Jump to content
IGNORED

Football Thread 2011/2012

SMD

By SMD
in Sport

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

The rubbish about "Fergie's lies" and how he should be punished. This stuff about Evra saying naughty words. Harping on about Rooney's elbow again. It's all diversionary because you, in your infinite stupidity, refuse to acknowledge that Suarez fucked up and deserves to be punished, and keep going on about how awful everyone else is instead..

I know this may be difficult for you to understand and yet I was posting some football related news that was going to be discussed anyway. Suddenly you're adfroth with fury and anger for little reason.

However as you're perhaps trolling me with that then you're right - the FA will indeed pick and choose where they draw their lines in the sand. When you've got Barton being sent off for guesswork, and video evidence to prove it, and then it not being repealed - you have to wonder what's going on.

Have they even handed down an edict to ensure the England lads are treated favourably? Lampard isn't that sort of player, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

They explain how they judged the conflicting testimonies. If Evra was a proven liar like you are trying to suggest, Suarez legal team could and should have introduced evidence to that effect. Instead, Evra comes across as credible, Suarez looks like a liar, and LFC look like idiots.

I think that's harsh and not how things would go down at all during the hearing.

Why would Liverpool go into a hearing and immediately tear into the other guy? I don't believe that is how things are done and may have even weakened their case.

This latest evidence, and what had gone before with Evra, shows how he is quite the liar. The FA themselves have said as much in the past yet seemingly this was not taken into account.

Where you may be right is if Liverpool had decided to carry on with an appeal. That would be the right time to pull out such accusations.

And yet they had the grace to walk away, despite knowing what Evra was like - and still they get hammered for it.

If anything this only shows they should have kept going - because then they could have produced the evidence as you suggest.

Perhaps they thought the panel would know of Evra and what he's like...and that faith was clearly misguided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Art Vandelay

Art Vandelay

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Maybe we could all just post football discussion in another thread with a title that will throw him off the scent? Something he'd never be interested in, like 'where should I hang my Mensa certificate?', 'things l like doing with my friends' or perhaps 'what's your favourite hair product?'. We'll converse by PM and get this sorted.

13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC Lemon

DC Lemon

Posted
Posted

Which was what, exactly? Having read the report, I'm still not sure.

He used a racial term, which he admitted to and has now apologised for, against a black player while looking him up and down and pinching his black skin with a look of disgust on his face...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCGG2_hNB4A

...in a conciliatory, non-racist manner.

Everyone's a winner!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marrakoosh

marrakoosh

Posted
Posted

I think that's harsh and not how things would go down at all during the hearing.

Why would Liverpool go into a hearing and immediately tear into the other guy? I don't believe that is how things are done and may have even weakened their case.

This latest evidence, and what had gone before with Evra, shows how he is quite the liar. The FA themselves have said as much in the past yet seemingly this was not taken into account.

Where you may be right is if Liverpool had decided to carry on with an appeal. That would be the right time to pull out such accusations.

And yet they had the grace to walk away, despite knowing what Evra was like - and still they get hammered for it.

If anything this only shows they should have kept going - because then they could have produced the evidence as you suggest.

Perhaps they thought the panel would know of Evra and what he's like...and that faith was clearly misguided.

What do you mean what he's like? If you're referring to other times he's allegedly made complaints about racism, you're sorely misguided.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Graham S

Graham S

Posted
Posted

This latest evidence, and what had gone before with Evra, shows how he is quite the liar. The FA themselves have said as much in the past yet seemingly this was not taken into account.

What is this past evidence? When you say "what has gone on before with Evra" what do you mean? Anything substantive?

Of course if Evra is a proven liar that would be a valid and essential part of Suarez defence, when the whole case hangs on the credibility of the witnesses. It would be ridiculous not to bring it up. As they didn't do that, that leads me to suspect that it's rubbish.

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
marrakoosh

marrakoosh

Posted
Posted

I think Dinobot is referring to these two cases...

#1 2006 - Racial abuse claimed of Steve Finnan - Evra never made a complaint. The accusation came from a deaf fan who lip-read it. Evra declined to complain.

#2 - Chelsea groundsman, Steve Bethell. Even the FA report says: “The two witnesses who say they heard those words directed by Mr Bethell at Mr Evra are the Manchester United first team coach Mr Mike Phelan and the goalkeeping coach Mr Richard Hartis.” and “Even if we disregard the fact that Mr Evra has never claimed to have heard such a remark on that day, it is notable that there were several other people far nearer to Mr Bethell at the critical point in time than were either Mr Phelan or Mr Hartis.”

