Im trying to stay out of this as much as possible really, but I just read on the bbc website, it said:
"Both parties have the right to an appeal and must reply by 13 January."
Does that mean Evra can appeal and try to make it longer or something?
one thing I don't get is that Suarez has admitted to it and the FA has found him guilty yet Liverpool continue to back him to the hill. Of course back your player but they seem to have gone too far. why do they continue to back him?
one thing I don't get is that Suarez has admitted to it and the FA has found him guilty yet Liverpool continue to back him to the hill. Of course back your player but they seem to have gone too far. why do they continue to back him?
one thing I don't get is that Suarez has admitted to it and the FA has found him guilty yet Liverpool continue to back him to the hill. Of course back your player but they seem to have gone too far. why do they continue to back him?
Think a lot of Liverpool fans are clutching at straws tbh. 8 games is slightly harsh, but hey, the FA want to kick it out and what better way than to give a severe ban when a case like this comes along.
Think a lot of Liverpool fans are clutching at straws tbh. 8 games is slightly harsh, but hey, the FA want to kick it out and what better way than to give a severe ban when a case like this comes along.
Agree. A precedent has been set and now the FA must stick too it. For example the next player to miss a drugs test must expect an 8-month ban as seen in the Ferdinand case.
Agree. A precedent has been set and now the FA must stick too it. For example the next player to miss a drugs test must expect an 8-month ban as seen in the Ferdinand case.
Think a lot of Liverpool fans are clutching at straws tbh. 8 games is slightly harsh, but hey, the FA want to kick it out and what better way than to give a severe ban when a case like this comes along.
Not gonna comment on Suarez persee, since not had time to read the report, but agree. Obviouldy it will need to be looked on a case by case basis, but a similar repeat by anothe player should merit a similar punishment.
Apparently the ban reflects the fact that he repeated it several times, and not just the one mention
Was that not just before Rio's one hence the shock of the ban. I may be wrong but yes I agree. The FA are generally clowns as shown in the Rooney appeal.
one thing I don't get is that Suarez has admitted to it and the FA has found him guilty yet Liverpool continue to back him to the hill. Of course back your player but they seem to have gone too far. why do they continue to back him?
Because, as the expert evidence in that report suggest and every incident of Suarez using that word shows, he's not using it in an abusive way. Evra obviously thought otherwise - he thought that it was the direct equivalent of the 'n' word. It isn't. The commission decided that Evra said something very offensive to Suarez and so Suarez replied with it being used in an offensive way and to try and further inflame the situation. Suarez says he didn't and that rather than trying to inflame the situation caused by his tackle on Evra upsetting Evra, he was trying to calm it down.
From reading that report, and from the heavy hints in there by the commission, this is a case where one player has used a word which was partially misunderstood by another player and that other player has (quite rightly if I'm honest) become even more incensed as he thought he was being racially abused when that intention was not present.
It's interesting reading - the headlines will be how Suarez evidence has been found to be unreliable which comes down to, yet again, the exact meaning of the Spanish phrase he was using and how it was understood.
What's clear is that players coming into the league from abroad really need to be warned that even conversations in their native languages can be a big issue should the other party not be a native speaker and find offence in a phrase which would otherwise have none.
Because, as the expert evidence in that report suggest and every incident of Suarez using that word shows, he's not using it in an abusive way. Evra obviously thought otherwise - he thought that it was the direct equivalent of the 'n' word. It isn't. The commission decided that Evra said something very offensive to Suarez and so Suarez replied with it being used in an offensive way and to try and further inflame the situation. Suarez says he didn't and that rather than trying to inflame the situation caused by his tackle on Evra upsetting Evra, he was trying to calm it down.
Suarez says he's not using it in an abusive way, but the comission, with the backing of the experts, finds that, in the context of the conversation and based on the body language from both players (Which was less than friendly, as stated in the report), it was hardly being used in a friendly manner. As a matter of fact, the commission finds that during their conversation in the penalty box Suarez was clearly trying to wind Evra up (That much he did...). Plus, in the report it clearly states that Suarez:
A) Recants his statement of trying to defuse the situation by pinching on Evra's arm (Like anyone would believe that...).
