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.
Honestly I have a massive, and I mean homicidal hangover, I've only had 3 hours' sleep and just took a 30' bus ride home so I really can't be arsed to argue, but considering we're playing our most boring and frustrating first half in a long time, I will make a final statement on this.
The word negro is a racial slur - just because it can be used otherwise it doesn't mean it always is, and just because it is usually followed by another insult it doesn't mean that it has to be. As a matter of fact, last night my uncle tried to stop me from drinking a beer from the bottle because that 'es cosa de negros' - an accurate translation is to say 'that's what ******* do'. That 'negros' doesn't exclusively refer to people of dark skin but also to people who live in slums and the like.
The quacking sign is often used here to tell someone that he's talking too much and should shut the **** up. He can clearly do that to wind Evra up, there's no mistery there.
Then you claim Suarez didn't change his story. He doesn't deny making a racially offensive comment - he denies that his comment was intended as a means of racially abusing Evra. He admits to making a comment (One that could very easily be interpreted as insulting, regardless of what he intends us to believe) that was referred to his skin colour. And, once again, he only claims to have used the word 'negro' in a 'conciliatory' manner after (And according to the experts and the commission, because of, which is quite plausible and possible) the experts point out that in some situations it could be used as such.
Evra did not change the story about the pinch either - when cross-examined he said he didn't realise he had been pinched until he saw the video because he was focused on Suarez's face, but he believes that he was pointing at his skin colour. If we are to believe what Evra says about Suarez's choice of words during the conversation, then it's once again a very plausible scenario. To be entirely honest, I don't think that the pinching was a reference to his skin colour but rather another attempt at winding him up, regardless of who we believe.
Lastly, the word in itself can be offensive. I'll say it one last time, just because a word can be used in a non-offensive manner doesn't mean that is always the case. Also, what Evra claims to have said does make sense to someone from Uruguay - 'voseo' is the most common form but it's not exclusive in Uruguay, as opposed to Argentina where the 'tu' form is hardly ever used. As a matter of fact the commission and the experts clearly state that Suarez uses both during the interviews. Can't blame Evra, the Commission, the FA or Manchester United for that. And a final few words - let's assume Suarez only said 'por que, negro?'. That phrase could very easily have an offensive and racial connotation if you stress the word 'negro'. Considering he only claimed to have used the word 'negro' in a conciliatory manner (Originally he claimed he used it in a 'friendly and affectionate manner', which is hardly believable considering Evra wasn't exactly a friend of his, and clearly wasn't trying to be friedly here) after the experts used the term themselves, I'm inclined to believe he did intend the phrase to have a racial connotation.
Anyways, I'm done with this, my head is imploding and by the time I bother to come back to this thread this post will be possibly forgotten. That said, feel free to PM me if you want to continue the argument.
Hm, it's amazing to see how smug people are getting over this.. You really are a credit to the clubs you support and definitely doing a wonderful job in supporting kicking out racism.. Yeah....
Anyway, I haven't read it and don't intend too.. I mean, 18 pages? No thanks. It does sound as if there could be enough for Liverpool to appeal but I guess that's for the lawyers to decide.. Now we wait.
Hm, it's amazing to see how smug people are getting over this.. You really are a credit to the clubs you support and definitely doing a wonderful job in supporting kicking out racism.. Yeah....
Anyway, I haven't read it and don't intend too.. I mean, 18 pages? No thanks. It does sound as if there could be enough for Liverpool to appeal but I guess that's for the lawyers to decide.. Now we wait.
The one thing that strikes me, is how incongruous it is to take Evra's word as gospel, and then to say that Suarez is not a racist.
It makes absolutely no sense. If we accept Evra's testimony, as the FA have, then Suarez told Evra he wouldn't talk to him because he was black, and then pinched his skin to emphasize that he has black skin, and then called him black several more times during the argument.
Now, obviously, Suarez has a different version, but the FA has said that they don't believe him. How, then, could they possibly say "that's what happened, but he's not a racist." It's ridiculous. Anyone who said anything like what Suarez is accused of saying IS a racist. Sorry. No ifs, ands, or buts. Only a racist would say that they wouldn't talk to someone else because they were black.
It's almost as if the FA know that they're taking one person's word over the other's, and know that they can't be certain, so they say "well, we're not trying to say he's a racist," which totally undermines their whole conclusion. Either he said those things and is a racist, or he didn't and he isn't.
Don't worry Mike.. I'm sure if you read back a few pages you will see a few smug comments. Not all comments are but definitely some. Also, don't take what I said the wrong way.. I just don't think this is the sort of thing should be used to get one over Liverpool fans.
It's almost as if the FA know that they're taking one person's word over the other's, and know that they can't be certain, so they say "well, we're not trying to say he's a racist," which totally undermines their whole conclusion. Either he said those things and is a racist, or he didn't and he isn't.
I think it's obvious by now that there is no concrete evidence. I always thought it was innocent until proven guilty.
In a proper court charges like this would never stick, which is probably why it's being dealt with internally. Although the decision is made, we just need to continue the form from the Newcastle game and keep Bellamy & Gerrard fit.
