is.

In reply to andy:

As he said, it was a REDSHITE fanzine.

Nobody seems to have noticed that Evra should have been red carded for a dangerous tackle. On...... .........Rio Ferdinand.

In reply to Ian Jones: Or that Suarez booted the ball at the dug-out at the end of the first half in a hissy fit...

In reply to Ian Jones:

http://therepublikofmancunia.com/buy-the-red-issue-which-the-gmp-took-away/

In reply to Enty:

I'm firmly in the who gives a shoot camp (about the handshake).

I've watched the numerous videos, the event seems have been caught from a multitude of angles. Depending on the angle:

1) From one angle you can say Suarez ignored/refused to shake Evra's hand
2) From a different angle you could equally claim that Evra sunk his hand downwards and didn't move it towards Suarez. Watch all of the videos Suarez hand stays roughly in the same rigid position for all of his hand shakes. Evra definitely drops his hand as Suarez comes in on an angle.

Conclusion: Both of them are dubious characters...but, to blame it 100% on Suarez is unfair. At the end of the day the initial event was one mans word against another. There are no witnesses, no lip reading members of the public, no complaint to the referee from other players, no police investigation, no punch up on the pitch back in October etc etc.

Who's telling fibs and who's telling the truth will never been known. Suarez in a dodgy character but then again so is Mr he called me a racist without evidence before Evra.

The sad thing is we could end up with a situation in were Suarez is labelled a Racist for life, when there is NO EVIDENCE and John Terry were there is evidence being found not guilty in a court of law and walking away without a punishment.

To me any claims of Racism should be dealt with by the police through the criminal legislation and not by a sporting authority such as the FA.

You are innocent until proven guilty....Suarez is not a racist there is no evidence. John Terry at this moment in time is also innocent until proven otherwise.

In reply to Glyno:

er, and your point is what exactly?

The article is unambiguous. Manchester police confiscated copies of a fanzine being sold by Manchester United fans.
Personally, I think it's a fairly harmless joke. I don't need to go over the top like Demento and demand that these people be thrown out of the game.
But had this been Liverpool fans then no doubt the high-horse/right-on brigade would be on the case in no time.

Having said that I think Suarez should be booted out of professional football for kicking the ball away. After all he could have injured an innocent ballboy.

In reply to Alan M:

I notice you seem to be another with the mistaken belief that Evra has previous of making these sort of claims. If you actually bother to look into that you will find a member of man uniteds coaching staff was the one who made the claim against the Chelsea groundsman not Evra. Also there was another incident involving Evra when on international duty but that complaint was made by a fan so basically this whole thing about Evra making false racism accusations before is a myth.

Anyway Evra has done things to annoy people like leading the French teams protests at the world cup or kissing the united badge infront of the kop last year but he doesnt have previous for making racism accusations as Dalglish would like everyone to believe.

In reply to Enty:

All this Suarez stuff is ridiculous. He feels rightfully upset that he is being flamed nationwide based on a 3 man trial with PR concerns and no evidence. No-one really knows who is the guilty party. He should be charged by the police and tried in a criminal court. If found guilty he would be roundly condemned, leave the country and the club could make peace with the media. If innocent he would be free to get on and concentrate on playing football for us again, and the whole thing should go away. The current situation is a farce brought on by the FA's pitiful justice system and I cant see how it can end except badly.


PS I guess the reason the police didn't charge him was that they didn't feel there was sufficient evidence? I don't know.

PPS If I was accused by someone of being racist and it reached the national press, permanently damaging my reputation, and if I knew I was innocent (not making any judgements on Suarez here of course - I don't know) then there is no way I would shake the guy's hand. I think it should be no surprise to anyone.

In reply to Si dH:
Suaraz has now apologised, sure he was under great pressure from LFC to do so

In reply to Si dH:

The reason the police haven't got involved is because no complaint was made to the police it was reported to the FA who have authority over such things on a football pitch. The Terry case was reported to the police by a member of the public which is why the police and CPS are involved with that one.

The FA's justice system is agreed by all clubs and players under the FA's jurisdiction so its not really an arguement here. Also there was evidence which is why the Liverpool lawyer accepted the case was not simply one mans word against another.

At the end of the day Suarez knows he said it at least once, Suarez whole point seems to be he disagrees with Evra over the amount of times he called him negro but he does admit to calling him negro once in the exchange. If you called someone something which they found offensive and you didn't mean it would you not immediately apologise for the offence caused? Suarez on the other hand has refused to even accept that during an argument calling someone negro or "blackie" (as the accepted Rioplatenese translation seems to be) even once could be offensive or insulting.

In reply to steelbru: Perhaps that pressure should have been applied before the game to make him shake hands although apparently he assured KD that he was going to do this. I would be fuming if I was KD or any of the LFC management as LS has made them and the club look like a bunch of incompetents.

In reply to Si dH:

I think it would be a surprise to your boss if, having agreed with them beforehand that you would do something, you then chose not to do it; and you'd expect your boss to be annoyed with you.

However, I'm pleased to see that some common sense has been applied and an apology issued. Time to put toys back in their respective prams and move on.

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear: .....so will Ferdinand follow suit and apologise for not shaking the hand of Suarez?

Or is it one rule for Suarez and one rule for everyone else??

In reply to bluebealach: I think it's action and reaction; one follows the other, and without the first there wouldn't be the second. So if you can't take it back, don't do it to others.

And so no apology is needed from Ferdinand. The chicken never apologises when it comes home to roost, as it were.

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

It seems to have come out now that he had told the club beforehand he would shake hands; in which case, I agree with you on that point, he should have.

In reply to Pursued by a bear: I can sort of follow the logic although with something of this momentum, I think that i's are dotted and t's crossed.

Therefore although Suarez doesn't apologise directly to Evra for his actions, Ferdinand DOES need to issue some sort of statement for his action.... twitter is his preferred communications medium - he seems to have views on everybody else on there!!

In reply to bluebealach: He already has.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

When? Didn't see it so apologies... <link?>

In reply to bluebealach: He explained on Tw*tter that he saw Suarez refusing to shake Evra's hand, so then withdrew his.

In reply to bluebealach:

I think he'll send you one personally.

In reply to Glyno:

Funny how Suarez is headline news and Ferdinand's gets stuck with the classifieds!!

Then again, I'm wondering when Ferguson is going to apologise for acting like a spoilt brat in not talking to the BBC for the last God knows how many years....what was it over?? houses, glass and people ect??!!

In reply anyone still interested: It seems to be the afternoon after the afternoon before, with all parties having had the opportunity to see themselves on television.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17004667

I didn't think Dalgleish would add anything to yesterday's ill-tempered TV interview, and it's to his credit that he's issued a statement.

T.

In reply to bluebealach:

Apparently Suarez is not in the country at the moment.

I wonder what his reaction will be when he finds out he has apologised?

In reply to bluebealach:
IIRC is was all over a BBC documentry <or news report> about his son Jason who is a football player agent and the beeb were chasing up allegations that fergie senior was pressuring players to sign with his son. His other son, Darren was sacked as the PNE manager and surprise surprise the Man U players who were on loan to Preson were instantly recalled to UTD.
Oh, Darren Fergerson is also a wife beater. Nice family

In reply to blanchie14c: Eh.. he used the word negrito.. how is Evra the guilty party.. for making a allegation?

There's either no proof either way.. or Liverpool players and officials lied, Suarez admitted using the word Negrito and was banned.. or Evra made everything up..

The FA were quite clear that the balance of probability was in Evra's favour.

The abuse to Evra has been disgusting. At best Liverpool fans should just have said.. one mans word against another. But the abuse is awful.

If this was a girl alleging a rape what would be the response if she was villified like Evra was.

Good response by Liverpool today though. In the US they have got bad press which may affect the Red Sox so I think the owners stepped in..

In reply to IainRUK:
The Mersey Red Sox, got a nice ring to it that has

In reply to blanchie14c: Wouldn't you expect players to be recalled...

