Sport Football Thread 2011/2012

[Majora]

I'm sorry, I thought the FA were supposed to be impartial and not decide if it's one or the other? This is the first time any of us have seen the evidence and it's a fucking clusterfuck. They make excuses all over the shop for Evra - to the extent of saying his side of the story is credible because his team mates said that he told them. It's such a bizarre case of 'I said so therefore it's right' I can't believe it passes for evidence. And they excuse his abuse of Suarez in Spanish because of the cultural nuance.

If you had two witnesses giving testimonies in court, and one witness had a generally consistent, plausible story that could be corroborated with video evidence, and one witness gave an inconsistent, constantly changing story, which an independent panel believed was changed in response to contradictory video evidence, who do you think the judge/jury would be more likely to believe? Often there may not be any clear evidence to implicate one person or another, and so you have to go on the credibility of the witnesses and whether their testimonies hold up or not. Suarez's didn't This idea Liverpool fans have that the INDEPENDENT PANEL have arbitrarily decided to believe Evra and not believe Suarez is childish, tribalist nonsense. I bet the neutral Spanish language experts were in on it with the FA, Fergie, and the Independent Panel too.

[Stig]

Paragraphs 155-160 are utterly laughable. Camolli claims Canel+ told him that Evra said to them that Suarez used racist language 10times. Evra says he didn't say that but then actually agrees he did but that saying "10 times" in French is an expression and just means many times and not literally 10 times.

So he's credible then yeah? Changed his story about 3/4 times throughout that report. Suarez also changes his story too so hes hit as bad. It reads like Suarez called him black which was then changed to nigger which then changes from 10 times to 3 times to 5 times.

I have no doubts that Suarez said something to upset Evra cause unless Evra is a grade A cunt he wouldnt have taken it this far, if something wasnt said. But with the amount of story changing that's gone on I can't see how any of them (Evra and Suarez) can be counted as credible.

Is it right Suarez has been banned? Yes. Do I believe it's been handled correctly and come across impartial? No

[SMD]

If you are right then Liverpool will appeal and the entire thing will be thrown out. Let's wait and see what they do, eh?

The commission haven't really left the club the possibility to appeal the decision, just the length of the ban. In fact, I think the club could halve the ban quite easily. The question lies in the process itself and their decision making, which means it goes beyond the FA. This could get really messy if Suarez sues the Mirror, which drags the FA into it and suddenly their evidence won't be enough.

Its not the FA that have made the ruling.

No but they are the ones who have presented the evidence to the commission and they basically said that they agreed with Evra's version without really legitimising it.

I have not read the evidence. Can someone tell me exactly what Suarez claims he said. I know he's supposed to have changed his story, but I'm interested in what words he has actually admitted to saying. SMD?

Mr Suarez denied the Charge. His case, in short, was as follows. He agreed with Mr Evra

that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. When Mr Evra asked why he

had kicked him, Mr Suarez replied that it was a normal foul and shrugged his shoulders.

Mr Evra then said that he was going to kick Mr Suarez, to which Mr Suarez told him to

shut up. As Mr Kuyt was approaching, Mr Suarez touched Mr Evra's left arm in a

pinching style movement. According to Mr Suarez, at no point in the goalmouth did he

use the word "negro". When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra spoke to Mr

Suarez and said (in English) "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez replied "Por

que, negro?". He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar

from his upbringing in Uruguay. In this sense, Mr Suarez claimed, it is used as a noun and

as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned (or even just blackhaired). Thus, it meant "Why, black?" Mr Suarez maintained that when he said "Por que,

negro?" to Mr Evra, it was intended in a conciliatory and friendly way. Mr Suarez said this

was the only time that he used the word “negro” in his exchanges with Mr Evra during

the match.

There is a lot of detail around this, though.

[Tangent]

Wow. So Suarez tried to say that in order to diffuse an argument about race he repeatedly made reference to Evra's race. Mental.

[Timmo]

I preferred the bit where he said he pinched him to try and calm the situation.

[El Pibe]

Its not the FA that have made the ruling.

This is being repeatedly ignored. Bizarre.

[Guest]

I preferred the bit where he said he pinched him to try and calm the situation.

See! He's a cheeky chappy!