B) He says he used the term 'Negro' in a conciliatory manner after, and only after, an experts points out that the word could be used in such a manner in Uruguay.
C) When asked by Comolli about the issue for the first time Suarez tells him he said one thing, but when asked by the commission he says he said a different thing.
That's Suarez changing his story at least three times, which certainly lessens his credibility. I could, however, say he only changes it twice because Comolli's fluente Spanish is, from what I gather from the report, about as fluent as my Japanese.
Furthermore, even if (And it's a MASSIVE if) Suarez was telling the truth and he only called Evra 'negro' once while asking him 'Por qué, negro?', it doesn't mean he did so in a friendly manner. First of all, putting it into context, it was hardly a friendly conversation among the two of them. That said, it could be that he was trying to defuse the situation, but once more, if you're arguing with a black guy, whether it is in England, Uruguay or Swaziland it's unlikely that he'll take it kindly to you referring to his colour. But there's still a (Very) minor chance (A snowball's chance in ****, more or less) that he wasn't being a **** and he was actually referring to him in a friendly manner. If this were the case, and it's yet another massive if here, things like tone of voice, facial expressions, emphasis on particular words, etc. would have to be taken into account, as even if he meant no insult he could've contributed to a 'misunderstanding', in which case he's still at fault.
Tbh i think Liverpool fans should just draw a line under this. Suarez royally screwed up to put it politely. No excuse for not knowing what is considered offensive or inoffensive-he's been in Europe long enough. If he didn't well it's just stupidity and ignorance. There's enough Kick Out Racism info going around. No one is that stupid to not know. Spanish experts decreed it offensive...independent panel decreed it. So all this FA blaming is just pure unadulterated ****. If it's appealed, well that's just as stupid. And what I'm saying is not a rivalry thing. It's just pure common sense. All this "the FA won't divide the club" **** is that. ****. The Liverpool fans I know are now embarassed and I don't blame them. The T-shirt thing was just absolutely ludicrous. Why do you think Chelsea didn't do it with John Terry? Because it was inappropriate and just plain stupid. And if Terry did do it, I'd expect the same punishment though it's right now out the FA's hands so that's up to civilian laws, THEN FA rules. So there's no such thing as him being less harshly dealt with. It was the laws decision to get involved.
And to be honest, if it is appealed, I do hope the ban gets extended. Because there is no grounds for appeal. And I have already said I don't believe Suarez to be racist at all. Just plain stupid. He's already shown his intelligence on the pitch so why can't he do it in other areas? It's not hard. He has to be the bigger person here, and just accept the ban without all this hoo ha. It's just plain silly. I'll probably get stick because I'm an Everton fan, but I'd fully expect the same punishment if one of our players did exactly the same. It's nothing to do with rivalry whatsoever. It's to do with common sense. Something that sadly doesn't exist in some people these days.
That's the last I'm saying on the subject because frankly I'm sick and tired of all the circles that people are going around with on this subject trying to get the point across. And it's just getting embarassing for football. And more importantly for LFC.
Suarez says he's not using it in an abusive way, but the comission, with the backing of the experts, finds that, in the context of the conversation and based on the body language from both players (Which was less than friendly, as stated in the report), it was hardly being used in a friendly manner. As a matter of fact, the commission finds that during their conversation in the penalty box Suarez was clearly trying to wind Evra up (That much he did...). Plus, in the report it clearly states that Suarez:
A) Recants his statement of trying to defuse the situation by pinching on Evra's arm (Like anyone would believe that...).
B) He says he used the term 'Negro' in a conciliatory manner after, and only after, an experts points out that the word could be used in such a manner in Uruguay.
C) When asked by Comolli about the issue for the first time Suarez tells him he said one thing, but when asked by the commission he says he said a different thing.
That's Suarez changing his story at least three times, which certainly lessens his credibility. I could, however, say he only changes it twice because Comolli's fluente Spanish is, from what I gather from the report, about as fluent as my Japanese.