You give young players to someone you can trust to mentor them. If that changes you bring them back under your wing..

Common sense by one of the greatest managers of all time..

Or does Blanchie know better?

Or Fergie has just been lucky... without money he'd be nothing.. he's just bullied his way to the top...

The fact is most managers throughout the league, even his rivals, fully respect and admire him. Very few who know him well, even those who have fallen out with him, Stam etc, have held long term grudges.

In reply to IainRUK:
I've already acknowledged in this thread that Fergie is one of the best managers of our time. I still think he's a c**t though. Still, opinions are like arseholes - we've all got one

In reply to blanchie14c:

Hey, part of Merseyside is BLUE!!!!

In reply to Glyno:

lol ))

In reply to blanchie14c:

Sorry mate, I think my attempt at humour went over your head on this occasion....yes I was aware........

In reply to IainRUK: Evra alleged that Suarez called him 5 times. Suarez admits to calling him once in response to what was also a racial slur. Big difference.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

also big culture differences may lead to huge differences of intent and perception between sender and receiver

In reply to IainRUK:


We need to be clear that the words Suarez admitted to were *not* what he was banned for. Even the Evra side accepts that. That was a later part of the conversation, where neither version (Suarez's or Evra's) amounts to racially abusive/insulting wording. The point at issue was an earlier part of the conversation, where Evra's version is much worse (see above), a version which Suarez totally denies.

It is the FA's interpretation of this earlier conversation that resulted in the ban. The later words (the ones Suarez accepted he said) are relevant only with regard to the light they shed on the earlier conversation.


Do you think that "balance of probability" is an appropriate threshold of certainty for giving an 8-match ban for racial abuse?

If, for example, this had been a cricket dismissal, and a a TV umpire was assessing the evidence for caught-behind, the verdict would have been "not out", because any reasonable doubt goes to the batsman,

On what is quite a serious charge and consequence, taking one person's word against another's, without any corroborating evidence, seems to me wrong.

In reply to ajsteele:


No, that is a misreading, the issue is *not* the number of times he said it, it is the context of the rest of the sentences. If the earlier sentences are as claimed by Evra, then it is clearly repeated racial taunting, and cannot be interpreted innocently.

That is very different from the (later) phrase which Suarez accepted he said, and which can be interpreted innocently, and which is only very mildly offensive at the worst.


Has he refused to accept that someone could be insulted by it? Or has he merely stated that it was not intended as insulting, and generally would not be considered so in his culture?

In reply to Glyno:


Is that the best you can do as a rebuttal? A Professor of Hispanic studies at a notable US university, and a native of Uruguay who should know about Uruguayan Spanish, makes serious criticism of the analysis of Spanish in the FA report, and the best reply you can make is that? If so it's pathetic.

Note that a Professor of Hispanic studies would want to preserve his professional reputation as to the Spanish language, so he wouldn't write anything that could be easily refuted, since his professional reputation would be badly sullied.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


A decision taken by a small group of parochial white middle aged men scared shitless of being regarded as racist parochial white middle aged men.

In reply to JimR:



The video in that link is also interesting. It shows quite clearly that as Suarez is approaching, Evra moves his hand *away* from the handshake location; then when Suarez then moves past, Suarez makes a grab for Suarez's arm.

That seems to me to indicate that Evra was at least as guilty for the non-handshake, and was very likely trying to make an issue of it, trying to get Suarez into trouble (if he had merely not wanted to shake, then he would not have made the grab).

In which case, that Evra-clearly-trying-to-get-Suarez-into-trouble sheds new light on the original incident and on the "more reliable witness" and "balance of probabilities" conclusions of the FA.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
refuted, since his professional reputation would be badly

Expert evidence was given to the disciplinary hearing by Professor Peter Wade Dr James Scorer. Anything you have to say about the professional integrity of this Uruguayan Professor also applies to these two.

In reply to The New NickB:


However, the main point of the article by the Uruguayan Professor is the difference between Spanish in the native dialect of a Uruguayan and other forms of Spanish. As I understand it -- and here I'm open to correction -- neither of the two FA's experts are native Spanish speakers and neither has particular familiarity with Uruguayan Spanish.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

all of course complete nonsense according to Suarez in his 'apology' today:

"I have not only let him [Dalglish] down but also the club and what it stands for and I'm sorry. I made a mistake and I regret what happened.
"I should have shaken Patrice Evra's hand before the game and I want to apologise for my actions".

In reply to Glyno:
I'd like to think it was 6 or one and half a dozen of the other. Fair play to Suarez for making the statement, maybe he's a rare breed of footballer that has very quickly learned the way our media works and he just wants to get on with things without this shit following him around.
We accept that a ref has a second to make a decsion and often they get it wrong, lets hope both Suarez and Evra read the situation wrong and in the second they had to read each other they got it wrong.
The game is bad enough as it is and its getting worse season by season, its the red cards this year, what'll it be next year?? I'm hearing now that Tevez could be back playing for city next week, todays headlines, tomorrows chip paper eh!

Oh, point of note to this threads non LFC or MU fans - Have none of you learned by now not to bother a disagreement with red, they are NEVER wrong, you should know that
<in fact, are any fans ever wrong when defending aspects of their club?>

In reply to blanchie14c:
All this shaking hands bollox is stupid, it means nothing why do teams have this play act before the whistle

In reply to blanchie14c:

agreed

In reply to blanchie14c:

agreed

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Neither is a native Spanish speaker, but both are experts in South American Spanish and Dr Storer in particular is an expert of the various Spanish dialect variations of the River Plate.

In reply to The New NickB:

All this sounds about as likely as a Professore of English at Montevideo University being an expert in Scouse.

In reply to JimR:

I have, it is very clear that Suarez deliberately avoids shaking his hand. Saurez's apology today, supports that completely.

In reply to Anonymous:

Grow up!

In reply to Anonymous: I see no reason why a Prof of English living in Uruguay can't be a good cook

In reply to Glyno:


No it's not nonsense, whatever role Suarez played in the incident (and I'm no saying he's blameless on this) Evra quite clearly withdrew his hand from the handshaking location as Suarez approached. His hand was much more "withdrawn" when Suarez passed than it was when the others approached.

You seem to me to be far too biased to say anything intelligent or sensible on this (are you a ManU fan?), but even someone like you might be able to see what is clear in the stills and video.

In reply to The New NickB:


Maybe he did, but it's also very clear that Evra was deliberately making it hard for him, by withdrawing his hand to a position much closer to Evra's body. Evra's hand position is not the position of a man trying or offering to shake hands, and the hand motion as Suarez approaches is a withdrawal.

So, Evra is just as guilty for the "handshake" incident as Suarez. If only one of them has apologised that doesn't mean only one of them is guilty. All of this -- in my mind -- reflects on the original incident. The idea that Evra was entirely innocent and the only wronged party is getting less plausible,

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You either didn't see the same clip as I did or you are looking at this issue through red-tinted spectacles.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
>

at / clutching / straws

rearrange as necessary.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
>


spot the key phrase

In reply to peterd:


http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/02/video-evra-refuses-suarez-handshake/

Here's the video and stills. Look at the two stills with Evra and Suarez in the picture. Is Evra's hand in the position of someone reaching out and trying to shake hands, or is it much more withdrawn and by his side?

I am not saying that Suarez made a clear attempt to shake hands, I am saying that Evra's hand was withdrawn -- it was not outstretched and offering -- and this might have been a visual cue that caused Suarez to pass by.

In reply to bluebealach:

Actually demento was quite right in blanking the BBc after they made insubstantiated claims against Fergie Jr. Am I the only one who sees the irony here? It's ok to feel hard done to if you are the manure manager but not if you play for Liverpool.
Similarly 'Arry was accused of 'tapping up' players. The 'evidence' was risible.
Basically, these days accusations stick like shit to a blanket.

