Luis Suarez - scumbag

[cmonurz]

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.

1 - Suarez admitted using the word once, in a concilliatory tone. He has been charged with using it 7 times, on Evra's say so. The FA have decided that he can't have meant it in a concilliatory manner, no matter what his intention actually was.

2 - where in the written statement does it say that Evra's robustness as a witness is increased by video evidence?

[LWJ]

Typical Liverpool fan tbh

[Scylla]

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.

1 - Suarez admitted using the word once, in a concilliatory tone. He has been charged with using it 7 times, on Evra's say so. The FA have decided that he can't have meant it in a concilliatory manner, no matter what his intention actually was.

2 - where in the written statement does it say that Evra's robustness as a witness is increased by video evidence?

I don't think the 'conciliatory tone' argument was ever going to wash.

I think the video evidence was used to cast doubt on the 'conciliatory tone' argument (You don't look very conciliatory to me mate) rather than to directly support Evra's version of events.

[Scylla]

Typical Liverpool fan tbh

Shouldn't you be picking up rubbish in an orange jumpsuit today?

[LWJ]

Typical Liverpool fan tbh

Shouldn't you be picking up rubbish in an orange jumpsuit today?

Why?

[Scylla]

Typical Liverpool fan tbh

Shouldn't you be picking up rubbish in an orange jumpsuit today?

Why?

Clearly gulity of abusing a steward and assaulting a constable? I'm shocked at the support you've received on here. It's a disgrace and an embarrassment.

[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).

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

You asked what his guilt is - his guilt is contained in the conclusions of the panel (not the FA). Guilt which is sufficient for the panel to conclude, as it did, that Suarez used insulting words when referring to Evra's colour is clear guilt for the purposes for which it is being considered.

Having read the full findings of the panel you can't really dispute that it's clear can you? If "even mild mannered Liverpool supporters" are going to the mattresses as a result of this, one can only assume that the city's reputation for self-pity is not entirely unfair.

I'm not quite sure why you've made a reference to the "previously 'unreliable' Evra" - the panel set out in some detail the factors which made them find Evra's evidence to be credible, but Suarez's evidence to be less credible. The panel also had the benefit of seeing both men give evidence so it seems to me that they might be in a rather better position to assess credibility than a bunch of internet wankers such as us.

[who are ya?]

Clearly gulity of abusing a steward and assaulting a constable? I'm shocked at the support you've received on here. It's a disgrace and an embarrassment.

ScyLOLLOLa

[Scylla]

Clearly gulity of abusing a steward and assaulting a constable? I'm shocked at the support you've received on here. It's a disgrace and an embarrassment.

ScyLOLLOLa

Recognition at last

[LWJ]

Clearly gulity of abusing a steward and assaulting a constable? I'm shocked at the support you've received on here. It's a disgrace and an embarrassment.

Bless ya

[Scylla]

Clearly gulity of abusing a steward and assaulting a constable? I'm shocked at the support you've received on here. It's a disgrace and an embarrassment.

Bless ya

just saying. Good luck with all that.

[Bandini]

2 - where in the written statement does it say that Evra's robustness as a witness is increased by video evidence?

In para 355-56 (and I think elsewhere) reference is made to the pinching of Evra's skin and the facial expressions of the players being inconsistent with Suarez's account, and therefore by implication being more consistent with Evra's account. In para 357 the Panel goes on to state:

Not only did we reject this evidence of Mr Suarez, but we found it remarkable that he
sought to advance a case that was so clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of
what happened. Even Mr McCormick [Suarez's own lawyer] accepted in his closing submissions that the
pinching could not reasonably be described as an attempt to defuse the situation. To
suggest otherwise, as Mr Suarez did, was unarguable. Mr Suarez's evidence on these
topics, which was shown to be flawed, profoundly undermined our confidence in the
reliability of his evidence.

If there are two witnesses and one gives evidence which is consistent both with his previous statements and with video evidence and the other gives evidence which is "clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of what happened", it's hardly a surprise that the evidence of the former will be preferred to that of the latter.

[TheMaraudingDog]

Have the Scousers boycotted any papers yet for having the audacity to tell the truth?

[Bandini]

Incidentally, this was my favourite bit of the Panel's Reasons:

178. Mr Evra stated that the goalmouth incident started when he addressed Mr Suarez,
beginning with the phrase "Concha de tu hermana". According to the experts, the literal
translation is "your sister's cunt" and it can be taken as a general swear word expressing
anger, although the word "concha" is not as taboo as the English word "cunt". It is thus
equivalent to "fucking hell" or "fuck me". If directed at someone in particular, it can also be
understood as "[you] son of a bitch".

[cmonurz]

2 - where in the written statement does it say that Evra's robustness as a witness is increased by video evidence?

In para 355-56 (and I think elsewhere) reference is made to the pinching of Evra's skin and the facial expressions of the players being inconsistent with Suarez's account, and therefore by implication being more consistent with Evra's account. In para 357 the Panel goes on to state:

Not only did we reject this evidence of Mr Suarez, but we found it remarkable that he
sought to advance a case that was so clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of
what happened. Even Mr McCormick [Suarez's own lawyer] accepted in his closing submissions that the
pinching could not reasonably be described as an attempt to defuse the situation. To
suggest otherwise, as Mr Suarez did, was unarguable. Mr Suarez's evidence on these
topics, which was shown to be flawed, profoundly undermined our confidence in the
reliability of his evidence.