Furthermore, even if (And it's a MASSIVE if) Suarez was telling the truth and he only called Evra 'negro' once while asking him 'Por qué, negro?', it doesn't mean he did so in a friendly manner. First of all, putting it into context, it was hardly a friendly conversation among the two of them. That said, it could be that he was trying to defuse the situation, but once more, if you're arguing with a black guy, whether it is in England, Uruguay or Swaziland it's unlikely that he'll take it kindly to you referring to his colour. But there's still a (Very) minor chance (A snowball's chance in ****, more or less) that he wasn't being a **** and he was actually referring to him in a friendly manner. If this were the case, and it's yet another massive if here, things like tone of voice, facial expressions, emphasis on particular words, etc. would have to be taken into account, as even if he meant no insult he could've contributed to a 'misunderstanding', in which case he's still at fault.
The language experts asked provide two different interpretations. They note that Evra's claims on what was said make absolute no sense as a racial slur because the word in and of itself is not a racial slur. They even question whether Evra has actually reported what was said correctly because he gives it in pidgin Spanish. However, they agree that if what Evra claims was said, was said in the way in which he claims it was said, then it would be offensive because Evra gives the word in a context which is clearly abusive as the word is sandwiched between other epithets. Much of the 'evidence' used against Suarez is of that quality - people speaking languages which aren't their own trying to understand something which was said in Spanish. (Paragraph 182 of the report is one example of the bizarre nature of what Evra alleges was said and whether he really did hear what he thought he heard given that some words did not mean what he thought they mean. You can also look at paragraphs 189 etc for how more realistic what Suarez reports was said is likely to be true).
There are huge chunks of that conversation which have no relationship to what Evra claims is said. Why does Suarez make the 'quacking' signal unless he's correct that he was telling Evra to stop chirping into his ear? Evra's perfect recollection left out that part for some reason.
That's a fair few 'ifs' going on. The commission has chosen to rely upon Evra's reporting as if it was completely accurate. This is in spite of Evra clearly having no clue what the words meant, as he later admits, which opens up completely the possibility that, even assuming he's not talking out of his backside - which I don't believe he is, that he's misunderstood a conversation which he decided to conduct in Spanish.
Suarez story changing is interesting. He denies making a racially offensive comment. He still denies making a racially offensive comment. Some change. This contrasts with Evra's realisation that the word he took offence to (in a language he supposedly speaks - possibly as well as Comolli?) is not the 'n' word of the English language.
You're right on changing his evidence about pinching Evra's arm. I'd much rather he came clean on that straight off. I'd file it under why he also said he didn't hear Evra abusing him as an opening gambit. Amusingly, Evra also changes his story about the pinch from not noticing it at first to then being adamant that it was a reference to his skin colour which further inflamed the situation - but only after watching the video. You could not make this up. What's going on there?
The word itself is not offensive. Saying the phrase which Suarez admits to is not offensive. Saying the phrase which the fluent Spanish speaking Evra alleges to have heard is. And there is the problem. The commission is relying upon Evra relating what was said perfectly in order to make a case here. I'd question that judgement because, to put it bluntly, Evra came away from that incident claiming he'd been called a 'n*****' and saying that it was said in a phrase which makes very little sense to someone from Uruguay. I've no doubt that Evra thought he was being racially abused, I do doubt whether he understood what was said to him.
Would note that the commission itself queries why the simple 'misunderstanding' explanation hasn't been explored and this has turned into an adversarial 'he said this, he said that' issue. It's also interesting to note that rather than this being a clear case of a racial slur, it's one dependent on context and meaning and intent which are not covered by the FA rules, yet the FA demanded that the punishment make a 'statement'. I can see why the club are furious about this.
Because, as the expert evidence in that report suggest and every incident of Suarez using that word shows, he's not using it in an abusive way. Evra obviously thought otherwise - he thought that it was the direct equivalent of the 'n' word. It isn't. The commission decided that Evra said something very offensive to Suarez and so Suarez replied with it being used in an offensive way and to try and further inflame the situation. Suarez says he didn't and that rather than trying to inflame the situation caused by his tackle on Evra upsetting Evra, he was trying to calm it down.