In reply to peterd:

Oh come on, Coel doesn't like football, he just likes trying to prove he's right.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Also look at the video, the relevant bit is at 15 secs in, when the added circle first appears. Pause it there. Does Evra have his arm outstretched? Is it less or more outstretched than Suarez's when they're first "in range"?

Yes, Saurez moves has outstretched hand by, on to de Gea, but if Evra had had his hand in the usual location of someone offering to shake hands, there would have been contact, or very close to it!

In reply to Anonymous:


You're right, I'm not a great football fan. These days I only watch an occasional Champions League match, since they're the only ones free-to-air and I don't have Sky or anything (I watch far more F1 and rugby).

So I'm not really coming to it from a football or a club angle, I just think that quite likely Suarez has been very hard done by here, and I don't like witch-hunts.

And I'm not really saying that Suarez is blameless in all this, but it doesn't seem to me nearly as one-sided as much of the comment suggests.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

would you believe in the Loch Ness Monster if I showed you a photo or video?

In reply to Glyno:


So the video has been doctored by Liverpool fans then? <rolls eyes> Why can't you try -- just for once -- being a bit objective about this?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

is that video anywhere else on the net other than a LFC website?

</taps nose>

In reply to Ian Jones:

For 7 years Ian??

I agree with the rest of your comments but that got me wondering who is actually running the game these days.

The media seem to have a pretty big hand in everything and they will be selling shed-loads of print on the back of these shenanigans between Evra/Suarez and Terry/Ferdinands.

As is their want, its always just before a major comp that the press conspire to expose something that disrupts the National side. OK, I accept we are not good enough to win anything any time soon, but we have no chance with a metaphoric hand tied by the boys of the media.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

...and I like the way they've capitalized the word 'PROOF'

In reply to Glyno:


Yes, it's on youtube.

So what's your explanation for the fact that, as Suarez approaches, Evra's hand is in a position more akin to a gunslinger going for the draw, rather than that of someone offering to shake hands?

Are you seriously going for the "they doctored it" explanation?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

yes I was, though since you mentioned that it's on YouTube I guess it must be genuine.

(LOL @ 'akin to a gunslinger')

In reply to Coel Hellier:

this behaviour tends to have a knock-on effect you know?

youtube.com/watch?v=Yv46nGqU0vQ&

In reply to Coel Hellier:
"I just think that quite likely Suarez has been very hard done by here, and I don't like witch-hunts."

You might find this interesting then:

http://newsframes.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/media-on-racism-churnalism/

and a second part at:

https://newsframes.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/media-on-racism-framing/

In reply to Coel Hellier: The refused handshake was debunked on MOTD.. it was clearly Suarez who did that... straws Coel Straws..

In reply to IainRUK: Sorry Andy.. yeah I was wrong.. assumed it was Liverpool fanzine.. awful by them. Hope the club take action.

TBF to Fergie he has retained a dignified silence throughout this and only went at Suarez after this latest slight.

I think United have handled the issue well, but Credit to Liverpool and Dalglish now. Dalglish is very similar to Ferguson, all out defence of his players but I think he went too far. Fergie will occassionally say his players were wrong, like he did about Evra's taunting of Suarez.. which was wrong, understandable, but he shouldn't have done it.. but Evra's a little shite.. we all know that.. proper Dennis wise.. we love him but if he played for anyone else you'd hate him... but you don't get to become one of the best left backs in world football at 5-6 without being an aggressive in your face player..

In reply to Enty:

Given that Suarez maintains that Evra was telling a pack of lies to the panel, it's not surprising he doesn't want to shake the guy's hand. There's been an awful lot of silly fuss about this.

I can totally understand why Liverpool are so pissed off; the coverage of this has just been ridiculous. And how Evra escaped being charged himself given the language he accepted himself that he used is absolutely beyond me. How exactly is 'your sister's c*nt', and 'I'm going to punch you now' not 'using threatening and abusive language', pray?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I really don't know why social constructions are as they are but I can guess which would make my Grigri fail.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Well Suarez doesn't have a sister so I assume it wouldn't mean anything to him and also I think it explains in the report that the phrase actually has a meaning more like "f**kin hell" in Spanish.

Yeah Evra might have gotten in trouble about those if there had been a case made against Evra, it's the same reason the argument between him and Kuyt brought up in the hearing didn't get Kuyt in trouble.

In reply to Enty:

At last some perspective, from the font of all wisdom http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/suarez-to-sing-%27i-wil...

In reply to 999thAndy:
Good ol mash, treating the whole issue with the contempt it deserves

In reply to IainRUK:


I notice that you avoid any comment on the video and stills evidence linked to above. Are you really trying to maintain that Evra's hand position is that of someone reaching out and offering to shake hands?

You are right that Suraez had a part in it, but the evidence is that so did Evra. Evra withdrew his hand, and had it low and close to his body, not stretched outwards. Suarez's hand was stretched outwards (into the empty space where one would have expected Evra's hand to have been). It is correct that at that point Suarez continues on to de Gea, perhaps a reaction to the non-offer from Evra.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I think this photo sums things up a little better...
http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/APRD65.jpg

In reply to Glyno:


Your lack of any substantive reply is noted.

The media coverage of this has all along been highly once-sided and biased, perhaps even racist against Suarez (of course Evra is in the right, and of course his testimony counts for more than Suraez's in the tribunal, since he's black).

In reply to Coel Hellier:


do I detect someone revealing a little racist side of their own?

In reply to Glyno:

Smiley or no smiley that is just the attitude that likely prejudiced the FA's judgement.

In reply to Postmanpat:

"of course Evra is in the right, and of course his testimony counts for more than Suraez's in the tribunal, since he's black"

could the above not be construed as racist?

In reply to Glyno:

It could be but that would be distortion. It is an accusation that the tribunal is racist.

In reply to Postmanpat:

An accusation made by Coel, not me!

In reply to Glyno:

But you were accusing Coel's comment as being racist were you not?

In reply to Glyno:

Definitely not.

I started this thread after briefly watching the video on Football Focus on Saturday afternoon. I've since watched the video again and again and I'm convinced that snivveling little shit Evra did play his part in setting the handshake incident up. Early on he's having a snidey look as Suarez approaches - i reckon to get his timing right.

I still agree that Suarez doesn't have the brains he was born with. He could've ended all this months ago with a little thought.

Look - I've had my mind changed (slightly)

And yes, it's pointless arguing with blinkered Man U fans - utterly pointless

E

In reply to Postmanpat:


"of course Evra is in the right, and of course his testimony counts for more than Suraez's in the tribunal, since he's black"

I still think the above comment could be construed as racist, yes.

In reply to Glyno:

Only by the very perverse.

In reply to Enty:

to be fair, I'm no real fan of Evra's and agree that he can be a snivvelling shit at times - quite irritating too! However, I don't think he's at fault on this occassion.

In reply to Bob Kemp:



Thanks, I hadn't seen that. Some relevant snippets.

I was asked above about the FA's language experts and whether they agreed with the Hispanic Professor's assessment. Well, according to the FA report, the version as claimed by Evra: "The experts considered it worth noting that the phrase "porque tu eres negro" struck both of them as slightly unusual" (para 182). Whereas regarding Suarez's version: "The question "Por qué, negro?" as transcribed in Mr Suarez's interview sounded right linguistically and culturally" (para 191).

Also, regarding Suarez's version: "in Rioplatense Spanish the use of "negro" as described here by Mr Suarez would not be offensive. Indeed, it is possible that the term was intended as an attempt at conciliation and/or to establish rapport ..." (para 190).


It is also worth emphasizing that the word "nego" -- contrary to just about all media comment -- is ***NOT*** the issue here. It was the surrounding context of the sentences!

From the FA's report: "The FA relied, in particular, on the experts' conclusion that if Mr Suarez used the words "negro" and "negros" *as* *described* *by* Mr Evra, this would be understood as offensive and offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally."

"Mr Suarez, on the other hand, relied on the experts' conclusion that if he used the word "negro" as described by him, this would not be interpreted as either offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally."