I'm not saying that it's a conspiracy against Liverpool or anything stupid that I know a few morons on facebook believe. Just that despite it being an independent jury consisting of random FA members.. We still know who they are and you've got to wonder how much the media has influenced their decision. But I'm just a blind Liverpool fan clutching at straws etc. etc.
Maybe if Suarez didn't change his story every week he'd have an ounce of credibility. And yes, credibility is a tool used in a court of law to determine guilt.
It makes absolutely no sense. If we accept Evra's testimony, as the FA have, then Suarez told Evra he wouldn't talk to him because he was black, and then pinched his skin to emphasize that he has black skin, and then called him black several more times during the argument.
Now, obviously, Suarez has a different version, but the FA has said that they don't believe him. How, then, could they possibly say "that's what happened, but he's not a racist." It's ridiculous. Anyone who said anything like what Suarez is accused of saying IS a racist. Sorry. No ifs, ands, or buts. Only a racist would say that they wouldn't talk to someone else because they were black.
It's almost as if the FA know that they're taking one person's word over the other's, and know that they can't be certain, so they say "well, we're not trying to say he's a racist," which totally undermines their whole conclusion. Either he said those things and is a racist, or he didn't and he isn't.
Suarez admitted saying it. It's not taking one mans word over another at all. The fact that Suarez admitted saying it, that they found the context of the situation to disagree with his statement that it was in a friendly manner, and the reduced credibility of Suarez, combining ALL of these factors is how they determined guilt on the BALANCE OF PROBABILITY.
And it was an independent commission that came to the verdict, not the FA. Stop harping on about the FA being biased, it's tiring, baseless with zero evidence to support it.
Well, you can say stupid things and not be stupid. You can think impossible thoughts and be a realist. By that nature, why can't you say racist things but not be a racist? That seems to be the crux of the end of the FA's statement.
Arguably he said stupid things to try and wind an opponent up, something the guy has been doing since he was a young footballer (and what is he, 23 now? hardly old and wise). I think it's possible to certainly say racist things and not be racist, the fact that they had several camera angles available and likely involved lip readers to find out what he said alongside body language experts I feel doesn't make it Evra's word against his.
The evidence is obviously there otherwise the ban wouldn't be there, or be so severe. I think there needs to be a disconnect the players for the club, with the club and the supporters. Liverpool have some of the greatest history of all clubs in the PL, and international support - I live in Norway and see loads of LFC stickers on the back of cars when I'm travelling, huge international support obviously.
The fact he wears the club's colours doesn't make him suddenly 'one of ours' if he pulls something like this, in my mind the players wearing a shirt supporting him showed exactly the wrong message.
The right way of dealing with this was saying he admitted it, he isn't racist and he was trying to wind him up in an unacceptable way in order to gain an advantage in the game. I don't see how that would be a problem, he's comparatively young, wants to do well and crossed a line. That's a lot better than this 'Oh it's acceptable in Uruguay' defence of his, considering he has played abroad for 5+ years its ridiculous.
The 'crisis management experts' in the club probably advised him to keep quiet, because it's their own skin if it goes against the player.
Anyway this keeps going on and on, draw a line under it, Gerrard is back, club is in a good position in the NY and has no worries with European games afaik. Hopefully can get some more CL football from the club instead of spurs.
EDIT to include the most important para from the above post imo:
Suarez admitted saying it. It's not taking one mans word over another at all. The fact that Suarez admitted saying it, that they found the context of the situation to disagree with his statement that it was in a friendly manner, and the reduced credibility of Suarez, combining ALL of these factors is how they determined guilt on the BALANCE OF PROBABILITY.
And it was an independent commission that came to the verdict, not the FA. Stop harping on about the FA being biased, it's tiring, baseless with zero evidence to support it.
As a Liverpool fan my opinion is to get the **** on with our season. Yes it hurts to lose our best player because of something stupid but we can let it become the talking point of our season (an excuse) we need to focus on Man City and not this. Also the FA wont reduce the ban whether we have something to go on anyway because how stupid would they look.
Racism is a big deal and if something like this happens they have to make an example of him whether we agree with it or not. If he admitted saying it then arrogance is not an excuse to get away with it.
With teams around us dropping points we need to field who is available to us a get a result whether its Carroll or Suarez if we win then I don't care
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.
All paragraph 182 tells me is that is that as I said before the experts found the phrase "porque tu eres negro" slightly unusual and that a more direct racial slur would have been something like "porque eres un negro de mierda". At no point do they say that it couldn't have been used as a racial slur as they clearly state in paragraph 175 that even if the word Negro was used as a noun in a way that would not always be deemed offensive if it was said with a sneer then it could be judged as offensive and in the context Evra gave where it was being used to explain why he kicked him then it would definitely racist.
In 191 the experts are referring to a completely different version of events as described by Suarez which if true would clearly show that Suarez was calm and trying to defuse the situation and so the use of the term Negro as a noun would not be deemed offensive.
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.