From reading that report, and from the heavy hints in there by the commission, this is a case where one player has used a word which was partially misunderstood by another player and that other player has (quite rightly if I'm honest) become even more incensed as he thought he was being racially abused when that intention was not present.
It's interesting reading - the headlines will be how Suarez evidence has been found to be unreliable which comes down to, yet again, the exact meaning of the Spanish phrase he was using and how it was understood.
What's clear is that players coming into the league from abroad really need to be warned that even conversations in their native languages can be a big issue should the other party not be a native speaker and find offence in a phrase which would otherwise have none.
That's not really true though. The experts came to the conclusion that if Suarez said what he claimed to have said in the context that he claimed then it wouldn't be judged to be abusive but if what Evra claimed was said actually was said then there's no doubt that it was abusive and it was racial.
The commissions reasoning was also a lot more sound than Evra said something offensive so Suarez's reply must have been offensive. They clearly state that they reject Suarez's explanation that it was meant in a friendly and conciliatory way due to the obvious animosity between the two players before and after the supposed use of Negro in a friendly way including Suarez trying to annoy Evra by patting him on the head.
The language experts asked provide two different interpretations. They note that Evra's claims on what was said make absolute no sense as a racial slur because the word in and of itself is not a racial slur. They even question whether Evra has actually reported what was said correctly because he gives it in pidgin Spanish. However, they agree that if what Evra claims was said, was said in the way in which he claims it was said, then it would be offensive because Evra gives the word in a context which is clearly abusive as the word is sandwiched between other epithets. Much of the 'evidence' used against Suarez is of that quality - people speaking languages which aren't their own trying to understand something which was said in Spanish. (Paragraph 182 of the report is one example of the bizarre nature of what Evra alleges was said and whether he really did hear what he thought he heard given that some words did not mean what he thought they mean. You can also look at paragraphs 189 etc for how more realistic what Suarez reports was said is likely to be true).
There are huge chunks of that conversation which have no relationship to what Evra claims is said. Why does Suarez make the 'quacking' signal unless he's correct that he was telling Evra to stop chirping into his ear? Evra's perfect recollection left out that part for some reason.
That's a fair few 'ifs' going on. The commission has chosen to rely upon Evra's reporting as if it was completely accurate. This is in spite of Evra clearly having no clue what the words meant, as he later admits, which opens up completely the possibility that, even assuming he's not talking out of his backside - which I don't believe he is, that he's misunderstood a conversation which he decided to conduct in Spanish.
Suarez story changing is interesting. He denies making a racially offensive comment. He still denies making a racially offensive comment. Some change. This contrasts with Evra's realisation that the word he took offence to (in a language he supposedly speaks - possibly as well as Comolli?) is not the 'n' word of the English language.
You're right on changing his evidence about pinching Evra's arm. I'd much rather he came clean on that straight off. I'd file it under why he also said he didn't hear Evra abusing him as an opening gambit. Amusingly, Evra also changes his story about the pinch from not noticing it at first to then being adamant that it was a reference to his skin colour which further inflamed the situation - but only after watching the video. You could not make this up. What's going on there?
The word itself is not offensive. Saying the phrase which Suarez admits to is not offensive. Saying the phrase which the fluent Spanish speaking Evra alleges to have heard is. And there is the problem. The commission is relying upon Evra relating what was said perfectly in order to make a case here. I'd question that judgement because, to put it bluntly, Evra came away from that incident claiming he'd been called a 'n*****' and saying that it was said in a phrase which makes very little sense to someone from Uruguay. I've no doubt that Evra thought he was being racially abused, I do doubt whether he understood what was said to him.
Would note that the commission itself queries why the simple 'misunderstanding' explanation hasn't been explored and this has turned into an adversarial 'he said this, he said that' issue. It's also interesting to note that rather than this being a clear case of a racial slur, it's one dependent on context and meaning and intent which are not covered by the FA rules, yet the FA demanded that the punishment make a 'statement'. I can see why the club are furious about this.