So it really does come down to the two different versions of the goal-mouth conversation, which are given up-thread -- and for which neither player has corroborration.

The main reason the FA gives for doubting Suarez and accepting Evra's version is:

"[Suarez] also said that his use of the word "negro" to address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence. To describe his own behaviour in that way was unsustainable and simply incredible given that the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument. That this was put forward by Mr Suarez was surprising and seriously undermined the reliability of his evidence on other matters ..."

However, *if* Suarez's version of the goalmouth conversation is correct then they were *not* engaged in an "acrimonious argument"! At least, Evra might have been, but nothing Suarez said (if his version is correct) is all that acrimonious (certainly not by the standards of football matches), and all of it is entirely in line with Suarez trying to defuse any argument.

For example, Suarez's response "it was just a normal foul <shrug shoulders>" and then asking to just get on with the game is in line with that. Thus, the FA's judgement seems to be circular, in that they seem to have taken Evra's account as truth in ruling that there was an "acrimonious argument" -- and then go on to criticise Suarez's account for being inconsistent with that. That is circular; Suarez's account is entirely consistent within the context of Suarez's account.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You have left out the fact that they didn't accept Suarez said it in a "conciliatory" way because he didn't claim this until after the language experts pointed out that it could be used in this way but good try.

Also on the "Tu eres" thing, that was what Suarez told Damian Commolli and Kenny Dalglish straight after the match and was noted down by the fourth official so wether it is strange for him to say it doesn't really matter as it is Suarez who told them he said it in that way. Unless of course Commolli got it wrong but that was deemed to be unikely as he claims he took great care in finding out exactly what was said from Suarez as he knew it was extremely important to the club.

In reply to ajsteele:


Can you give me the paragraph number for that?


There do appear to be some inconsistencies in how those later remarks were reported, and it may well be that Suarez altered his testimony on those somewhat. However, those later remarks are still not really the central part of the case, it was the earlier (disputed) conversation that resulted in the lengthy ban.

And anyhow, there are equally large inconsistencies in Evra's match-day testimony. He said, on the pitch to the referee "he called me black", pointing at Suarez, in a context that suggested this had happened once. He also said a similar thing to his team mates. Then, by the end of the match this had escalated, saying to Ferguson "Boss, he called me a f***ing ni**er", and then in a TV interview claiming he'd been called a "ni**er" "at least 10 times".

The report makes a big deal out of supposed inconsistencies in Suraez's immediate post-match testimony, but glosses over equally large inconsistencies in Evra's account of what he had been called.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Hey Coel just think of all the climbing you could have done this weekend instead of defending a racist wuckfit!!
If only he kicked a bag of air for a different team eh??


Ps what he ever done on grit??
Peace

In reply to haworthjim:


Nope, I'm defending fair treatment.


Nope, I'm not a Liverpool fan.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Its around paragraph 269 somewhere as far as I can remember, its part of the whole section dealing with Suarez's inconsistencies. If I remember it correctly Suarez first claimed he said it in a friendly way the one would to a friend, however when the experts pointed out that it would make more sense for it to be conciliatory than friendly he changed his description to suit the expert evidence.

There were inconsistencies with Evra's story as well although saying to the ref he called me black doesn't indicate it only happened once and the tv interview it was accepted by both parties that it is a figure of speech in french and doesn't indicate the exact number. 7 times, I think, was pretty much stuck to rigidly from his actual statements of what happened.

In reply to ajsteele:
Are we still allowed to chant 'who's the bastard in the black?' though?

In reply to Coel Hellier: Wow! All the effort and you dont even suppport the team- hats off to your dedication!
Not

In reply to haworthjim:

I was almost tempted to put 'coel hellier' & 'nazi' into google

In reply to blanchie14c:

Probably seeing as you would be refering to his shirt colour although its usually yellow nowadays isnt it? Suarez probably wouldn't have anything happen to him if he had tried that novel approach and just said to Evra something along the lines of "f**k off you blue shirt wearing w**ker"

In reply to ajsteele:


OK, here's the para:

"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."

Don't you think it is somewhat harsh on Suarez making an "inconsistency" out of the difference between "friendly and affectionate" and "conciliatory"? Come on! Let us recall that Suarez does not speek English at all well, and would have been speaking through an interpreter.

In this situtation, not speaking the language well, it would be entirely understandable if either he or the interpreter latched on to words being used by others. Anyway, to even begin to call this an "inconsitency" one would need to examine the exact Spanish words used by Suarez and the exact words used by the interpreter.

In reply to Glyno:

Are you going Godwin already?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I think most of Suarez's statements were given in Spanish and translated through his interpreter.

In reply to ajsteele:
Or Suarez could wear a grey one and be invisible to all the MU players

In reply to ajsteele:


There is inconsistency in Evra's claim: he reported it differently at different times, as saying to the ref: "he called me a black" and "he called me black *again*". The FA says about this (275): "it is a minor inconsistency which arose only in the course of his oral evidence about whether he used the word "again" when speaking to the referee, and it is not of any material significance to the issues we have to decide."

That seems very different to how Saurez's inconsistencies are regarded -- and seems just as significant as the above friendly/conciliatory one. Especially since the whole issue here revolves around how many times Suarez used the word, and the surrounding sentences!


Doesn't it? Any corroboration of this claim by Evra's? Anyone here a native French speaker? I asked a native French speaker how he would interrpet "at least 10 times" and he said he'd interpret it literally, though would allow for some inacccuracy in the counting.


Yep, seven times is the Evra line. However, it was accepted that Ferguson's complaint to the referee after the match was "five times", and presumably Ferguson got that from Evra. But five times is not what the eventual Evra claim was. Now, ok, this could be simple miscounting -- though at the least there is inconsistencies in Evra's match-day complaints.

How did the FA treat this?

(278) "Nonetheless, Mr Haughan does remember Sir Alex saying five times. This is the sort of detail that Mr Haughan might remember given the unusual circumstances in which he overheard the complaint and the fact that Mr Haughan reported what he had heard to the Liverpool management. In our judgment, this lent some weight to the credibility of Mr Evra's evidence that Mr Suarez used the word five times in the goalmouth."

Now, the final FA judgement was (in agreement with Evra's eventual number): "Mr Suarez used the words "negro" or "negros" seven times."

So, note what is happening here, the fact that Ferguson's number was *wrong* (5 not 7) is quoted as "lend[ing] some weight to the credibility of Mr Evra's evidence"!

In other words, inconsistencies from the Evra side are being dismissed as irrelevant or as actually *lending* *weight* to their side! Whereas inconsistencies on the Suarez side are being treated as damning, and are being interpreted as him deliberately changing his testimony.

In reply to ?

enough, enough, I give up!

In reply to blanchie14c:

haha very good...going back a few years there...then again most Liverpool fans still live in the past

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Then if you notice what is wrong in your argument it might be handy! The inconsistencies in "Evras" statement you have listed come from what a Liverpool employee, Mr Haughan, claims to have heard Alex Ferguson saying.

The French figure of speech part is also in the report somewhere but I can't remember what paragraph exactly and it was accepted by both sides, and the native French speaker you have asked seemingly has told you he would take take it literally as 10 times but not really literally as he would allow for a numerical innacurracy.

The "again" I'll give you.

In reply to ajsteele:

footy fans never forget mate


<I'm a Derby fan!>

In reply to ajsteele:


OK, and most of the inconsistencies attributed to Suarez are really between a Liverpool employee's account of what Suarez said post-match, and Suarez's account of what he said post-match.


But the point was he didn't say it was a "figure of speech". In English also we'd allow for miscounting, in the sense that if someone said "at least 10 times" we wouldn't make a fuss if it later turned out to be 8 or 9.

Anyway, the point is that the FA seem to have excused any inconsistencies from the Evra side, but been highly critical of inconsistencies from the Suarez side.

In reply to blanchie14c:

I suppose someone has to support them

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Fair enough mate, what say we agree to disagree on this and let this thread die the death it deserves now?