If there are two witnesses and one gives evidence which is consistent both with his previous statements and with video evidence and the other gives evidence which is "clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of what happened", it's hardly a surprise that the evidence of the former will be preferred to that of the latter.

I'm uncomfortable with any player being punished with a charge like this without firm evidence that it took place. Evra's say so, the balance of evidence, the relative credibility of witness statements - simply not enough imho to label a player a racist (effectively, and yes I have read the conclusions that state he is not).

As I posted many pages back, a charge of bringing the game into disrepute, and a three game ban would imho have reflected the facts of the case. Likewise imho that should be Terry's punishment, unless firm evidence exists that he racially abused Ferdinand.

[TheMaraudingDog]

What more evidence do you want? He admitted saying it!

[Bandini]

2 - where in the written statement does it say that Evra's robustness as a witness is increased by video evidence?

In para 355-56 (and I think elsewhere) reference is made to the pinching of Evra's skin and the facial expressions of the players being inconsistent with Suarez's account, and therefore by implication being more consistent with Evra's account. In para 357 the Panel goes on to state:

Not only did we reject this evidence of Mr Suarez, but we found it remarkable that he
sought to advance a case that was so clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of
what happened. Even Mr McCormick [Suarez's own lawyer] accepted in his closing submissions that the
pinching could not reasonably be described as an attempt to defuse the situation. To
suggest otherwise, as Mr Suarez did, was unarguable. Mr Suarez's evidence on these
topics, which was shown to be flawed, profoundly undermined our confidence in the
reliability of his evidence.

If there are two witnesses and one gives evidence which is consistent both with his previous statements and with video evidence and the other gives evidence which is "clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of what happened", it's hardly a surprise that the evidence of the former will be preferred to that of the latter.

I'm uncomfortable with any player being punished with a charge like this without firm evidence that it took place. Evra's say so, the balance of evidence, the relative credibility of witness statements - simply not enough imho to label a player a racist (effectively, and yes I have read the conclusions that state he is not).

There is firm evidence. Read the Reasons in full and see if you disagree with the conclusions.

People are convicted of crimes (with a higher burden of proof than was necessary in this case) where everything depends on the credibility of two competing witnesses. The English legal system is rather experienced in deciding matters of this nature. Do you think that the Panel's reasoning on the credibility of Evra and Suarez was wrong?

Do you disagree with the expert evidence, and the Panel's interpretation of the expert evidence, about the meaning of the words in the context in which they were used?

Finally, they haven't labeled Suarez a racist. As you have noted this I'm not sure why you have implied that they have.

[cmonurz]

A conversation took place between two players, the contents of which no-one else heard. Suarez has admitted to using the word 'negro', but says it was concilliatory. Imho the burden of proof needs to be higher than an 'expert' deciding what Suarez meant when he used it.

As I've said, he shouldn't have used the word, and 'bringing the game into disrepute' would do here, imho. Has he been labelled a racist? When he returns to the team in Feb/Mar, and Liverpool play away from home, you tell me.

[Bandini]

A conversation took place between two players, the contents of which no-one else heard. Suarez has admitted to using the word 'negro', but says it was concilliatory.

Imho the burden of proof needs to be higher than an 'expert' deciding what Suarez meant when he used it.

As I've said, he shouldn't have used the word, and 'bringing the game into disrepute' would do here, imho. Has he been labelled a racist? When he returns to the team in Feb/Mar, and Liverpool play away from home, you tell me.

An expert didn't decide that. The test is an objective one rather than a subjective one, so that consideration didn't have a bearing on whether or not he was guilty of the charge made by the FA. Again, your understanding of the situation would likely benefit from actually reading the Reasons.

This is the rule that Suarez was charged as having broken:

"Rule E3, with the sub-heading "General Behaviour", provides as follows:
"(1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not
act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use
any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening,
abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
(2) In the event of any breach of Rule E3(1) including a reference to any one or
more of a person's ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual
orientation or disability (an "aggravating factor"), a Regulatory Commission
shall consider the imposition of an increased sanction..."

What objection do you have to the FA charging him under this Rule? Which Rule do you think they should have charged him under instead?

Neither the FA nor the panel have labelled him a racist. If other people do so, that's no more there fault than it is the court's fault that, for example, fans might shout "murderer" at Lee Hughes.

[cmonurz]

We're going round in circles. In my post above I make it clear that I think Suarez should be punished. Whatever rule they want to charge him under, 8 games because Evra says so is, I think, excessive. My issue is not with the panel finding him guilty, he admitted to using the term after all, but the conclusions in the report clearly imply that the long ban was a result of the number of times Suarez supposedly abused Evra.

I do not believe if the panel was considering only the sentence Suarez claimed he said, he would be looking at an 8 game ban, even given the charge would be under the same section of the rulebook.