[SMD]

If you had two witnesses giving testimonies in court, and one witness had a generally consistent, plausible story that could be corroborated with video evidence, and one witness gave an inconsistent, constantly changing story, which an independent panel believed was changed in response to contradictory video evidence, who do you think the judge/jury would be more likely to believe? Often there may not be any clear evidence to implicate one person or another, and so you have to go on the credibility of the witnesses and whether their testimonies hold up or not. Suarez's didn't This idea Liverpool fans have that the INDEPENDENT PANEL have arbitrarily decided to believe Evra and not believe Suarez is childish, tribalist nonsense. I bet the neutral Spanish language experts were in on it with the FA, Fergie, and the Independent Panel too.

Okay, let me try this again. Have you read the report? If not, why are you saying this is childish, tribalist nonsense? If you have then let me ask you the following:

Why is Evra considered more credible despite having different versions in the commission's report?

Why is Evra considered to have a story corroborated with video evidence when he was giving his side while watching it, something Suarez didn't do at first?

Why is Evra considered credible given the last time he was asked to give evidence regarding abuse, he was considered unreliable and exaggerating the truth?

Why did the FA panel ask for language experts only to end up dismissing their findings and saying that they were going to do it based on English culture after all (while still finding time to allow for nuances in the French language)?

Why did the FA claim that Andre Marriner corroborated Evra's story despite him admitting that Evra said nothing to him on the pitch and insinuate that if the referee knew at the time, he took no action?

There are more questions and comments about the report but I'm still mulling the whole thing over.

[Stig]

This is being repeatedly ignored. Bizarre.

The FA employed the panel and present te verdict and report though. That's why people just refer to the FA

[humdrum]

Indeed, what Suarez said makes him a scumbag of the highest order.

Evra should have headbutted the nasty, lying, piece of work a la Zidane.

Fixed

[Guest]

I'll add - why is Evra so credible when he can't even remember the coin toss he made at the start of the match. Or if he didn't forget then he lied about it.

What happened here and why?

In this instance he got really annoyed that he'd lost a toin coss. MORE annoyed than when the whole Suarez business was kicking off.

Why?

Really very strange from such a "credible" witness.

[Majora]

Okay, let me try this again. Have you read the report? If not, why are you saying this is childish, tribalist nonsense? If you have then let me ask you the following:

I've skimread it, I've not had the chance to read everything in complete detail. I think the response has been childish and tribalist because Liverpool fans are trying to make out that a team of neutral experts have arbitrarily decided to side with one player over another. I think the report even says that Evra's story wasn't 100% consistent, but they still believed his story was far more consistent and credible than Suarez's, and that's Suarez's version of events was implausible given the context. I don't know why anyone thinks an independent panel would arbitrarily side with Evra unless you're attempting to frame this as some tedious conspiracy against Liverpool.

[Timmo]

I didn't realise how high a percentage of Liverpool fans are also lawyers

[AlwaysBeClosing]

I'm sorry, I thought the FA were supposed to be impartial and not decide if it's one or the other? This is the first time any of us have seen the evidence and it's a fucking clusterfuck. They make excuses all over the shop for Evra - to the extent of saying his side of the story is credible because his team mates said that he told them. It's such a bizarre case of 'I said so therefore it's right' I can't believe it passes for evidence. And they excuse his abuse of Suarez in Spanish because of the cultural nuance.

Did the FA make the ruling? Did Suarez admit to using racist language? Isn't this how cases are usually decided in court?

What is your problem here?

Indeed, what Evra said makes him a scumbag of the highest order.

Suarez should have headbutted the nasty, lying, piece of work a la Zidane.

Defending a racist and wishing violence upon the victim - delightful.

[redbloodcell]

The report does quite specifically say that they don't believe he's a racist, rather that he got caught up in the heat of the moment.

[SMD]

I've skimread it, I've not had the chance to read everything in complete detail. I think the response has been childish and tribalist because Liverpool fans are trying to make out that a team of neutral experts have arbitrarily decided to side with one player over another. I think the report even says that Evra's story wasn't 100% consistent, but they still believed his story was far more consistent and credible than Suarez's, and that's Suarez's version of events was implausible given the context. I don't know why anyone thinks an independent panel would arbitrarily side with Evra unless you're attempting to frame this as some tedious conspiracy against Liverpool.

I don't think any right minded Red would claim it was a conspiracy against us.

However, just like Mascherano's red card at Old Trafford, we manage to put ourselves in a situation at the worst time when the FA will look to score political points.

I don't understand anyone (Liverpool fan or otherwise) commenting on the document without reading it. Yes, it's long and yes it goes into many different topics but that's the point. If the FA aren't willing to reduce it, why should we?