In reply to ajsteele:The American bosses seem to have stepped in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17004667

In reply to Coel Hellier:
What I have found astonishing through this entire thread is your absolute conviction that you know better than the 3 members of the tribunal. They were only there to hear all the evidence and make the decision based on the balance of probabilities. Where as you have read a report and know better.
As far as I can tell the only people who actually know what was said that day are Evra and Suarez, yet you seem content to defend Suarez through thick and thin. Has it crossed your mind that he may have said what Evra said that he said and then lied about it to try and get out of trouble?

In reply to jayme:

How do you think the media would have reacted if the three middle aged white men had concluded that it was all a bit complicated and therefore they could take no sanctions against Suarez? And how would that have left their "kick racism out of football" campaign?

In reply to Postmanpat: I would have thought that had they produced a 115 page document explaning why they reached the decision to side with Suarez's version of events rather than Evra's version of events we would have accepted it was the truth. We are talking here about one person from a ethnic minority talking about another person of an ethnic minority. Are we deciding racing cases on who is blacker than the other, or as stated on the balance of probablities?

In reply to jayme:

Your reasonable and considered opinion has no place on this thread.

In reply to The New NickB:
I appologise.
Let me start again. One of them is a lying to$$er and should be Shot/Driven out of football/or made to say sorry, take your pick

In reply to jayme:

Even if it's not the truth*, it's the result, and Suarez needs to accept that and move on.

*for the prevention of misunderstanding I believe Suarez to be guilty.

In reply to jayme:

And no doubt the Guildford 4 were guilty as sin and the Hutton report wasn't a whitewash.

In reply to Postmanpat:
I am now placing you on the same pedastal as Coel. You both know better than the people who were actually there taking the evidence and will blindly stick to your idea of what happened eben in the face of reasoned argument. You have no doubt at all about what actually happened y

In reply to Postmanpat:
What was their motivation to find for one party or the other in the biased why that you are implying?

In reply to jayme:


I've explained above. They don't want to be branded as racists and they don't want to undermine their campaign.
They don't have to have sat down and conspired to protect themselves and their campaign but their judgement could be clouded by their fears.

I don't have much of a view on the subject and nor do I much care. What seems odd is that LFC went so far in sticking up for him if they thought that actually he was guilty. Maybe they took the Ferguson approach of defending their players come what may too far, or maybe they genuinely believed he was being stitched up and mistreated.

Either way I agree that once they had decided not to appeal they should have,whilst defending the player's integrity, agreed to put an end to whole thing.

In reply to everybody

This thread is lasting longer the actual incident.

Can't you all just shake hands and move on?

In reply to Postmanpat:

How would deciding that Suarez's version of events is true get them branded as racists. As I previously said it was one member of an ethnic minority accusing a member of a different ethnic minority.

In reply to jayme:


And a central part of that I'm saying is that "balance of probabilities" is the wrong standard to find him guilty of the words Evra accused him of and give him an 8-match ban.


So you're admitting that the 3 members of the tribunal don't?


What I'm doing is pointing out that the case against him is not that strong and comes down to one person's word against another -- and I for one do not consider that to be sufficient to find him guilty of this. I'm also saying that much of the media comment, in failing to accept that, is highly biased.


Why sure it has, and it might be true. But has that been established with sufficient confidence to heap all the opprobrium on Suarez that he is getting. (And has it crossed *your* mind that Evra might be the one lying here?)

If Suarez was judged guilty on "balance of probabilities" that means that, say, it could have been a 60:40 decision. In which case even the 3-man panel would estimate a 40% chance of him being innocent. Are you happy with the *process* here? Would you like this sort of process applied to you if someone made an accusation against you?

In reply to jayme:


Excuse me, but I and others here have all along trying to be making reasoned arguments.


You are flat out wrong, I have considerable doubt as to what happened. Saying that there is considerable doubt as to what happened is the central core of everything I'm saying!

In reply to Postmanpat:

Can I ask how you know personally the motivation of the panel. Alternatively you could preface your statement with "I am guessing wildly based on the fact that I think there is a big liberal conspiracy about racism, that ....."

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I have no idea of what was said by who on the day. The only thing that i know as fact from all of this is that one of them lied. I am not here defending either Evra or Suarez, I am defending the process and the integrity of the panel which came to a decission.

As to "balance of probabilities" that is the standard of proof required in an employment tribunal. You or I could be sacked from our jobs for something that was found guilty on the balance of probabilities. I have no problem with this as the standard for decisions made by the FA.

As I asked earlier what is the motivation for the FA panel to find for either player and not just be an honest judgment?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

In non-criminal cases, including employment tribunals etc. the balance of probability is the standard we will all be judged by.

In reply to jayme:

We're all members of ethnic minorities ! The point is that Suarez was the one being accused of racism.

In reply to jayme:


The FA wants to show to Blatter that they will not tolerate any racism of any kind no?

(damn i swore to myself not to get involved in this)

cheers

Gaz

In reply to The New NickB:

So you think they would be happy to be branded as racists and to undermine their campaign?
And what is this conspiracy theory you refer to? Are you woolsack in disguise?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'm going to bite again even though I really don't want to.


Right at the start of the report they point out that both sides accepted that it isn't a case of one mans word against another. Liverpool I assume actually got a qualified lawyer to represent him so I would presume he wouldn't accept this if it was in any way untrue.


Unfortunately thats the rules of the FA for you. You see certain decisions during games like sending someone off based on dangerous intent when jumping with elbows out or jumping into tackles would not be able to be red cards anymore as it would be impossible to prove beyond doubt what is in a players head as they go into those challenges. As with most sports governing bodies they only have to prove things against a balance of probability unlike the much higher against reasonable doubt that is necessary in law courts. It is something LFC and Suarez agree to when they agree to be a football club or player in the English league so to argue against that now is pointless.

In reply to jayme:


Is it? According to http://www.emplaw.co.uk/lawguide?startpage=data/097021.htm

"In unfair dismissal cases the onus of proof is on the employer to show the reason, or, if more than one the principal reason, for dismissing the employee (Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(1)). If the employer fails to prove the reason is one of the four reasons set out in the statute (concerned with conduct, capability, redundancy or breaking the law) or "some other substantial reason" the dismissal is deemed to be unfair."

In reply to Postmanpat:

You are the one with the conspiracy theory, not me.

In reply to ajsteele:


Which paragraph is this?


One conclusion that seems fairly inevitable is that Liverpool's lawyers screwed up badly here. The judgement went against them on almost everything, and they don't seem to have seen that coming, which suggests they didn't do a good job.


Obviously, during a game, the officials need to make 50:50 decisions, it couldn't be otherwise. But in a tribunal disciplinary situation they don't.


Ok, but then remember in all the media comment that, even in the eyes of the 3-man panel, there may be a 40% chance that Evra lied, that Suarez is innocent, and that that might explain his attitude.

In reply to The New NickB:

You're imagining things!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Nothing you have said here changes the standard of proof.

"The burden of proof then shifts to the employer to demonstrate if he can, on the balance of probabilities, that there was an adequate "non-discrimination" explanation for what took place. If he fails to demonstrate this then the tribunal is required to assume that he is "guilty"."
http://www.emplaw.co.uk/lawguide?startpage=data/097021.htm

In reply to Postmanpat:

No. You are stating that the panel made their decision based on their judgement relating to external perceptions of their treatment of racism, not on the facts presented. Yes or no.

In reply to jayme:

A notable feature of an employment tribunal is that they have to decide one way or the other, either the employee is dismissed without compensation or he gets compensation. Similarly in civil matters where one party is suing another.

It's different in a disciplinary tribunal of FA v Suarez, where one could easily rule that the case was not proven owing to insufficient evidence. There is simply no reason why they need to go on balance of probability there.

In reply to The New NickB:

I'm suggesting that these quite probably impinged upon their judgement. Is that a conspiracy theory? I'm out now to get my tin foil hat. What size would you like yours to be?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Quite probably, you seemed pretty certain earlier. Either way, you are guessing without anything to back it up.

