Luis Suarez - scumbag

[cmonurz]

They used Spanish lip readers as well as calling him a negro he called him Blackie as well as saying I don't speak to blackies. He claimed this is not offensive in Uruaguay, but the FA have found out that it is as well as all of South America.

Where in the report does it say that these particular comments were on camera? I thought the linguists were brought in to provide contextual translations of what Evra claimed was said.

[Scylla]

One of Liverpool's more thoughtful supporters on Twitter:

"It made me wince last night when I read the report and irrespective of gaping holes in the report still makes me wince now. As for the report itself some of the leaps in logic by the panel are extraordinary to behold but there are questions that LFC need to answer."

[Victor Meldrew]

One thing I find odd is this idea that Evra is some kind of saint and a very credible witness.
This is the same tetchy Evra who was instrumental in French players going on strike and IIRC was banned subsequently for a number of games for his country.
This is the same Evra who tried to bring charges (which failed) against one of Chelsea's staff after a match at Stamford Bridge.
This is the same Evra who had been hacking away at Suarez in that game to such an extent that he was booked for it.

I still feel that the reaction has been way over the top-has no other player EVER said anything other than "steady on old chap" during the course of a football match?
There are many things that are bad in our game-what about Cabaye's potential leg-breaking tackle on Spearing on Friday night which the ref didn't see from 10 yards away?
My view is that the ills of football should be addressed equally and that so-called racist comments are no better nor no worse than a reckless tackle,one being a verbal attack and the other a physical attack.
A 3 match ban at most strikes me as sufficient punishment and why the FA needed to produce a 115 page document after Suarez had admitted saying what he was accused of seems ludicrous.

[cmonurz]

Racist abuse should be taken seriously Vic, it's certainly not the verbal equivalent of a bad tackle. There's a whole world of difference between a gesture intended to offend, which I agree takes place 100 times every game, and one intended to offend based on race (likewise, in the 'real world' a racially aggravated physical assault is a graver crime than one not based on race).

[TBM]

One thing I find odd is this idea that Evra is some kind of saint and a very credible witness.

"Evra, Ryan Giggs, Kuyt, Liverpool's director of football Damien Comolli and Dalglish all gave evidence at the hearing"

[cmonurz]

One thing I find odd is this idea that Evra is some kind of saint and a very credible witness.

"Evra, Ryan Giggs, Kuyt, Liverpool's director of football Damien Comolli and Dalglish all gave evidence at the hearing"

There is nothing in the statement released that shows any of those witnesses except Evra heard the conversation between the players.

[No Fixed Abode]

Liverpool really have shown themselves up, what an awful club they are over this affair. The details release proove he's guilty, so just take the 9 match ban and get on with it.

[frimmers3]

interesting to note that only dalglish needed an interpreter at the hearing.

[cmonurz]

interesting to note that only dalglish needed an interpreter at the hearing.

That isn't true.

[frimmers3]

i stand corrected.

[Tails]

Liverpool really have shown themselves up, what an awful club they are over this affair. The details release proove he's guilty, so just take the 9 match ban and get on with it.

Quoted for later use.....

[Scylla]

Liverpool really have shown themselves up, what an awful club they are over this affair. The details release proove he's guilty, so just take the 9 match ban and get on with it.

I've been waiting for someone who has a grasp of the details to come on. Please expand...

[Franchise FC]

Liverpool really have shown themselves up, what an awful club they are over this affair. The details release proove he's guilty, so just take the 9 match ban and get on with it.

I've been waiting for someone who has a grasp of the details to come on. Please expand...

Such a grasp that the lenth of ban is quoterd incorrectly. The one game game has been served and for a separate offence.

5 Live's Fighting Talk has a final section 'Defend the Indefensible', normally fought out between the top two guests on the day.
Next Saturday's is a one-off special with guest contestants Dirk Kuyt and Kenny Dalglish

[Bandini]

One thing I find odd is this idea that Evra is some kind of saint and a very credible witness.

They should probably have some kind of independent hearing, with Suarez represented by counsel, and evidence adduced from the referee, Suarez and Evra themselves as well as video evidence, to help them determine which is the more credible witness.

They probably don't need to rule on Evra's sainthood in order to determine the charge against Suarez.

A 3 match ban at most strikes me as sufficient punishment and why the FA needed to produce a 115 page document after Suarez had admitted saying what he was accused of seems ludicrous.

He should have admitted his guilt then. Mackie had an 8 match ban, with 5 games suspended because he was mature enough to recognise that he was in the wrong. Giving Suarez an 8 match ban is just following the precedent set in the Mackie case.

On Suarez's "admissions" you seem quite confused. There was a fair bit of dispute as to what was said, as you must realise bearing in mind you referred to Evra's credibility (which wouldn't be important if Suarez admitted everything).

[Mr Angry]

It does still (to me) appear to be the case that it is simply Evra's word as to exactly what Suarez said. The weight of evidence is against Suarez but what isn't clear to me reading bits of that report is exactly where the inconsistencies are in Suarez's evidence.

Not sure what Ideal's rant above is about, it's chock full of mistruths, plus quite what Dalglish's managerial decisions at Newcastle have to do with Luis Suarez I don't know.

The whole incident has been independently assessed and has resulted in a 115 page document laying out in full detail their reasons for their findings; in short, Suarez is totally bang to rights and has been judged to be a liar and if Liverpool had an ounce of class, they would sack the bloke.

However, as he is Liverpool's best player, they won't.

