Because whatever he said caused such a big racket?
Barcelona's Sergio Busquets faces Uefa action over racist abuse claims
- Thread starter Mike.
- Start date
- Replies 141
- Views 14K
- Status
Because whatever he said caused such a big racket?
I still don't really follow you. If I said "banana ice cream" in a match and it created a huge debate on whether or not I said something racist. I doubt my coach would say I made a mistake if he knew all I said was "banana ice cream".
You can doubt it as much as you want.
And you can doubt that he did say mono as much as you want, even though all evidence points towards that he did say that. Why do you think he covered his mouth aswell? To cover up him saying Marcelo has a long nose? Hardly.
There's no substantial evidence for anything.
It happens all of the time, the RM fans made monkey noises when Alves touched the ball. I don't feel too sorry for him though, he's a professional footballer who makes tens of millions a year. He'll be fine.
Yeah that's right, I'm a Barca fan who has a Jorge Valdano quote in his signature. Get real.
And I also didn't defend the act...I repeated over and over again that it was unsportmanlike and disgraceful. But we all know how one-sided you are, so what I say doesn't really matter since you'll spin it how you want to.
Lip-reading is also a method of garnering evidence, and it's the only evidence we're making the case on. And it's more inaccurate than lie-detectors.
First of all, they are two entirely different scenarios, one was said right into the camera so everyone could hear (and was recorded), the other one was said on the field to a different player where we're trying to lip-read what he said...and during part of the phrase the player's face is covered by another player's head. That's the key difference, because this is a question of how sure we are about Busquets' comments. We know that what Rooney said wasn't that big of a deal, the difference is in how exactly it happened: that he went right up to the camera and intentionally communicated it to the world, and it was obvious what he said. In Busquets' case we're using sketchy video-evidence to try and lip-read him...they are completely different scenarios.
As far as the rest of the paragraph, I already mentioned this before, our judicial system obviously doesn't work like that but it tries to be as close to 100% accurate as possible. But more importantly, are you seriously comparing this to the decision of whether or not to put a murderer behind bars? These are different organizations. They're not going to ban a player from the CL final by lip-reading a comment he may have made on the field...they never have done something like this, and if they're going to start and make an example out of it they have to be a lot more sure about it.
You keep on dodging my questions...misognyist and homophobic comments happen in every single game in Spain, Italy, and Latin America. Comments that are much more obvious than this Busquets one (where we can't even see the last part of what he said). Do they ever punish players for these? No. When else have they punished a player by lip-reading a comment he made to another player on the field? If you can bring up an example of this happening, than you would be showing evidence for UEFA being inconsistent. But you haven't, you keep on insisting over and over again that Barca is getting the call because it's Barca, yet UEFA to my knowledge has never retroactively banned a player by lip-reading a comment he made to another player on the field. I'm sure refs have carded players when they hear something, but that's not the issue here, it's using lip-reading.
RM fans did that, so did Barca fans. We are discussing about what happened on the pitch not stands. There is so much difference,
Yeah that's right, I'm a Barca fan who has a Jorge Valdano quote in his signature. Get real.
This is called defending..
I believe he is defending Uefa's decision.
For him to have that discussion with you though, not myself
For me, if Busquets did say he deserved to be banned but you couldn't prove he did say it.
No. It's called saying that UEFA shouldn't punish him here. When did I say what he did was OK? I said over and over again that it was a horrible thing to do but that he can't be punished for it since there isn't enough evidence and it would be unprecedented. Does that mean that everyone else in the thread that doesn't think he should have been punished was defending his actions? Ridiculous.
---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 PM ----------
I believe he is defending Uefa's decision.
For him to have that discussion with you though, not myself
For me, if Busquets did say he deserved to be banned but you couldn't prove he did say it.
Yeah exactly.
So by your logic Curtis, you're essentially saying that even though these comments happen on the field, it's okay because they don't get caught. But when recorded by camera, THEN it's punishable.
So, I guess rape, murder, theft, assault are all perfectly fine in society as long as you don't get caught. Once again, I repeat - Get real.
And lip reading isn't what we're basing the evidence on. Pep basically confessed to it, Marcelo testimony, video evidence, plus the fact I'm almost certain that sound engineers could at least partially extract what Busquets said. If they're not banning Busquets based on that evidence - then did they ban Madrid players for time wasting (There's much less evidence for that, just opinion of what happened.) Send Mourinho off - I mean, only the assistant testified, and according to you testimonies are now worthless.
There's more than enough evidence to charge him, but that's barely even the point any more. What really, really amazes me is how you're condoning racism, homophobia because it "already happens." When did I travel back to the 19th century? The point is that it SHOULDN'T happen on the field. If there's a problem that exists, then you work your **** hardest to fix that problem. Not just pass it off because it's already there.