A bit of an exaggeration to say that it made absolutely no sense as a racial slur. I think the exact quote is "struck both of them as slightly unusual".
I think you're underestimating Evra's capability with Spanish quite a lot. Although he was confused as to whether Negro meant N***** or Black to describe his Spanish as pidgin or to suggest that he might have completely misunderstood the whole conversation is a bit over the top. Anyway, the commission did consider the possibility that Evra had misunderstood the conversation but Liverpool's representative didn't follow it up instead focusing on the possibility that Evra made it all up.
Suarez's story changes quite a bit. As well as the pinching he claimed that he used Negro was used in a friendly way right until he read the Language experts report which suggested it might have been said in a conciliatory fashion at which point he jumps on that bandwagon and includes this point for the first time in the next statement he writes. He switched the language Patrice Evra referred to him as a South American from English to Spanish and then back to English. He changed the time when he said Negro from after speaking to the ref for the first time to after. He also changed the reason Evra had told him not to touch him from because of the touch of the head to because of the pinch and finally to because of the foul in the 58th minute. To quote the report "His account seemed to change in an attempt to fit in with the video evidence."
In what way does Evra change his story about the pinch? Evra had thought that he had just been pointing at his skin and interpreted this as a reference to his skin. When it was pointed out to him that Suarez had actually gone as far as pinching him that changed nothing. He still thought it was a reference to his skin.
It's fairly easy to see why this didn't go well for Liverpool if you read the report. Apart from all the inaccuracies mentioned above in Suarez's evidence there was also Dalglish, Kuyt and Comolli all giving evidence on the day of the incident that Suarez told them he said something different from what became the official party line. Then the commission were expected to believe that not only did Comolli misunderstand Suarez in Spanish and Kuyt in Dutch but when Comolli relayed it to Dalglish in English Suarez didn't feel the need to point out they'd got it wrong. Plus the fact we only had to prove it in the balance of probability I don't see how Liverpool can believe they should have had the charges clear or how they could win an appeal.
That's not really true though. The experts came to the conclusion that if Suarez said what he claimed to have said in the context that he claimed then it wouldn't be judged to be abusive but if what Evra claimed was said actually was said then there's no doubt that it was abusive and it was racial.
Hmm. Try paragraph 182 of the report and contrast with paragraph 191. The very beginning of Evra's claim is not logical. Everything else in the expert opinion on Evra's statement follows on from the understanding of that first comment as either a racial slur or not. That's without disputing the accuracy of Evra's recollection of events.
The commissions reasoning was also a lot more sound than Evra said something offensive so Suarez's reply must have been offensive. They clearly state that they reject Suarez's explanation that it was meant in a friendly and conciliatory way due to the obvious animosity between the two players before and after the supposed use of Negro in a friendly way including Suarez trying to annoy Evra by patting him on the head.
Suarez account is that around the time the referee called them over, he made a conciliatory comment. Evra looks visibly shocked and then shouts to the referee that he'd "just" (as in that moment) been called a, well, whatever. Shocked after being on the receiving end of a 2 minute torrent of racial abuse by the least insulting of the comments made by Suarez in Evra's account? Ok.
A bit of an exaggeration to say that it made absolutely no sense as a racial slur. I think the exact quote is "struck both of them as slightly unusual".
Try paragraphs 188 through 190.
I think you're underestimating Evra's capability with Spanish quite a lot. Although he was confused as to whether Negro meant N***** or Black to describe his Spanish as pidgin or to suggest that he might have completely misunderstood the whole conversation is a bit over the top. Anyway, the commission did consider the possibility that Evra had misunderstood the conversation but Liverpool's representative didn't follow it up instead focusing on the possibility that Evra made it all up.
He was adamant that it meant the 'n' word almost right up to the point where he was about to go on as a witness. I'm not underestimating Evra's ability with Spanish, I was highlighting the fact that he was making claims of being called a vile epithet because he misunderstood a word used by a native speaker. And you're right, the major point is that Evra claims this was 2 minutes of being racially abused in the penalty area which no-one else heard.