It came at the worst fucking time because the FA want to attack FIFA and Blatter in anyway. Suarez was charged the day after Blatter's ridiculous remarks on racism. The reasons the panel felt Evra was more credible was because he was calm and spoke English. I'm not making this up or being racist. It's what they said in their report. Evra told Ferguson that Suarez called him a 'nigger'. Ferguson told the referee that it was said to him 5 times. Evra went on Canal Plus and said it was ten times. The commission settled on 7. Suarez said he said it once. The FA say that Evra must be telling the truth because he knew what 'dale, negro' meant for Uruguayans so it must have come from Suarez, even though Evra spent 2 years playing with Uruguayan international Javier Chevanton at Monaco.

When Evra was asked why he said that Suarez called him 'black' and not 'nigger', he said it was because it wasn't a nice word and he didn't use it. There's a video of him at Monaco in his hotel room saying 'nigger' over and over again.

I don't think the FA is out to get Liverpool. I do think that over the last two decades, we've been a soft touch and an easy target. Yet again we presented them with an opportunity to score political points, which you can see clearly in the report as it continually refers to the FA's stance on racism. This is at odds with other people, such as Trevor Benjamin, who waited an entire year for a response to his complaint about being called a 'fucking black cunt' while playing county football. The guy in question was banned for 4 matches.

I didn't realise how high a percentage of Liverpool fans are also lawyers

I actually know about 4 or 5 solicitors who are Liverpool fans.

The report does quite specifically say that they don't believe he's a racist, rather that he got caught up in the heat of the moment.

Yeah, I figured that was the John Terry clause, so they can use it to let him play for England again.

[Commander Jameson]

It came at the worst fucking time because the FA want to attack FIFA and Blatter in anyway. Suarez was charged the day after Blatter's ridiculous remarks on racism. The reasons the panel felt Evra was more credible was because he was calm and spoke English. I'm not making this up or being racist. It's what they said in their report. Evra told Ferguson that Suarez called him a 'nigger'. Ferguson told the referee that it was said to him 5 times. Evra went on Canal Plus and said it was ten times. The commission settled on 7. Suarez said he said it once. The FA say that Evra must be telling the truth because he knew what 'dale, negro' meant for Uruguayans so it must have come from Suarez, even though Evra spent 2 years playing with Uruguayan international Javier Chevanton at Monaco.

Just to clarify, Suarez did not say "nigger".

[toythatkills]

By the time you stop arguing about this, he'll have done his eight game ban and no one will give a shit any more.

[Guest]

I've skimread it, I've not had the chance to read everything in complete detail. I think the response has been childish and tribalist because Liverpool fans are trying to make out that a team of neutral experts have arbitrarily decided to side with one player over another. I think the report even says that Evra's story wasn't 100% consistent, but they still believed his story was far more consistent and credible than Suarez's, and that's Suarez's version of events was implausible given the context. I don't know why anyone thinks an independent panel would arbitrarily side with Evra unless you're attempting to frame this as some tedious conspiracy against Liverpool.

So why did they just decide neither were telling the whole truth? Because if there were inconsistencies in both, which they've admitted to, why then just take one side as absolute 100% gospel?

There was that third choice and yet theyve decided not to go with it.

[SMD]

Just to clarify, Suarez did not say "nigger".

Yes, sorry, eventually Evra settled on 'black' or 'negro'.

[AlwaysBeClosing]

The report does quite specifically say that they don't believe he's a racist, rather that he got caught up in the heat of the moment.

When I get angry or "caught up in the heat of the moment" I don't go round addressing people by their race.

[Guest]

Defending a racist and wishing violence upon the victim - delightful.

You've not read anything about the report at all have you. Simply idiotic.

The report itself says Suarez is not a racist.

As for wishing violence on the victim - do you mean Suarez after what Evra said to him? I'm guessing you don't have a clue what Evra said do you.

Can we stop these clueless goons posting? At least get some of your facts straight.

[SMD]

By the time you stop arguing about this, he'll have done his eight game ban and no one will give a shit any more.

At least it'd give time for people to actually read the report.

[Dude Ranch]

Yes, sorry, eventually Evra settled on 'black' or 'negro'.

No, Suarez settled on that.

[Stig]

No, Suarez settled on that.

Why would Evra agree to settle on that on that of he was adamant Suarez called him a nigger? That's what he reported to Fergie and the ref.

[emjay2kay]

Okay, let me try this again. Have you read the report? If not, why are you saying this is childish, tribalist nonsense? If you have then let me ask you the following:

Why is Evra considered more credible despite having different versions in the commission's report?

Why is Evra considered credible given the last time he was asked to give evidence regarding abuse, he was considered unreliable and exaggerating the truth?

Why did the FA claim that Andre Marriner corroborated Evra's story despite him admitting that Evra said nothing to him on the pitch and insinuate that if the referee knew at the time, he took no action?

Why did the FA panel ask for language experts only to end up dismissing their findings and saying that they were going to do it based on English culture after all (while still finding time to allow for nuances in the French language)?

There are more questions and comments about the report but I'm still mulling the whole thing over.

Evra's inconsistencies were considered minor and did not impact on the most important points. The Commission also allowed, for both Suarez and Evra, some leeway for imperfect recall, in that it is difficult to remember exactly what is said. The same leeway was afforded to the other witnesses. Evra saying "he called me a nigger ten times" and claiming it was just an expression was accepted as such, even by Mr Comolli, who was employed by Liverpool and is the guy who first spoke to Suarez about the allegation. It was also accepted that Evra's changing story about being called "black" or "nigger" was simply the result of his mis-translating of the word. Nothing really turned on it though. He used the same word in Spanish, "negros" and it was only his interpretation of it that changed with time. In either event, both being called "a nigger" or "black" are offensive, so it made little difference. When compared with the inconsistencies in Suarez's testimony which goes to the very crux of the matter, it's not really a surprise.

I don't know about the previous panel Evra has submitted evidence to and been regarded as unreliable, so I can't comment on that. But in any event, both sides were invited to bring such matters up and have it taken into account by the Commission when forming an opinion on how reliable each witness was. Neither side chose to do that. If Liverpool/Suarez don't want to bring that point up, don't blame the Commission for not taking it into account.

That's not what was said. Evra claimed to have shouted to the referee while walking over to him that he (Suarez) had called him (Evra) "a fucking black". While the referee didn't hear this, the Commission said that the two accounts weren't necessarily inconsistent. Evra, after being booked for pushing Kuyt, said to the referee "he called me black" but the referee waved him away. It was later, in the dressing room, once the complaint had been made with Ferguson, that the referee understood what he meant and said "Oh, that's why you were on about being called black".

The offence took place in England and therefore the laws of England apply. It was accepted by Suarez that this should be the case. Since the exchange took place in Spanish though, the Commission obviously had to have it all translated and consider what these things mean, particularly since it was Suarez who claimed that what he said was friendly and acceptable in Uruguay. It was his submission as well that the Rule he was accused of breaching should be assessed subjectively (that is, his intention when using the words should be more or less the deciding factor in whether they were insulting) and so the Commission had to look at whether such words really are used in Uruguay and in Latin American Spanish in the friendly and acceptable way he claimed. In the event, the Commission rejected that the Rule should be interpreted subjectively, but rather objectively (that is, was it insulting in the opinion of the Commission?).

Look, to be honest, I've read the thing out of curiosity. I support neither Liverpool nor Man United and couldn't give two tosses about either Evra or Suarez. But it's not really that difficult to see how the Commission has come to this conclusion, is it? I really think Liverpool should just take it on the chin and move on.

[redbloodcell]

Why would Evra agree to settle on that on that of he was adamant Suarez called him a nigger? That's what he reported to Fergie and the ref.

272.

It seemed to us that Mr Evra's understanding of the Spanish word "negro" was influenced

by his knowledge of Italian. In his interview with the FA on 20 October, Mr Evra said that

he thought "nero" meant "black", whereas "negro" meant "nigger". This was what he

thought from his knowledge of Italian, and he went away to check the position in Spanish.

However, he did say in that same interview that it was still unacceptable to be told that

you had been kicked because you were black. The expert witnesses told us that the

Spanish word "negro" cannot simply be translated as "nigger".

[Guest]

Why would Evra agree to settle on that on that of he was adamant Suarez called him a nigger? That's what he reported to Fergie and the ref.

Really seems strange that. They are two very different words, and if Suarez said it many times surely Evra would have heard it clearly.

I wonder why he changed his story so. Hmm.