So...yeah...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Graham S

Graham S

Posted
Posted

I thought that might be it, but it would seem ridiculous to continue to cast vague slurs against Evra's character on such a poor understanding of the facts of those cases. But then, Dalglish's past remarks and the official LFC statement before Xmas seem to do the same, so I can understand why LFC fans get hold of the wrong end of the stick too. It was beginning to make me wonder if something else had gone on with Evra in the past I was unaware of.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reynard

Reynard

Posted
Posted

He used a racial term, which he admitted to and has now apologised for, against a black player while looking him up and down and pinching his black skin with a look of disgust on his face...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCGG2_hNB4A

...in a conciliatory, non-racist manner.

Everyone's a winner!

What does that video footage prove? Nothing as far as I can tell. Although I can't lip read or speak Spanish.

Of course, with the Sky reporter reading the opinion of a panel over the footage as if it were fact certainly gives it some much-needed gravitas.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reynard

Reynard

Posted
Posted

I thought that might be it, but it would seem ridiculous to continue to cast vague slurs against Evra's character on such a poor understanding of the facts of those cases. But then, Dalglish's past remarks and the official LFC statement before Xmas seem to do the same, so I can understand why LFC fans get hold of the wrong end of the stick too. It was beginning to make me wonder that something else had gone on with Evra in the past I was unaware of.

There's a muddying of the waters in regards to this point, though; you're tarring everyone who believes that Evra 'had previous' to mean an accusation of racism. Some quite rightly (without bringing anything to do with racism into it) point out that, in a report dealing with one of these other incidents, the account made by Evra was 'exaggerated and unreliable'.

“We find Mr Evra’s description exaggerated… There was no good reason for Mr Evra to have run over and barged Mr Griffin as he did. It was unnecessarily and gratuitously aggressive of Mr Evra… Mr Evra’s suggestion that he was concerned about Mr Strudwick’s safety is farfetched. They were two grown men having an apparently strong verbal disagreement but no more than that. The clear implication by Mr Evra that Mr Griffin’s pitchfork gave some reason for concern about Mr Strudwick’s safety is ridiculous…We find Mr Evra’s account exaggerated and unreliable. It is an attempt to justify a physical intervention by him which cannot reasonably be justified…"

Of course, it is not unreasonable then for people to question how Evra can be described as such in one case and made out to be beyond reproach in another.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I believe Suarez and all who supported him should leave the club mind. Dalglish, and all the players who wore the Tshirts.

They should all finish their footballing careers immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

What is this past evidence? When you say "what has gone on before with Evra" what do you mean? Anything substantive?

You've seen it now. It's not like we were making it up - the judgement there was that he was unreliable.

Such is the annoyance that he's gone from unreliable to word of law, and with this latest video he's pretty much undermined his own evidence (in regard to saying he doesn't like certain words, which he then uses when talking about other players).

For all the "muddying the water" talk I'm only just highlighting what is in the public domain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Clooney

George Clooney

Posted
Posted

You've seen it now. It's not like we were making it up - the judgement there was that he was unreliable.

Such is the annoyance that he's gone from unreliable to word of law, and with this latest video he's pretty much undermined his own evidence (in regard to saying he doesn't like certain words, which he then uses when talking about other players).

For all the "muddying the water" talk I'm only just highlighting what is in the public domain.

By that logic any future hearings involving Suarez should be dismissive of anything he says as they've already deemed him unreliable. Would you be ok with that?

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reynard

Reynard

Posted
Posted

By that logic any future hearings involving Suarez should be dismissive of anything he says as they've already deemed him unreliable. Would you be ok with that?

It's not as cut-and-dried as that, of course.

However, there are parts of Evra's testimony that could've been easily questioned and dissected by the panel. They weren't, whereas Suarez's were (with one having had the benefit of being able to review video footage when making their statement and the other being denied that same courtesy, having to rely purely on their memory of events from the day itself - no surprise that one was found to be more 'reliable' than the other).

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

By that logic any future hearings involving Suarez should be dismissive of anything he says as they've already deemed him unreliable. Would you be ok with that?

If we follow that logic through then Evra's evidence was untrue, the panel rule differently, and Suarez is not unreliable.

I propose Disciple gets an 8 game ban from football.

By 'football' I mean 'the Football Thread'.

By 'game' I mean 'year'.

By 'Football Thread' I mean 'forum'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept