Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Liverpool' started by ThatEndDown, Jan 3, 2012.
Well said that man.
First off, I think that considering the scope of the incident and its media coverage, the relative infrequency of racial tauntings, it's rather naive to think that the two events weren't connected; obviously, they were, and I got quite a laugh out of your previous assertion.
What you guys are missing is that it's not up to Liverpool to decide Suarez's guilt or innocence, it's the FA's job. And in this type of trial, if you want to call it that, there isn't necessarily the same burden of proof as a judicial system.
The FA went with their best guess as to what happened. It was pretty reasonable, considering that Evra's testimony (testimony, not what he said to the press) was consistent, while Suarez's was filled with lies.
Another misconception seemingly held by the board as well as the club, is that somehow asserting Suarez's innocence actually benefits the club. I beg to differ. I think it makes things worse for the club and drags out the scenario farther and farther, causing a PR disaster.
No reasonable human being outside the most ardent Liverpool supporter is going to think that the racial incident in the FA Cup didn't result from the Suarez controversy. This is a mess, man, and major MESS.
Also, if Suarez was saying things like "pass the ball, negro" in practice, how come no one pulled him aside and let him know that wasn't acceptable? The warning signs were there... Suarez is sleaze, look at the handball play in the World Cup. He doesn't have much character.
Ultimately, it came down to, was Suarez trying to calm the situation down, as he claimed in the interview, or wind up Evra? The video said "wind up", the testimony of Kuyt and the Reds staffer ("porque tu es negro") said wind up. Bottom line, he said he kicked him because he was black! That's racist guys! Would you say that to a black person? I hope not.
Stop being tools for Pool... get in the game. Learn to think for yourselves.
From another Liverpool fan.
Personally, I blame Canada.
the irony is delicious
You don't see a problem with the FA judging a case of this severity using "their best guess" as to what happened? A guess that is based solely on what Evra told them and what SAF told them Evra told him?
A guess that is based the credibility of Evra's testimony where he had 3 interviews with the FA before the hearing and was allowed to watch the video and describe what happened. Yet he still had discrepancies in his story which the panel decided to ignore because he is captain of ManU and France.
Suarez was deemed a liar because 2 non-spanish speakers recalled a sentence in spanish differently than Suarez did. It has been pointed out the the phrase ""porque tu es negro"" simply isn't used in Uruguay and that its not probable that Suarez would have used it.
You may disagree with the club's stance, but the suggestion that Suarez got a fair hearing is laughable. Just because the press is scared to say so, doesn't mean its not the case.
Firstly any type of justice that is based on a courts 'best guess' is farcical. Their ruling had as much to do with them criticizing Blatter and Fifa for racism as it did for the incident itself. Liverpool fans are as angry about the consistency of the FA's punishment than the verdict itself. Previous footballers found guilty received a 3 match ban(John Mackie) and no ban(Peter Schmeical) despite both of those players being fluent in English and residing in the UK for more than 6 years.
As for the FA cup incident fans, stewards and even a BBC journalist(Nick Parott) in the same stand all claim he that he shouted 'manc' rather than the further away Adeymi who heard black. Liverpools and Manchester United's rivalry long predates Mr Suarez's birth so its a bit harsh to lay this one on him.
As for actual racism in grounds its a lot rarer than you seem to think. I dont know if your image of english football is tainted by 70's/80's hooliganism but the modern football attendance has became a middle class cosmopolitan attendance. Idiots who use racial language are usually thrown out or told to shut up by the black, asian and *shock* white people in attendance.
Firstly, I do think for myself, thank you very much. That is why I have read the report for myself, and not relied on the Press to tell me what it contained.
Secondly, there is no evidence to prove that there is a link to the Adeyemi incident and the Suarez case. To claim that they obviously are is false. The only way we will know is if the perpertrator of the Adeyemi abuse is done for racial abuse (still a pending case), and then admits it was because of the Suarez case. You are making an assumption that there is a link. It is clearly unproven however. As the Home Office Report shows clearly, isolated incidents of racist abuse do occur at English football matches at a wide variety of clubs. The Adeyemi incident may be one, it has not yet been proven.
The Home Office Report irrevocably proves that Racist abuse by fans occurs without a Suarez case incident to 'cause' them. As such it is an assumption that the Suarez incident has a connection to the Adeyemi incident. Calling me naive does not the change the fact that you are reaching without evidence. My stance on this whole affair highlights the fact that I require proof and evidence as a standard modus operandi. Your stance seems to reveal that you operate with a low or non-existing requirement for proof or evidence.
What does the handball situation have anything to do with this? Does handballing in a game, make you more likely to give racial abuse? Are Phil Neville, Seb Larrson, Harry Kewell, Paul Scholes more likely to racially abuse people because they have previously used an arm to prevent a goal? This argument of yours is simply illogical. Surely relevent parts of history are does this player have any prior history of racial abuse? What is his track record of dealing with race issues? Has he shown prior racial discrimination in his actions or words? Surely that is more pertinent rather than did a player give away a penalty in a football match for handball. Past actions only serve as character references, they quite clearly do not prove innocence or guilt in this incident.
Thirdly, you state a falsehood. Suarez did not admit saying he was kicking Evra because he was black. He admitted to asking the question,
“Por qué, negro?” . On one occasion. Now I don't speak Spanish, but calling someone Negro or Black is clearly common parlance in Uruguay and can be non-offensive. It is not for me to judge that.
Fourthly, you claim that Suarez lied to the Panel. There is no evidence that he did. Yes his testimony is contrary to the testimony of Evra's. All that proves is a different version of events, depending on who you believe. However there is no evidence to support Evra's version over Suarez'. I don't have any evidence that Evra's version of events is true. Similarly I have no evidence that it was false either. There is no evidence to corroborate either man's testimony. Kuyt's testimony that refutes Evra's version of events on the pitch, is disregarded without sufficient explanation.
The Panel simply decided to believe Evra over Suarez and this was simply a case of one man's word over another. That to me is not justice. Maybe in medieval times but not in contemporary society. We don't require the same burden of proof as a criminal conviction, but the balance of probabilities requires increasing amounts of evidence on a sliding scale, when the allegations are serious in consequence. The weight of evidence is simply not sufficient to give a 'guilty verdict'. In Scotland, they have a verdict called 'not proven'. This should have been the case here too.
You also have to think about the prejudicial nature of the case. Evra made his 'at least ten times' allegation on a public TV Channel! It became a global story. You had pressure on a guilty verdict made by the Head of the Kick It Out Campaign, Ousley publicly stating perpetrators of racism should face 'severe action'. He also works for Man U. Ousley would also state that 'you would have to be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt'. Ousley subsequently backtracked on this requirement when publicly condemning Suarez. Ousley also publicly threatened to resign over the John Terry affair. The FA publicly condemned Blatter for being soft on racism, the FA clearly seek to demonstrate they are tough on racism. All this happened just before the Panel sat in judgement. There is clear pressure on the FA appointed Panel to secure a guilty verdict.
"The FA went with their best guess..."
That says it all. LOL!
I do wish people would stop saying this. That is a literal English translation taken from the FA report, based solely on the fact that 'negro' is the Spanish word for black — and let us also point out that it is not the Spanish word for black people, but for the actual color.
It is my understanding from things I have read and gathered and thought over myself, that the use of the word 'negro' in this instance, and in Uruguay, is akin to calling someone 'pal' or 'mate.' Suarez saying "Why, Black?" is about as likely as his saying all of the other Spanish thrown about in the FA's report.
Amended. Just glad that someone is reading my posts!
Two Liverpool members testified that Suarez told them that had said to Evra "porque tu es negro". That's why I think he was lying, as did the committee, when he testified that he said "por que, negro?" So Suarez's testimony conflicted not only Evra's, but two members of his own club whom he had originally told something else before changing his story for the panel. So you can see, there are witnesses from Suarez's own club that corroborated Evra's story. How then, can you say there was no evidence?
Also, you have the video evidence of pinching, kicking, and tapping on the head (Henry got red carded for the same type of tap while playing for the Red Bulls). The panel rightfully judged these measures as further attempts to antagonize Ezra.
If his whole argument is that he was trying to be congenial, but the panel judges against you throughout the entire course of the film evidence, and your own teammate corroborates the story of your opponent, that is evidence of guilt, and it's what the FA used to base its decision.
In the end, Dirk Kuyt (who is my favorite player) happened to have done the right thing and been honest in his testimony, but it confirmed Evra's story, not Suarez's. Also, I am not the only Liverpool backer who thinks it was handled poorly by the club. In fact, there is an article on the front of bigsoccer.com right now where the author (another Lpool supporter) expresses the same sentiment.
