The Liverpool Thread

[Billy]

It's 117 pages, so I doubt many will be reading it tonight with plans to go out, but no doubt many will be giving it a going over with a fine tooth comb on Monday to try and pick apart the investigation.

 

[Ride The Walrus]

"Before reaching our decision... we asked ourselves which account was more probable".
What? So there's no actual evidence, it's just one mans words against another.
"Mr Suarez was not as impressive a witness as Mr Evra"

Independent panel found Evra to be a "credible witness" and Suarez to be "unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance".

 

[Mike.]

"Before reaching our decision... we asked ourselves which account was more probable".
What? So there's no actual evidence, it's just one mans words against another.
"Mr Suarez was not as impressive a witness as Mr Evra"

Independent panel found Evra to be a "credible witness" and Suarez to be "unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance".

Should probably start to read the report before starting to pick random bits and disagreeing with it.

Got no comment wont read it till I'm back after new years.

 

[sunilvk7]

Should probably start to read the report before starting to pick random bits and disagreeing with it.

Got no comment wont read till in back for new years.

I have read most of it,
Here are my highlighted points.

In our judgment, Mr Suarez's use of the term was not intended as an attempt at conciliation or to establish rapport; neither was it meant in a conciliatory and friendly way. It was not explained by any feeling on Mr Suarez’s part that a linguistic or cultural relationship had been established between them or that the context was one of informal social relations. The video footage, when viewed in detail and when looked at as a whole,
shows that the players continued their animosity throughout this incident. Their hostility is shown in their actions and demeanour before, at the moment of, and after Mr Suarez's admitted use of the word.

There were clearly a number of changes in Mr Suarez's account, both of the incident in the goalmouth and the incident where Mr Suarez admitted to using the word “negro” between his initial account as reported by Mr Dalglish and Mr Comolli, his interview on 2 November, his witness statement, and his case as presented at the hearing.

We rejected the evidence of Mr Suarez on these points. The pinching of the skin, and Mr Suarez's admitted use of the word "negro" when speaking to Mr Evra, took place in the context of heated exchanges between the players. Mr Suarez had fouled Mr Evra in the 58th minute. Mr Evra confronted Mr Suarez in the 63rd minute and complained forcefully
about the foul. Their facial expressions, gesturing and physical movement showed their mutual animosity throughout these exchanges.

Mr Suarez's account of his admitted use of the word "negro" changed several times. He seemed unsure of when the admitted use took place and what triggered it. His account seemed to change in an attempt to fit in with the video evidence.

Proving who is liar here.

In total, Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros" seven times in the penalty area. On each occasion, the words were insulting. On each occasion, Mr Suarez breached Rule E3(1). Accordingly, the Charge is proved.

So Evra didn't lie when he said he said 10 times (Which is close enough).

 

[Ride The Walrus]

Should probably start to read the report before starting to pick random bits and disagreeing with it.

Got no comment wont read till in back for new years.

Yes okay. But from the bits people are releasing, it's basically one mans word against another.

 

[Ride The Walrus]

I have read most of it,
Here are my highlighted points.









Proving who is liar here.



So Evra didn't lie when he said he said 10 times (Which is close enough).

117 pages? Nice.

 

[sunilvk7]

And this

During the interview, the FA and Mr Evra watched some video footage of the match. Mr
Evra pointed out to the FA, by reference to the video footage, when it was during the
match that Mr Suarez made the comments about which Mr Evra had complained. This
information enabled the FA to ask broadcasters to provide video footage of what
appeared to be the key moments of the game, so far as Mr Evra's complaint was
concerned. This video footage was provided in due course. It contained material which
was not broadcast, including footage of the exchanges in the penalty area in the 63rd
minute taken from a number of different camera angles.

 

[sunilvk7]

117 pages? Nice.

You know the meaning of most of it?

And FFS Suarez admitted that he used Negro. Its been written in FA statement, what more do you want? Sigh..

 

[Joel`]

How friendly.