UEFA are huge ambassadors of anti-racism, but they're condoning it now? It happens anyway, so we won't punish it. My God. What hypocrisy, the only thing they can do is punish it whenever seen to eradicate it from the game. How on Earth can they charge clubs for racist chanting, and then say to the players it's okay to be racist. I also don't see how I've dodged the question on this point when I've gone into explicit detail about the flaws in your argument twice now.
So, if you were in charge of the country 40 years ago, would sexism still be rampant, racial discrimination all over, homophobic laws.
Un-*******-believable.
So, I guess rape, murder, theft, assault are all perfectly fine in society as long as you don't get caught. Once again, I repeat - Get real.
And lip reading isn't what we're basing the evidence on. Pep basically confessed to it, Marcelo testimony, video evidence, plus the fact I'm almost certain that sound engineers could at least partially extract what Busquets said. If they're not banning Busquets based on that evidence - then did they ban Madrid players for time wasting (There's much less evidence for that, just opinion of what happened.) Send Mourinho off - I mean, only the assistant testified, and according to you testimonies are now worthless.
There's more than enough evidence to charge him, but that's barely even the point any more. What really, really amazes me is how you're condoning racism, homophobia because it "already happens." When did I travel back to the 19th century? The point is that it SHOULDN'T happen on the field. If there's a problem that exists, then you work your **** hardest to fix that problem. Not just pass it off because it's already there.
UEFA are huge ambassadors of anti-racism, but they're condoning it now? It happens anyway, so we won't punish it. My God. What hypocrisy, the only thing they can do is punish it whenever seen to eradicate it from the game. How on Earth can they charge clubs for racist chanting, and then say to the players it's okay to be racist. I also don't see how I've dodged the question on this point when I've gone into explicit detail about the flaws in your argument twice now.
So, if you were in charge of the country 40 years ago, would sexism still be rampant, racial discrimination all over, homophobic laws.
Un-*******-believable.
This is football we're talking about, not the legal system. All I said was when you make these comments into the camera or the ref makes them, punish them. If you're using lip-reading to make educated guess-work, than no. That's what the footballing authorities seem to be saying, and I agree with them.
The sound engineers argument was answered before, no way in **** they could do that, and as I've said before, the evidence isn't conclusive enough for this type of ruling. Guardiola certainly doesn't know what happened since he wasn't on the field (and Busquets was facing the other way as you can see from the video), he probably just assumed it happened because of the reaction it got. As far as Marcelo goes, as I said before, I think Busquets said mono, but I'm not sure, and if he said something that sounded like mono or had mono in it, Marcelo could have accused him of it. It certainly seems like Busquets made that comment, but they aren't going to retroactively ban players for racist comments when they aren't 100% sure about it. We're not talking about a murderer behind bars here, we're talking about whether or not to ban a player from a game for a comment he might have made.
When did I condone it? As I said multiple times, if FIFA/UEFA/whoever wants to seriously start punishing players for this type of behavior, than more power to them. For whatever reasons they don't, so all I'm saying is that they would be inconsistent to punish a player for it in this instance when they never do. Especially when they aren't even 100% sure about it.
Organized chanting from tens of thousands of people is very easily detectable, more dangerous, more hurtful, and more disgraceful. It's the easiest and most obvious thing to punish and if they didn't do anything about it than that would be ****** up. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't break precedent to punish a player for something they *think* he said. And you have dodged the question, all I'm asking for is for you to show me an instance of a player who has been retroactively banned for a comment he made to another player using lip-reading. Especially when people aren't 100% sure about it and most importantly, during the phrase his face was totally covered by another player's head.
Behave.
It's perfectly acceptable to compare to the legal system. For a start, you brought it up first. Secondly, methods of justice are constant throughout, UEFA are just administering laws of the game in the same way a judge administers laws of society.
UEFA retroactively punished Madrid players for time wasting, and there's far less evidence for that. Busquets could easily have said something to Pep about it. Why would he bring it up in the first place if he's not aware of the offence? Marcelo did accuse him of it.
Why would it be inconsistent? You mean in the same way they were totally consistent by charging Madrid players for time wasting, and then let Iniesta off. The exact same evidence was there fore both. As I said, it's physically impossible for them to be 100% sure. If you want 100% certainty, no one will ever be punished. There's significant evidence Busquets did this. Did he even deny it publicly? Yet you're claiming he shouldn't be punished. Explain why they retroactively charged Madrid with improper conduct against Ajax, based on far less evidence, and then it's okay for them to not charge Busquets? Inconsistency of the highest degree.
But no where in the legal system are people punished for making comments based on using lip-readers. More importantly, if the court lets a criminal go free, that can endanger the lives of others. UEFA doesn't have that hanging over their heads in making this decision, and considering what they always let people get away with, they aren't going to punish someone about this if they're not sure of it.