Moreover, that author said that there were a lot of chants going back and forth about the Suarez situation during the Oldham match. So it was clearly in play while the racist idiot in the stands was doing his taunting. That refutes your claim that it was some sort of random incident, it's really an outrageous claim to think so.
The simple fact is that if you two people are having a conversation and then they subsequently disagree on what was said, how can you determine whose version of the conversation is correct? The only way you can do that is by using corroborating evidence - video or witness testimony. This was lacking, therefore the case should have been thrown out. You simply cannot rely on claims after the conversation, about who said what to other people (in the dressing rooms in this case), as evidence to determine what was said in the disputed conversation.
A Liverpool fan who only showed up to say Suarez was racist and the the owners of Liverpool were ruining the club.
Let's see a Dutchman is told in Dutch by a Spanish speaker about a conversation in Spanish. And you find that means the Dutchman is actually reporting the conversation correctly. Now my wife is a fluent speaker of Spanish who lived in Mexico for 15 years. I said it was reported he said tu es negro and she said you mean tu eres negro. She said no Spanish speaker would say the former.
Telling other people you did something is definitely considered evidence in a court of law that you did it. Ask the rappers who bragged about their crimes in songs and later got arrested.
By the way, I love this forum. We get to discuss corporate finance, bankruptcy in the UK and in the USA, legal standards for injunctions, and semantics in foreign languages.
Every once in a while we talk about football
Kuyt's testimony clearly refutes Evra's testimony. Kuyt was an eyewitness to events on the pitch. His testimony of on-field events is at odds with Evra's. What mistranslations might have occurred in the dressing room with Suarez' Dutch (which is widely known to be imperfect) does not negate the simple fact that Kuyt contradicted Evra's version of events on the pitch several times. Why are you ignoring this? Why are you ignoring Kuyt's own testimony that it is entirely possible that he mistinterpreted what Suarez said in Dutch?
How can what someone said in the dressing room after the match prove what occurred in a conversation during the match? It simply cannot. It is simply hearsay. If I murder someone and then tell someone else that I did not murder anyone, this does not prove I did not murder anyone.
Your reference to the Adeyemi incident is spurious. I watched the game and it was clear that the Suarez song was sung at various times during the match. It is sung at various times at every single LFC match in the past 6 months. To suggest a link between the Adeyemi incident and the Suarez song is frankly outrageous. May I remind you that the Adeyemi incident is still being investigated. This may not be the case in your mind, but in the UK we have the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Let the facts be established before making assumptions.
It is clear from your posting that you make lots of assumptions when lacking the facts. When judgements are being made, facts are vital. Assumptions are generally frowned upon.
Are you familiar with the concept of hearsay evidence? While a rapper saying he personally did something is in itself strange evidence it is not someone reporting something he heard from another party. That is hear say it is not first hand evidence. The FA used conversations that Evra had with his teammates as corroborative evidence but it's just people reporting what Evra told them. But even there he told them one thing and later said what was said was something different.
Oh yeah, everything is just a strange, strange coincidence. Kind of like the racist taunter at the Oldham match
Two guys from Liverpool each testified he said it, Evra testified he said, but the FA is supposed to go with Liverbird's opinion that this is all just a coincidence. Well, the FA is not stupid. However, I cannot say the same of all Liverpool fans.
Were they convicted soley based upon their lyrics? No. I think you will find other evidence was required in EVERY case.
Feel free to provide links of convictions secured solely on lyrics though.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XiYUYcpsT4"]Bob Marley - I Shot The Sheriff - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qLYy6hiFQ"]Eric Clapton - I Shot the Sheriff - YouTube[/ame]
Was it Bob or Eric who shot the sheriff? And how did they both miss the deputy?
Ok I rest my case that you are either a troll or a moron with my quotation of your own admission of idiocy contained in the statement that " the FA is not stupid".
First off, it is spelled "solely". Suarez gave testimony that conflicted with the video evidence and the testimony of members of his own club. FA concluded that he was not telling the truth. Evra's testimony was consistent with Suarez's club members and the video's.
Here it is in shorthand for those with short attention spans:
Consistent = Innocent
Conflicted = Guilty = Suarez
It's really pretty obvious, isn't it?
That's why they each got arrested
And I call complete bullshit on you being a Liverpool supporter. You never posted here until yesterday and all your posts have been anti-Liverpool players, owners and officials since. Prior to that you hadn't posted on BS for three years and then you only posted nonsense on the NE Revs board.
Time for all of us to ignore you