I'm not sure how what you say here has much to do with what I said but never mind.
The whole of the confrontation including the part with the referee is said to take 2 minutes not just the initial exchange in the goalmouth. Although that's a fairly minor point. Also Evra never says what Suarez said to him as they are walking towards the ref so it could have been by far the most offensive. Also this is not the only time he reacts to whatever Suarez was saying to him. In the goalmouth he was also clearly annoyed and ended up pushing Kuyt in the chest.
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".
Why are you showing me the experts opinion on the way Suarez claimed he used the word to try and show that the way Evra claimed Suarez used the word would not make sense as a racial slur
.Suarez claimed he said "Por que, negro?" or in English "Why, black?" and so the experts ruled that in the use of the word as a nickname that it wouldn't be judged a racial slur in the context of Suarez's account.
Evra claimed he said "porque tu eres negro" or in English " because you're black" which as the expert stated would be an unusually indirect racial slur but that in the context used according to Evra then it would be seen as racist.
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.
I didn't say it was a contradiction just that the story changes. The fact that it changed to include conciliatory after those exact words were used by the experts does seem to show that Suarez was willing to bend his story which doesn't exactly help his credibility. Of course it might have just been an oversight in the first statement which he corrected in the second account but it is a bit suspicious.
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.
I don't think it's beyond the capability of Evra's peripheral vision to notice Suarez reaching out towards his arm while focusing on Suarez's words and so not noticing the, judging by sky's video of it, tiny pinch of Evra's arm.
I also didn't get the impression when reading through the report that the pointing/pinching was a cornerstone of anything. It seemed a fairly minor part of the investigation and the only thing that gave it any importance was that Suarez lied about why he did it and was extremely evasive when asked about it. It clearly wasn't that important as in the end they didn't find it to be racially motivated but found him guilty of everything else.
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.
That’s not actually true though. It wasn’t as easy a misunderstanding as “por que” or “porque”. In paragraph 138 Comolli states that when he found out about the allegation from Haughan that he wished to find out Suarez’s version of events and so asked him what he had been said to which he had thought Suarez replied “ Por que, tu eres negro?” (Why, because you are black?). Dalglish also gave evidence saying that while in the company of Suarez Comolli told him what Suarez had said in Spanish, “Tu eres negro” and then told him in English that it meant “ You are black”. So not only had Comolli misunderstood/misheard Suarez but when he repeated this incorrect version in Spanish then English at no point did Suarez feel it necessary to correct him.
As well as this Kuyt is on record as having a conversation about it in Dutch later on in which Kuyt believed that Suarez had told him he said something which translates into English as “because you're black can't...why can't I touch you then.”. Which again contradicts what Suarez claimed he said on the pitch and what he claimed he told the people who asked him.
So two different people misunderstood him in two different languages and he only thought it necessary to point this out when the official investigation had started.
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.
He effectively lied about the reason he pinched Evra and dodged the question about four times when it was put to him which didn’t help his credibility.
Plus he didn’t go into this blind. He admitted to watching sky footage of the incident before he was questioned about it and yet he still couldn’t remember whether he was walking to or away from the referee. His evidence was also inconsistent as I’ve mentioned above with Comolli, Dalglish, Kuyt and even with Marriner and Dowd on what he claimed to have said after the match.
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.
Not sure the top parts true. It was a 4 match ban given that the minimum for a ban due to breach of E3(1) is 2 games and due to the fact they found that Suarez had said negro 7 times so they increased the base charge to 4 games. Then as he also breached E3(2) for the first time the ban was doubled. Don’t see why the fact that it was conducted in Spanish should stop them from ruling on whether the language used was offensive and if it used a reference to ethnicity.
It’s hardly that bizarre either that they said he wasn’t a racist. The commission clearly explained that they viewed the comments solely at an attempt to provoke Evra by referring to his colour and that they did not believe he meant his comments. As Liverpool helpfully pointed out Suarez has a black grandfather and does lots of work fighting racism so it would be hard to believe he actually kicked Evra because he was black and refuses to talk to black people.
we should appeal and it will postpone it to april. best thing would be appeal it to April accept the changes take a 4 game for that season and 4 games for the next season.
we should appeal and it will postpone it to april. best thing would be appeal it to April accept the changes take a 4 game for that season and 4 games for the next season.
He's definitely the most in form LB in the league. Hopefully this form continues and he is finally taken seriously, maybe he will get into the Spain squad too.
we should appeal and it will postpone it to april. best thing would be appeal it to April accept the changes take a 4 game for that season and 4 games for the next season.
I wouldn't say the best (after all, that run-down misses out Leighton Baines (7) who despite being slightly poorer in that regard offers FAR more all-round) but certainly the best deal. Such a solid player, was a great piece of business.
How is Suarez the best striker in the prem? He barely scores, the likes of Rooney, RvP and Aguero are better. I am ******* (sorry) annoyed about nothing but biased fans everywhere!
And no, if you can only reply with "Lollzzz hezzz zhitszzz" or "lol you fakez fanzz" don't bother.