First of all, you can't just bring up another completely unrelated decision that went against Madrid and then claim inconsistency. Time-wasting versus lip-reading comments made on the field are two way different issues (and I think the former is easier to judge); I was simply asking for one case similar to Busquets' where UEFA acted. That's what you'd need to do to prove inconsistency. More importantly, the RM players were carded in that match. From what I understand, decisions made by the ref are reviewable afterwards for retroactive punishment (to punish the player more if need be). So when those players all received cards for time-wasting, that opened up the door for UEFA to make more punishments if they wanted to. Busquets did not receive punishment from the ref, meaning it was not likely for UEFA to ban him unless they were absolutely sure about it. Lip-reading aside football organizations rarely ban players for a call the ref didn't make. On the note of consistency, Juninho and Cris got retroactive fines for time-wasting against Fiorentina a few years back. And also, UEFA likes to punish players for meaningless games (they'd already topped their group at that point) because it makes them seem like they are willing to stand up against the big clubs. I didn't watch the RM vs. Ajax game but my guess is that's what UEFA wanted to do. I really doubt they have an anti-Madrid agenda.
The judicial system's purpose is to protect society by adhering to law. Failure to do so results in the public being in danger. UEFA's objective is to uphold the laws of the game, failure to do so results in altering of a football match. Both are equally important in the given contexts, so both should uphold the law. Of course society > football, but by relative standards they both operate the same way. In the legal system people have been tried and punished for rape for word of the woman. Racism is a severe accusation, Marcelo made it - And video's happen to support what he's saying. He'd look a complete *** if video's came out showing Busquets as silent. Plus Pep basically confessed to it. Stop whoring onto the fact "AHMAGAWD THEY'RE NOT 100% CERTAIN SO NO PUNISHMENT!!!" How many freaking times, they can never be 100% certain. They have substantial evidence to show Busquets as guilty though, and you agree to this fact.
And why the **** can I not compare to a separate event. UEFA did both punishments themselves, your whole argument is the fact that because UEFA aren't 100% certain they can't punish him. They weren't 100% certain over time wasting, but they punished them. Yet they have MORE evidence for Busquets and choose not to punish. Explain why they can make this difference. Unless UEFA can suddenly read Ramos' mind and know precisely why he took so long, then they're not 100% certain - And by your very own logic, can not punish him. But they did. So why not Busquets on more evidence?
Not sure how I'm supposed to argue with you either when you dismiss all my analogies for being separate scenario's. My analogies are based around what UEFA have done rather than the individual scenario. They hold up perfectly fine in the context of the argument, so stop saying I can't use them.
They are two different things. First of all, the legal system doesn't punish people for racial remarks since that is protected by free speech. The only instances where free speech is not protected in the US is in the case of imminent danger (fire in a crowded movie theater), and if they weren't sure about what happened I doubt they would convict someone for it. More importantly, we're not talking about protecting society from murderers and rapists here, we're talking about one comment made in passing from one millionaire to another. So yeah, in this circumstance, they aren't going to punish someone for a remark that may or may not have been made. If you're going to punish someone for speech they have to be 100% about it, especially considering the fact that this type of thing happens all of the time and goes unpunished. And more importantly, it is because this was not something that was ruled about on the field. There's a reason the footballing authorities don't retroactively issue punishments right and left after the games. There are plenty of circumstances where they are sure of wrongdoing, moreso than in this Busquets case, but they don't because that's not really how the footballing bodies act, like it or not.
No, they don't. They're not even close in fact, and you generally have ignored my argument. You're saying UEFA is being inconsistent. For them to have been inconsistent that would mean there was another similar incident where they did punish a player for this and then didn't in Busquets' place. I'm not asking for you to mention another decision that went against Real Madrid to show inconsistency, because decisions go for and against clubs all of the time. All I'm asking for is a decision when UEFA retroactively banned a player by lip-reading him for a comment he made to another player. Your latest example was a poor one as I mentioned previously because it was a retroactive ban on an act disciplined by the ref...retroactive bans apply to decisions made by the ref on the field (whether or not to give them a harsher ban), lip-reading aside this wasn't a decision made by the ref on the field. The chances of it being given for that reason alone were slim, and under those circumstances they wouldn't ban him unless they were 100% sure.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter too much since ManU will win and if anything it will only give you guys the "good guys" factor. If I were a ManU fan I would want Busquets in the line-up, that way you could say one of your opponents was a racist.
Curtis, its not about Man Utd vs. Barca, its about racial speech, you need to understand that. Second, UEFA is consistent about time waisting, but the thing is, they had less evidence for that act than for Busquets racial speech, and it seems to me that Barca always gets without any punishment. Point is, they punished players for smaller things and with less evidence than 'Busquets case'.
plus, UEFA :wub: Barca
- Status