I don't need a tin foil hat, I appear to be backing the establishment. Strange feeling.

In reply to The New NickB:
Aren't they muppets from the FA? Case proven.


You feel strange because you're not wearing your hat and the beams are getting to you. I get you a large to be safe.

In reply to Postmanpat: Just to add a bit more fuel - apparently the handshake protocol was changed http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/02/why-was-handshake-protocol-changed-at-...

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Earlier this season at Anfield, United (who were obviously the away team) walked past the stationary Liverpool players for the handshake.

Here's a photo of the away team (Everton), walking past the stationary home players at Arsenal

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Arsenal_vs_Everton_prema...

Similar protocol as on Saturday.

Another conspiracy theory down the pan.

Next.

In reply to Enty:

In reply to various people, the reason Liverpool didn't appeal the panel's verdict is that there is no appeal, at least not against liability (they could have appealed the length of the ban given the findings made, but it's understandable they wouldn't want to do that.

I think this thread and the misconceptions various people have about what happened in the tribunal is cogently making the point Liverpool made in their original comments: it's unfortunate that we have a tribunal which hears allegations which amount to criminal offences without applying a criminal standard of proof. I know the clubs sign up to it, but in this case it hasn't worked fairly.

As to the FA's/tribunal's predilections/agenda/what have you, I think the decision not to charge Evra, and the decision to double the normal ban for racially abusing an opponent, are fairly suggestive.

I believe the language experts at the tribunal did consider whether what Evra claimed was said could possibly be said by a Uruguayan, and they said that while it was unusual it might just about have been.

jcm

In reply to Coel Hellier:
The reason that it is the balance of probability is because that what has been layed down in the FA Handbook of rules.
"Decisions
The Regulatory Commission will decide whether each denied Charge is proved or not proved in respect of each Participant Charged. The applicable standard of proof shall be the civil standard of the balance of probability."

Page 396, section (d)
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/FA%20Handbook%202010-11/...

In reply to jayme:


Yes, agreed, but I for one think that is the wrong standard for a case of this nature.

In reply to Glyno: On conspiracy theorists see conspiracy theories when there are none

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
it's unfortunate that we have a tribunal which hears allegations which amount to criminal offences without applying a criminal standard of proof.

I disagree - I think it's more logical to argue that if the outcome of being found guilty would be the same as in a criminal trial then the criminal law burden of proof should apply. Applying your logic I think you'd find your job a whole lot harder!

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

I'm not really following you - you mean that if the clubs were to sign up to something allowing the FA to imprison their players then a criminal standard of proof would be logical, but not otherwise?

My point is that much of the outcome is the same - all the public sees is Suarez 'found guilty', and (ooooh taking an example at random), say, John Terry found guilty, and it doesn't distinguish between the processes involved. This is unfortunate. H

Had Suarez been prosecuted, he would have been found not guilty on the evidence, and we'd have been talking about him "clearing his name". It's not good that reputation depends so much on procedure like that.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
On which basis LFC's best strategy wold have been to appoint someone to make a complaint about Suarez to the police to provoke a prosecution!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


In addition, for a criminal case, not only is the level of proof required much higher, but the level of offense required is higher for conviction. Using language which refers to someone's ethnicity is not in itself sufficient.

For example, a recent case had someone calling a police officer a "pig" while being arrested. They were found not guilty (of the same Public Order offence which Terry is charged with) on the grounds that a Police Officer should be grown up enough not to be "distressed" by being called a "pig", and thus no offence was committed. By the standards of language normally used on football pitches (2 or 3 f-words per sentence being usual, along with c-words etc), one can doubt whether being called a "black c***" is really out of line with normal conversation on Premiership football pitches, and thus doubt whether anyone would be genuinely "distressed". It's notable that had he merely called him a "c***" or a "motherf***ing c***" or similar no-one would have batted an eyelid.

Another point is that, while Terry could theoretically be imprisoned for this offence, by sentencing norms that is highly unlikely. Far more likely is a fine up to £2500, which compares with the £40,000 fine Suarez got.

Of course one can doubt whether in the current climate "norms" will prevail.

In reply to Coel Hellier: For someone of undoubted intelligence that is an absolutely idioticly ignorant out of touch post...

As someone who has spent many hours playing on pitches any reference to race on a football pitch is wholely unacceptable. It has been for at least a decade. Late 80's early 90's it was still common enough. It is now unheard of. Even in some of the hard welsh leagues when we had a carribean player racially abused the opposition would step in and put their own player in place...

As someone who plays I would use anything.. girlfriends were fair game.. I'd make comments to them.. ask them out.. make them laugh. all I wanted was their number 9 to want to kill me more than score.. we'd do anything to wind players up but the race was a line we didn't cross..

No calling someone a c*nt is fine.. but millions of people haven't been segregated or abused for being c*nts.. its just an incredible over sight on your part here Coel...

Liverpool fans are wrapping themselves in knots rather than just accepting the one thing we all know.. Suarez is a tw*t.. Evra is a tw*t.. Suarez went too far.. got a big ban, harsh, but in the current climate that was understandable...

Terry should also just own up.. he's not racist, he's just an idiot. He'd be better putting his hands up, saying yeah I screwed up, stepped over the mark, like Stuart Pearce did with Ince and the matter is finished..

In reply to IainRUK:

rumours abound that the scumbag has handed in a transfer request

In reply to Glyno:

(Suarez that is, not Evra)

In reply to Coel Hellier: You really don't get it, do you?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: I'm not suggesting for a minute that clubs should want a criminal burden of proof and their players imprisoned, I'm saying that the burden of proof should reflect the potential severity of the punishment, and I don't accept that getting a higher fine from the FA represents a more harsh punishment than a lower fine from a court; getting a criminal record is a severe punishment in itself.

I guess that many of the people you sue are potentially guilty of criminal offences, as well as having a civil law liability. Why are you then happy to sue them, possibly for considerable sums of money, using the civil law burden of proof?

In reply to IainRUK:


You seem to have missed that my last post was all about *the* *criminal* *law* (as in what Terry is facing), and not about what is customary in football.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


What don't I get?

In reply to Coel Hellier: " one can doubt whether being called a "black c***" is really out of line with normal conversation on Premiership football pitches, and thus doubt whether anyone would be genuinely "distressed". It's notable that had he merely called him a "c***" or a "motherf***ing c***" or similar no-one would have batted an eyelid. "

This is just so far off the mark its untrue.. how many competitive games have you played? Even how many grounds have you been too? You just don't hear racism in football in the UK.. its somehow reared its ugly head this year but thankfully even Liverpool fans have shipped there own to make sure these matters get stamped out.. in the long term it may well help having it brought to the fore again..

We've now had 4 incidents.

Read abouT Evra's early career.. 10,000's making monkey chants in Italian stadiums.. he does have an issue with racism... he's also got little guy chip but racism is something he detests.. and was affected by in his early career..

In reply to IainRUK:


None. However, once again, my above posts were about how things would be seen by *the* *criminal* *law* and by the standards of *the* *criminal* *law* you are going to find it pretty hard to argue that it is perfectly ok to call someone a "c***" or a "motherf***ker" but not ok to call someone "black" because by the standards of *the* *criminal* *law* -- rather than the somewhat bizarre world of football -- it is hard to argue that the last of those is worse.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Not it is not.. to insult someone on an opinion that they are a c*nt is nothing.. its water of a ducks back on a pitch.. to use race and something which has been used to repress generations and has been a huge factor in football is out of order... its a different level..

Its the same with its OK to commit a foul, yet go to prison for a head butt.. the law is perfectly happy to keep out of most football situations.. its a grey area most of us would rather the law never stepped into..

In reply to IainRUK:

You're right Iain,

I also played through the 80's in East Lancashire where there were lots of Asian teams in the Accrington and Blackburn Combination leagues.
The language would make a paratrooper blush but using race to get at another player was a line that was very very rerely crossed (if ever) even back in the backwards days of John Barnes' bananas.

E

In reply to IainRUK: "You just don't hear racism in football in the UK.. its somehow reared its ugly head this year".

So do you hear racism in football or not?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Can you really not work out what he meant?

E

In reply to Enty: Is it that although attempts are made to stamp it out, quite a lot of footballers and football supporters are racist at heart and you don't have to scratch at the surface very hard to see it?

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

>I guess that many of the people you sue are potentially guilty of criminal offences, as well as having a civil law liability. Why are you then happy to sue them, possibly for considerable sums of money, using the civil law burden of proof?

No, they're not, actually. On the rare occasions where you allege something, eg fraud, which is also criminal there are specific rules involved; for example the normal rules on disclosure are relaxed.

jcm

In reply to IainRUK:

I must say I think your posts make it very clear that racial name-calling is not racism at all; it's simply a taboo, a societal construct, or whatever you want to call it. Racism is something entirely different; it's the belief that one race is superior to another or deserves special privileges, and can clearly be seen in the fact that you get black players but propotionately no black managers, which occurs because those who decide these things believe, that black guys are not as good at running things as white guys and/or that white guys will not take orders from black guys whereas vice versa is OK.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Going on a bit of a tangent here but I think if you look at when the managers of today were playing there wasn't as high a % of black players and therefore its not really reasonable to look and say there are 50% black players now so there should be 50% black managers now too.

There are also other factors involved like are there many black ex-players who have completed the coaching badges needed to manage? As far as I am aware this hasn't been documented anywhere so it is a case of guessing really.

It's not as if black managers have been completely overlooked either, John Barnes and Paul Ince have both been given pretty high profile jobs in Celtic and Blackburn.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

You're ducking the issue. There are many occasions where one incident creates both a breach of criminal law and a liability under civil law. Car accidents and health and safety issues are two that spring to mind. It is quite possible that the criminal and civil action run concurrently for the same incident - each considered against different burdens of proof. If the civil law burden of proof is good enough for someone to sue an employer for negligence following an accident, why isn't it good enough for an FA Tribunal, with none of the consequences of criminal action, such as imprisonment and/or a criminal record?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: I don't think a lot of it is acctual racism.. I don't think Terry is a racist.. I just think they've gone too far in trying to get reactions.. so I support the bans.

I also agree the larger issue is lack of black coaches, have you heard of the Rooney rule? In US football (throwing type) they HAVE to interview a black coach for every coaching position now. Its also a problem there.

In reply to ajsteele: Compared to the numbers in the game...

Barnes (Celtic), Ince (Blackburn, MK Dons), Houghton (Birmingham, Newcastle), Alexander (lincoln), Powell (Charlton), Palmer (Stockport), Bright (Chester)

I can't think of many more off hand.. Its less than 1% anyway..

In reply to Glyno:

The FA were clearly powerless to fight against the tide of karma relating to this incident...

youtube.com/watch?v=A1WlBpe9Kvo&

In reply to MHutch:

It wasn't so much the handball as his disgusting reaction on the touchline when Ghana missed the penalty.

In reply to Glyno:

To be fair though most people probably would have made the handball to save their country from certain elimination from the world cup and most would have been delighted when the gamble paid off too.

In reply to MHutch:

Is that the one with 2 offside shouts seconds before Suarez he saves it?

E

In reply to Enty:

I can see a marginal one perhaps when the kick is taken, but after that there are two players on the line, including Suarez.

I must admit I raised an eyebrow when Liverpool signed him. Signing foreign a*seholes should be the exclusive province of my lot and Chelsea.

In reply to Enty: I've no issues about the handball.. the celebration wasn't great but he did what he had to do..

He is though a contraversial character, always has been. I know people always say Ferguson does a blanket defence of his players but I think this is something a step further. Tbf the Liverool heirarchy eventually realised it was too much and stepped in.

The argument that negrito is fine is obsurb.. we never heard Forlan using the term... nor any other of the tens of South American players.. he knew what he was saying, so did Evra..

In reply to IainRUK:

Only he, and possibly Evra, knew what he was saying. The rest of us must believe what we want to believe.

I've got no issues with the FA ruling...it may not be correct or fair, but, to paraphrase you, they did what they had to do.

He may or may not be guilty of racism, but, as in the rest of football, fairness is rather disposable when bigger things such as world cup semi-finals or the reputation of men in suits are at stake.

In reply to IainRUK:

But the question is how much of a different level is it? Generally it is regarded twice as bad by the FA:

GENERAL BEHAVIOUR
3 (1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
(2) In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an “aggravating factor”), a Regulatory Commission shall consider the imposition of an increased sanction, taking into account the following entry points:
For a first offence, a sanction that is double that which the Regulatory Commission would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present.

That's why it's not clear if Evra should have received the same or half the penalty that Suarez got.

In reply to winhill:


Some points resulting from that. The words that Suarez admitted to using do not contribute a violation of those rules, since a reference to colour/race is only an "aggravating factor" and needs to also be abusive/insulting.

So those such as IainRUK who are saying that that alone is unacceptable are out of line with the rules. Also, the liberal use of c-words and f-words and other insults is also clearly against 3(1), so that rule seems to be widely ignored.

In reply to Coel Hellier: I know I really shouldn't talk about experiences.. but refs come in the changing room and give a speach.. they say 'look its a working mans game, you swear at work, I don't mind you swearing on the pitch, just not at me'..

I've heard it 100 times..

Suarez used the word negrito... OK that was admitted... the argument is whether Evra should have been banned too.. to be honest if he had been I wouldn't be sat here, head in sand arguing against a ban... he said to Webb 'you only booking me because I am black' for that alone he should have been banned...

It is just incredible Liverpool fans are so blind of the fact that Suarez was out of line... its so simple its excruciating watching you all twist and squirm..

Suarez screwed up.. the FA have been on at UEFA and FIFA for years about racist abuse of our players abroad.. they used this to set an example.. for christs sake United lost a player for 8 months for the same offence a City player got a small fine for.. the FA do this.. the lack of FA consistency is nothing knew.. Suarez clearly violated those rules.. in a heated discussion in a fiercely nasty derby he used the term negro/negrito.. its hardly the time for friendly comments...

They change their stance on things a lot.. look at the threat of strikes by Red Nev for the banning of a player before a trial, yet Terry was allowed to captain with a court case hanging over him...

In reply to winhill:
>

The FA have set examples that swearing is allowed. Players heard swearing by TV cameras are not banned.. players who swear at TV camera's are sometimes banned.. I can't think of any occassion when a player was banned for merely swearing.. the use of the term South American by Evra could have led to a ban.. but I do think calling someone a french tw*t is different to calling someone a black tw*t...

Saying that I was called an effing pommie on a pitch in NZ and told the ref I was sick of the racism in kiwi football.. as usual I was just winding them up.. but the ref booked the player.. oh they loved me..

In reply to IainRUK:

C'mon, Iain, you've not read the judgment, have you?

>Suarez used the word negrito... OK that was admitted..

Neither admitted nor found. The word was 'negro', and the tribunal, its expert advisers and Man U all agreed that it wouldn't have been offensive the way Suarez said he used it.

>he said to Webb 'you only booking me because I am black' for that alone he should have been banned...

That's what Kuyt said he said. Evra denied it. The tribunal found he hadn't said that. The referee (who wasn't Webb, I don't think - wasn't it Marriner) didn't hear anything).

jcm

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

It's an interesting question actually which deserves more consideration than it gets in forums.

Some reflections though:-

1. Where there is an actual prosecution pending, in my experience the criminal case will always be heard first. Usually the claimant wants this since if there's a conviction his job's done for him.

2. In this case the main damage is reputational, and my point was that it's exactly as if there were a criminal conviction even though there isn't.