 

[Joel`]

"Before reaching our decision... we asked ourselves which account was more probable".
What? So there's no actual evidence, it's just one mans words against another.
"Mr Suarez was not as impressive a witness as Mr Evra"

Independent panel found Evra to be a "credible witness" and Suarez to be "unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance".

DTguardian daniel taylor
FA's full written findings confirm that Suarez admits calling Evra a "negro" (though claims it was friendly) #LFC #MUFC

TheFA.com - Independent Regulatory Commission release written reasons in Luis Suarez case

 

[Ride The Walrus]

(4) Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and
clear way. It was, for the most part, consistent, although both he and Mr Suarez
were understandably unable to remember every detail of the exchanges between
them (paragraphs 229 to 234 above).
(5) Mr Suarez's evidence was unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance.
It was, in part, inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence, especially the
video footage. For example, Mr Suarez said that he pinched Mr Evra's skin in an
attempt to defuse the situation. He also said that his use of the word "negro" to
address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence.

Righty'oh then.

 

[Joel`]

"Before reaching our decision... we asked ourselves which account was more probable".
What? So there's no actual evidence, it's just one mans words against another.
"Mr Suarez was not as impressive a witness as Mr Evra"

Independent panel found Evra to be a "credible witness" and Suarez to be "unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance".

When Suarez has changed his story around 3 times, it tends to damage his credibility.

 

[Ride The Walrus]

"Mr Evra said that the phrase "ten times" was just a figure of speech in France."

Oh, so you said something in your own language and it shouldn't be taken to English literally?

 

[Joel`]

(4) Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and
clear way. It was, for the most part, consistent, although both he and Mr Suarez
were understandably unable to remember every detail of the exchanges between
them (paragraphs 229 to 234 above).
(5) Mr Suarez's evidence was unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance.
It was, in part, inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence, especially the
video footage. For example, Mr Suarez said that he pinched Mr Evra's skin in an
attempt to defuse the situation. He also said that his use of the word "negro" to
address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence.

Righty'oh then.

He ADMITS saying it. And they, an independent commission, REJECTED that it was in the context Suarez suggested. It's not one mans world against another when Suarez has admitted it.

 

[Joel`]

"Mr Evra said that the phrase "ten times" was just a figure of speech in France."

Oh, so you said something in your own language and it shouldn't be taken to English literally?

Dear God you're just desperate now. There's a difference between things being lost in translation and a conversation between two people FLUENT in the language.

 

[sunilvk7]

"Mr Evra said that the phrase "ten times" was just a figure of speech in France."

Oh, so you said something in your own language and it shouldn't be taken to English literally?

But Suarez said it 7 times, Evra wont be counting to tell the exact count. Suarez admitted it, and you lot can live in denial saying it was not fair hearing.

Anyways one more quote,

Secondly, the FA submitted that the nature and extent of the misconduct of Mr Suarez was
an obviously relevant factor. Given the number of times that Mr Suarez used the word
"negro", his conduct is significantly more serious than a one-off use of a racially offensive
term and amounts to an aggravating factor.

 

[Joel`]

Lol at Liverpool fans quoting 1 quote from a 100+ page document to support their case. Then again, all they've done for the whole case is pick the points that apply to them and ignore those that disagree with their point.

 

[sunilvk7]

Lol at Liverpool fans quoting 1 quote from a 100+ page document to support their case. Then again, all they've done for the whole case is pick the points that apply to them and ignore those that disagree with their point.

Suarez himself has admitted the use of word "Negro" still somehow they ignore that.

 

[Joel`]

Suarez himself has admitted the use of word "Negro" still somehow they ignore that.

NOT OFFENSIVE BRO SUAREZ WAS TRYING TO MAKE FRIENDS.

 

[Jak]

NOT OFFENSIVE BRO SUAREZ WAS TRYING TO MAKE FRIENDS.

in his defence if I wanted to make friends with a black person I didn't know i'd start with
'hola mi negro amigo ' if that doesn't work I don't know what will