Suarez's story changes quite a bit. As well as the pinching he claimed that he used Negro was used in a friendly way right until he read the Language experts report which suggested it might have been said in a conciliatory fashion at which point he jumps on that bandwagon and includes this point for the first time in the next statement he writes. He switched the language Patrice Evra referred to him as a South American from English to Spanish and then back to English. He changed the time when he said Negro from after speaking to the ref for the first time to after. He also changed the reason Evra had told him not to touch him from because of the touch of the head to because of the pinch and finally to because of the foul in the 58th minute. To quote the report "His account seemed to change in an attempt to fit in with the video evidence."
There isn't a contradiction between being friendly and being conciliatory. There is no sudden change of anything other than the word being used to describe what he was trying to do at the moment he says he used the word. A statement is not a word for word transcript of what someone says. If you've ever given a witness statement then you'll know how difficult it is to put things in the correct order. Once Suarez had seen the video evidence, it's really not surprising that it helped him remember what happened and in what order. The commission seems overly amazed that this remarkable contrast in approaches to taking statements could produce different results.
In what way does Evra change his story about the pinch? Evra had thought that he had just been pointing at his skin and interpreted this as a reference to his skin. When it was pointed out to him that Suarez had actually gone as far as pinching him that changed nothing. He still thought it was a reference to his skin.
Pointing to the skin was meant to be a cornerstone of the visual evidence that yes Suarez was being racially abusive and so negate any argument over the use of the word 'negro'. Turns out instead the Evra has an elephant hide and that he wasn't actually watching Suarez hands to notice the pinch because he was so focused on his mouth. But he knew his skin was being pointed to in a racially offensive way.
And yes, Suarez is a childish idiot at times. He's pulled hair in the past too. Good chapter on where this South American tendency comes from is in Wilson's Inverting the Pyramid. Kenny needs to hammer him for that kind of thing.
It's fairly easy to see why this didn't go well for Liverpool if you read the report. Apart from all the inaccuracies mentioned above in Suarez's evidence there was also Dalglish, Kuyt and Comolli all giving evidence on the day of the incident that Suarez told them he said something different from what became the official party line. Then the commission were expected to believe that not only did Comolli misunderstand Suarez in Spanish and Kuyt in Dutch but when Comolli relayed it to Dalglish in English Suarez didn't feel the need to point out they'd got it wrong. Plus the fact we only had to prove it in the balance of probability I don't see how Liverpool can believe they should have had the charges clear or how they could win an appeal.
The Liverpool staff find out that their player has been accused of running round the pitch calling Evra a n*****. They ask the player exactly what he said, he says "por que, negro?". It is heard as 'porque negro'. Hence the 'inconsistency'. The professional translator when Suarez is being interviewed also initially makes the same mistake and has to double check and makes exactly the same mistake which Comolli made. Note that neither of them mistranslated the contentious word though.
So essentially the inconsistencies in Suarez' evidence are:
1) What he admits to saying not only depends on cultural context but the context of the sentence and there was confusing over two very similar Spanish words/phrases and which was being used.
2) His evidence from before seeing the video footage differed in precise timing within a 2 minute window to that of what he clarified after reviewing the footage but did not differ in substance.
And that's pretty much it.
On the issue of penalty, according to the logic used by the commission, this is a minimum of a 4 match ban regardless of the fluffery and arguments over the hows and whens, based on Suarez frank admission alone. Given the reasoning underlying the commision's belief that a conversation conducted in any language on an English football pitch has to keep in mind rules designed with the English language in mind, then I think it would be silly to appeal this because a failed appeal would then double his suspension to 16 matches and a successful one would see it only reduced in half. We'll see though. There's some odd stuff in that report - not least the declarations that Suarez is not a racist yet has been found guilty of saying that he doesn't talk to black people. It's utterly, utterly bizarre.
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.
Lol at Alex for missing the point. I quoted the points that said Suarez admitted using the word, which many Liverpool fans denied and called Evra Liar. Now with FA report it is clear to see who the liar is and who was fabricating nice little stories.
In short Suarez admitted using the word Negro and in the heated derby and when two have confronted no one will believe if he says that he didn't use it as an insult.