3. The other cases aren't exactly the same because here all that matters is the facts. In driving cases one can be negligent without necessarily being guilty of any offence, and similarly one can be in breach of the contract of employment without being guilty of H&S offences. It's not only a different standard of proof being applied, but a different level of negligence that needs to be proved.

4. A better analogy would be unlawful eviction cases, where basically it's only a question of the facts. Because of the way those cases tend to go, in my experience the criminal hearing comes first. But if a client came straight to me, you're right that I'd run the civil case without worrying about any criminal angle, though I expect I'd advise the client to see if the local authority wanted to prosecute. I suppose at least the civil case is in front of a court instead of Denis Smith, bless him, and there isn't the high-profile, reputational issue.

jcm

In reply to IainRUK:

i'm finding your posts excruciating to read. You are arguing a point then saying the organisation that is making the point is inconsistent. The whole affair is based on inconsistencies that a law court wouldn't entertain. Surely Suarez has a case for slander!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Ahh OK.. yeah it wasn't webb.. no it was argued it was offensive.. hence why Evra complained...

In reply to peetay: Yes.. that's normal. The FA don't have the same burden of proof.. if you appeal a criminal conviction they don't automatically increase the tarriff.. the FA do..

I'm genuinely amazed for the support of Suarez here.. had this been a more liked black player I doubt we would see such animosity..

As it was Liverpool FC wanted Evra charged for making the accusation...

John the FA decided he did not use it in a friendly manner..

The FA rejected Suarez's assertion that he had used the word 'negro' - Spanish for black and commonly used both with and without racist overtones in South America - in a friendly manner as 'incredible' and doubled what would ordinarily have been a four-match ban because he used the word seven times.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think you have not read the judgement The FA rejected Suarez's assertion that he had used the word 'negro' - Spanish for black and commonly used both with and without racist overtones in South America - in a friendly manner as 'incredible' and doubled what would ordinarily have been a four-match ban because he used the word seven times.

They rejected Suarez's that there was no abuse or insult intended... hence it was offensive..

Also, by Evra's statement, which the FA found the more credible, Suarez said he kicked Evra for being black, and Suarez didn't talk to blacks...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Sorry I see what you said.. but the FA investigated, and due to inconsistencies in the statements from Suarez and Liverpool players, Suarez, on the balance of probabilities, was banned..

Tbh though Liverpool caused this. Had they not found Suarez guilty, Liverpool wanted Evra banned, I think the FA had no action then, for a pile of white suits to a ban a black player for alleging racist abuse would have been a whole shit storm..

In reply to IainRUK:


He was (if his account is correct) slightly out of line, but not to the extent of a ban. And I'm not a Liverpool fan.


Not so, the FA found that he didn't say that.

In reply to IainRUK:


And they could have easily banned neither. Rejecting the complaint against Suarez as not corroborated would not have meant they'd have had to convict Evra of lying.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Liverpool, at the time, we pressing for Evra to be banned..

Suarez would have got away with it if he'd just got his story together or said he said nothing..

TBh though I'm impressed with Evra using a second language to insult a player.. I doubt there is one English player other than Owen Hargreaves he could converse in 2 languages like that...

It is a strange case, more complex than the Terry case where there is clear evidence, but I do feel Suarez's and Liverpool's conflicting accounts left the FA with no decision..

In reply to IainRUK:


Your focus on the mere word "negro" shows that you don't really understand the ruling, since it was the (alleged) context of its use in the sentences claimed that amounted to the abuse. The one usage that Suarez accepted was *not* what the ban was about.

And as for the "incredible" claim, that in my mind that is one of the poorest aspects of the FA's ruling, since it is circular. Suarez's claim about the whole conversation was that he was trying to be conciliatory and get on with the game, whereas Evra was trying to be confrontational (that last was accepted by all).

The FA seem to have accepted Evra's claim that both were being confrontational (without corroboration of that) and then argued that because Saurez was being confrontational his claim that he was being "friendly" was "incredible". Well yes, if you accept the premise. But there is no **objective** evidence that Suarez was being confrontational at all in the whole episode!

Kuyt, for example, was the nearest player (admittedly not an unbiased one), and he saw it as Evra trying to provoke Suarez, and went to tell Evra to leave Suarez alone. Giggs told Evra to calm down and not get himself sent off. The referee booked Evra, so clearly thought that Evra was acting aggressively. Everyone accepts that Evra was provoking confrontation. But where is the corroboration that Suarez was confrontational back, rather than trying to defuse things and get on with the game? Without that corroboration the FA's ruling on this is entirely circular and ill-founded.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Yes I thought Evra had said that.. I wouldn't have been surprised.. I've said many times the blokes a little shite.. class player, I really like him as a United player.. but if he wore any other shirt you'd hate him...

In reply to Coel Hellier: eh? Suarez pinched Evra skin.. Suarez admitted to that.. supposedly to defuse the situation... that is the oldest trick in the book to wind a player up.. the other one is twist arm pit hair.. slight intense pain.. gets a player to snap.. stepping on toes.. punches to the ribs.. pinches.. knees in the back on the legs... we all use these tricks but we don't do them to defuse..

So yes he was confrontational..

In reply to Coel Hellier: Also the language here is an issue.. there were 3 languages going on.. dutch between Suarez and Kuyt, English Evra to Giggs and Spainish Evra to Suarez.. I don't think the ref had a clue what was going on at that moment... now they are full time in a truly international game maybe some language training is needed..

In reply to IainRUK:


He "pinched" it in such a way that Evra didn't even notice, so more a tap on the arm really. Evra says he didn't notice it, and the FA report is quite clear that Evra wasn't aware of this "pinch" (indeed they make a point of this non-awareness in ruling that Evra's later wording was not a response to it).

So, if that's the extent of the corroboration that Suarez was being "confrontational" then I'm not impressed.

In reply to Coel Hellier: All that means is he got it wrong.. Suarez's past would have been a factor here too..

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

1. That's true - in fact many potential claimants are aggrieved if criminal proceedings are not taken, wrongly believing it prejudices their chance of taking civil action. I was surprised to find out that the two actions could run concurrently.

2. Interesting point. I suspect that many people will make their own mind up anyway having had access to the evidence, whatever the outcome of either form of trial - rightly or wrongly I certainly did with Steven Gerrard.

3. My point was that one incident can lead to both forms of trial at the same time - the facts are the same whatever form of trial.

4. I'm not so sure about the profile of the person being relevant.

I'm tired; can't think much beyond the above.

In reply to IainRUK:

This is the cultural overlay, surely?

The FA, when drawing up policy have to try to avoid those overlays and have equated the two.

This would be the same as saying that calling someone a gayer on the pitch would be very different to calling them black, which it is in the UK but again, from a policy point of view, the two are equated.

If Evra's complaint was that Suarez called him queer would we see an 8 match ban and people suggesting Suarez should be sent home?

In reply to winhill:

>If Evra's complaint was that Suarez called him queer would we see an 8 match ban and people suggesting Suarez should be sent home?

Interesting thought experiment, actually. I think there'd be more righteous indignation than you might think.

I agree with Iain that the outcome of the FA case was inevitable given the discrepancies between what Suarez was saying he said and what was written down at the time (albeit in a very emotional time when no-one was interested in this, by non-Spanish speakers, etc.). My impression is that the main mischief came from the unnecessarily confrontational tone of the report and the decision to double the normal racial abuse ban on the grounds that Suarez had been using his abuse to wind up Evra (presumably just normally calling someone a black c*nt on the grounds that you're annoyed and that's just the sort of thing you do when you're angry is fine). Had they instead charged Evra and banned him for two games for his language, said that while they noted Suarez's denial they had to go on the balance of probabilities and in the circumstances they were going to find the case proven and impose say a three-game ban, reduced from four because of the uncertainty and provocation, then I think they'd have done much better justice and defused the situation. Instead they got on their high horse as judges tend to.

I've noticed, by the way, that the more judges are aware that their findings of fact are not necessarily correct, the more they tend to go overboard in basing themselves on them. Human nature, but not helpful.

jcm