Meanwhile, wannabe Scouse apologists will still bleat that the process was, somehow, unfair and anti-Liverpool. Notice how despite the clarity of Suarez's guilt, the lack of an apology from Anfield either for the incident or for their utterly cack-handed handling of things since.....frankly, it makes an utter mockery of the whole Kick It Out campaign, and the next time Liverpool FC participate in such an endeavour we will all know its PR bull.

If I were a Liverpool fan, I would be totally ashamed at how my club has behaved over this incident.

[Scylla]

It does still (to me) appear to be the case that it is simply Evra's word as to exactly what Suarez said. The weight of evidence is against Suarez but what isn't clear to me reading bits of that report is exactly where the inconsistencies are in Suarez's evidence.

Not sure what Ideal's rant above is about, it's chock full of mistruths, plus quite what Dalglish's managerial decisions at Newcastle have to do with Luis Suarez I don't know.

The whole incident has been independently assessed and has resulted in a 115 page document laying out in full detail their reasons for their findings; in short, Suarez is totally bang to rights and has been judged to be a liar and if Liverpool had an ounce of class, they would sack the bloke.

However, as he is Liverpool's best player, they won't.

Meanwhile, wannabe Scouse apologists will still bleat that the process was, somehow, unfair and anti-Liverpool. Notice how despite the clarity of Suarez's guilt, the lack of an apology from Anfield either for the incident or for their utterly cack-handed handling of things since.....frankly, it makes an utter mockery of the whole Kick It Out campaign, and the next time Liverpool FC participate in such an endeavour we will all know its PR bull.

If I were a Liverpool fan, I would be totally ashamed at how my club has behaved over this incident.

You seem to be as mindlessly one-eyed as the people you decry. Try readng the report then come back with a short summary concerning the 'clarity' of Suarez's guilt.

[Bandini]

Try readng the report then come back with a short summary concerning the 'clarity' of Suarez's guilt.

I'm always keen to help:

Para 453 (7)

Mr Suarez fouled Mr Evra in the 58th minute of the game. In the 63rd minute, Mr Evra challenged Mr Suarez about the foul. Mr Evra used an offensive phrase,
which did not have any racial element and which Mr Suarez did not hear. An acrimonious argument ensued in which both players had a go at each other. In
the course of this confrontation, Mr Suarez used the words "negro" or "negros" seven times. He did so both before and after the referee had spoken to them and
told them to calm down. Mr Suarez addressed Mr Evra as "negro". He also made other derogatory comments using the word. In the course of the argument, Mr
Suarez also pinched Mr Evra's skin (which was not in itself insulting behaviour nor did it refer to Mr Evra's colour) and put his hand on the back of his head,
which were part of Mr Suarez's attempts to wind up Mr Evra (paragraphs 346 to 384 above).

453(9)
Mr Suarez's words, which included a reference to Mr Evra's colour, were insulting. The use of insulting words which include a reference to another person's colour on a football pitch are wholly unacceptable (paragraphs 385 to 399 above).

[cmonurz]

All of which is on Evra's account, and Evra's account only. If Suarez is insisting to his club that he did not make these comments to Evra, and there is no video evidence or other witnesses to the alleged incident, you can understand his club supporting him when it does appear Suarez has been punished purely on the word of Patrice Evra.

[Scylla]

Try readng the report then come back with a short summary concerning the 'clarity' of Suarez's guilt.

I'm always keen to help:

Para 453 (7)

Mr Suarez fouled Mr Evra in the 58th minute of the game. In the 63rd minute, Mr Evra challenged Mr Suarez about the foul. Mr Evra used an offensive phrase,
which did not have any racial element and which Mr Suarez did not hear. An acrimonious argument ensued in which both players had a go at each other. In
the course of this confrontation, Mr Suarez used the words "negro" or "negros" seven times. He did so both before and after the referee had spoken to them and
told them to calm down. Mr Suarez addressed Mr Evra as "negro". He also made other derogatory comments using the word. In the course of the argument, Mr
Suarez also pinched Mr Evra's skin (which was not in itself insulting behaviour nor did it refer to Mr Evra's colour) and put his hand on the back of his head,
which were part of Mr Suarez's attempts to wind up Mr Evra (paragraphs 346 to 384 above).

453(9)
Mr Suarez's words, which included a reference to Mr Evra's colour, were insulting. The use of insulting words which include a reference to another person's colour on a football pitch are wholly unacceptable (paragraphs 385 to 399 above).

Thanks but that's a summary of the conclusions? Even the FA can manage to produce a conclusion that fits the sentence?

The evidence mostly amounts to 'Evra says'. But for the contradiction between what Suarez said to Kuyt/Comolli and what he subsequently claimed re the 'Why negro/Because you're black' remark the evidence would be entirely 'Evra says'.

For the record I tend to the view that he probably did use the word negro in a context that amounted to abuse and he deserves a ban. But even the report only refers to probable guilt, 'clarity' it ain't.

Given the weight attached by the panel to the abusive and previously 'unreliable' Evra; the hysterical self-righteous nonsense in some of the press; and the anti-Liverpool tribalism that is just as blind as the pro-Liverpool stuff; it's no wonder that even mild mannered Liverpool supporters have gone to the mattresses. Apologies in advance for the probable misuse of semi colons

[Seal]

Apart from the fact he admitted saying the word

Surely this helps collaborate the evidence?

When combined with video evidence surely enough to determine both Evra's robustness as a witness and the holes in Suarez story.

Really can't see what defence Liverpool think they have now. Surely they are going to stop embarrassing themselves and drop the appeal. Most Liverpool fans I've spoken to just want to move on from this now, even the most one-eyed of them is finding it hard to defend the club now.