[SaintM]

Also

180 The experts noted that, in interview, Mr Evra translated the word "negro" as French

"nègre", which is translatable as both "Negro" and "nigger" and in current French usage is

clearly a racially offensive term. The more neutral term in French is "noir".

[emjay2kay]

The reasons the panel felt Evra was more credible was because he was calm and spoke English. I'm not making this up or being racist. It's what they said in their report.

You're implying that because Suarez spoke little English, he was considered an unreliable witness. Here's what they actually said.

235. Mr Suarez speaks little English. There were occasions during the hearing when he clearly

understood a question in English because he gave a response in a few words of English or

by a nod of the head. But these were few and far between.

236. Mr Suarez was present for the whole of the hearing. It was inevitably a stressful time for

Mr Suarez facing, as he was, a serious charge in unfamiliar surroundings. He sat with his

own interpreter, who translated the proceedings for him throughout. When he gave

evidence, he did so through an independent interpreter. He gave evidence in a respectful

manner. We are conscious of the difficulties for Mr Suarez in giving evidence in the

circumstances which we have described.

237. However, Mr Suarez was not as impressive a witness as Mr Evra. His answers were not

always clear or directly addressed to the question. We give one example in paragraph 246

below. Whether this was due to language difficulties or evasiveness was not entirely clear

and so, whenever we could, we gave Mr Suarez the benefit of the doubt. We were

certainly more concerned by the substance of his evidence (as explained below) than by

the manner in which he gave it.

Note that they were also less concerned by the way in which he gave the evidence than they were by the actual substance of it.

Here's their example of what he was like when giving evidence.

Mr Suarez's claim that the pinching was an attempt to defuse the situation

245. In paragraph 27 of his witness statement, Mr Suarez said this:

"Evra did not back off and Dirk Kuyt was approaching us to stand between us. At

this point I touched PE's left arm in a pinching type of movement. This all happened

very quickly. I was trying to defuse the situation and was trying to intimate to Evra

that he was not untouchable by reference to his question about the foul. Under no

circumstances was this action intended to be offensive and most certainly not

racially offensive. It was not in any way a reference to the colour of PE's skin."

(emphasis added)

246. Mr Greaney cross-examined Mr Suarez about this paragraph in Mr Suarez's witness

statement, just after showing Mr Suarez a clip of the goalmouth incident. The extract from

the transcript below omits the translation of the questions into Spanish, and Mr Suarez's

answers in Spanish. The answers given below are the interpreter's translation of Mr

Suarez's answers in Spanish.

"MR GREANEY: Mr Suarez, the first thing I would like to ask you, now that we have

seen those again, is: is it correct, as you say in paragraph 27 of your witness

statement, that you were trying to defuse or calm down the situation in the goal

mouth?

A. That's why I was explaining to him that it was a normal foul.

Q. Let me be as clear as I can. Was your aim, when you were in the goal mouth, and

speaking to Mr Evra, to calm down the situation? 63

A. I wasn't thinking about speaking to anyone. He was the one to come to me and

speak to me.

Q. What we want to know, or at least I do, is what was in your mind? Was it in your

mind to try to calm down the situation?

A. He was asking me, "Why did you kick me?" Those were football conversations,

and I replied, "This is a normal foul. What do you want me to do?"

Q. Do you see paragraph 27 of your statement? Does it read: "I was trying to defuse

or calm the situation"?

A. By the gesture I was doing with my hands, I could show that I was trying to

explain the situation, because these are conversations that you have in the field.

Q. Mr Suarez, I have to suggest to you that my question is really a very simple one.

In the goal mouth, and in particular as you pinched the skin of Mr Evra, do you say

you were trying to calm the situation?

A. Not after the pinch, because he was saying that he was going to hit me.

Q. I'll just make one more attempt, and then we will move on. In your statement,

over which we have understood you took some care, you have said of the pinching:

"I was trying to defuse the situation." All I wish to know is whether that is true or

not.

A. I was not trying to calm down the situation, but trying to explain to Evra why I

was doing this foul, and when - then he replied, "I'm going to hit you", and I was

trying to show him that he was not untouchable, not in the foul and not by the

gesture that I did with the - by the pinch I was doing to his arm, that he wasn't

untouchable."

247. Having said in his witness statement that he was trying to defuse the situation when he

touched Mr Evra's left arm in a "pinching type movement", Mr Suarez eventually

answered, after persistent questioning, that he was not trying to calm down the situation

by doing so

That's one example. If you think he sounds like a great witness during that, you're insane.