Luis Suarez - scumbag

[Victor Meldrew]

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).

Just out of interest was there any mention of Evra being booked,which he was for kicking Suarez?
Also if the argument went on for some time why did the ref not take action there and then as he surely must have heard what was said although it appears that Evra was the only person to hear?

[Bandini]

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.

You declined my polite invitation to explain which parts of the panel's reasoning on the various parts of the evidence you disagreed with and why, and why they shouldn't have found that Evra's evidence as to what was said was credible, whereas Suarez's evidence was not credible.

As far as I understand your posts it is your position that wherever two witness accounts as to what was said conflict a panel considering a serious offence such as this (and presumably a court in even more serious criminal cases) should dismiss the charge without considering whether or not it is possible to determine what was said based on all the available evidence.

That's a rather bizarre approach to take.

[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).

Just out of interest was there any mention of Evra being booked,which he was for kicking Suarez?
Also if the argument went on for some time why did the ref not take action there and then as he surely must have heard what was said although it appears that Evra was the only person to hear?

Why don't you read it?

The referee gave evidence.

[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.

You declined my polite invitation to explain which parts of the panel's reasoning on the various parts of the evidence you disagreed with and why, and why they shouldn't have found that Evra's evidence as to what was said was credible, whereas Suarez's evidence was not credible.

As far as I understand your posts it is your position that wherever two witness accounts as to what was said conflict a panel considering a serious offence such as this (and presumably a court in even more serious criminal cases) should dismiss the charge without considering whether or not it is possible to determine what was said based on all the available evidence.

That's a rather bizarre approach to take.

That's absolutely not what I said at all. As we're now taking a patronising tone, I will politely decline to argue this further.

[Bandini]

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.

You declined my polite invitation to explain which parts of the panel's reasoning on the various parts of the evidence you disagreed with and why, and why they shouldn't have found that Evra's evidence as to what was said was credible, whereas Suarez's evidence was not credible.

As far as I understand your posts it is your position that wherever two witness accounts as to what was said conflict a panel considering a serious offence such as this (and presumably a court in even more serious criminal cases) should dismiss the charge without considering whether or not it is possible to determine what was said based on all the available evidence.

That's a rather bizarre approach to take.

That's absolutely not what I said at all. As we're now taking a patronising tone, I will politely decline to argue this further.

If that isn't your position, what are the factors in this case which, contrary to the panel's findings and the various matters relied on by the panel as corroborating Evra's evidence, mean that we shouldn't regard Evra's evidence as credible?

[TBM]

cmonurz you're embarrassing yourself tbh, next you'll be wearing a Suarez t-shirt

[cmonurz]

cmonurz you're embarrassing yourself tbh, next you'll be wearing a Suarez t-shirt

Stating my opinion is embarassing myself? Grow up TBM.

[TheMaraudingDog]

It is when the opinion is as deluded as yours.

[TBM]

cmonurz you're embarrassing yourself tbh, next you'll be wearing a Suarez t-shirt

Stating my opinion is embarassing myself? Grow up TBM.

If this was Evra being banned you wouldn't be defending him like you are Suarez

As said before, Mackie got 8 games - why not Suarez?!

[cmonurz]

cmonurz you're embarrassing yourself tbh, next you'll be wearing a Suarez t-shirt

Stating my opinion is embarassing myself? Grow up TBM.

If this was Evra being banned you wouldn't be defending him like you are Suarez

As said before, Mackie got 8 games - why not Suarez?!

Sure? I've already stated that I think the level of proof should be higher in both this case and John Terry's. If it emerges there is no firm evidence of the context of Terry's comments, you won't get me supporting an 8-game ban for him.

I don't remember the detail of the Mackie case, tbh.

[TBM]

Suarez was racist - he admitted it - he gets banned........same as Terry will after the police have found him guilty

[Victor Meldrew]

cmonurz is far from embarrassing himself on this thread.
I suppose the outcome of this case ,which of course has received far more publicity than the gang warfare on the streets of London leading to a young lad being murdered over a pair of trainers because football is SO important,is that players will be miced up like the referees are.
We would then all be able to hear what every player is saying (automatic 3-match ban if he turns the mic off)and can sit in judgement on the utterances made.
Proof would then be clear on any racist comments or indeed on any bad language that the Rooneys of this world use constantly during games but we might need multi-lingual dictionaries just in case we felt like being abused by use of language other than English.
Perhaps also the players should be banned for using any language other than English because,after all,they are earning their living in the English Premier League.

I do wish that I was as perfect as some of you on here who presumably lead a more saintly existence (even than that pinnacle of correction his holiness Saint Patrice Evra) judging by your comments on this topic.
One final matter that I still can't get my head round is why it is so offensive for one man of black breeding (Suarez)to call another man of black breeding (Evra) a black person especially when nobody else heard it particularly when rap songs written and performed by black people regularly go on about niggers.
I could understand the uproar if a white guy had called Evra the same in front of a number of others,then he might well feel offended and undermined but for a one-on-one in the heat of battle I'm sure these words and many similar have been uttered without undue malice many times before .

[swansea jack]

cmonurz is far from embarrassing himself on this thread.
I suppose the outcome of this case ,which of course has received far more publicity than the gang warfare on the streets of London leading to a young lad being murdered over a pair of trainers because football is SO important,is that players will be miced up like the referees are.
We would then all be able to hear what every player is saying (automatic 3-match ban if he turns the mic off)and can sit in judgement on the utterances made.
Proof would then be clear on any racist comments or indeed on any bad language that the Rooneys of this world use constantly during games but we might need multi-lingual dictionaries just in case we felt like being abused by use of language other than English.
Perhaps also the players should be banned for using any language other than English because,after all,they are earning their living in the English Premier League.

I do wish that I was as perfect as some of you on here who presumably lead a more saintly existence (even than that pinnacle of correction his holiness Saint Patrice Evra) judging by your comments on this topic.
One final matter that I still can't get my head round is why it is so offensive for one man of black breeding (Suarez)to call another man of black breeding (Evra) a black person especially when nobody else heard it particularly when rap songs written and performed by black people regularly go on about niggers.
I could understand the uproar if a white guy had called Evra the same in front of a number of others,then he might well feel offended and undermined but for a one-on-one in the heat of battle I'm sure these words and many similar have been uttered without undue malice many times before .

It's all about the tone and intent irrespective of colour, no?

[Bandini]

The FA don't have jurisdiction over rap songs.

Why is it so hard to understand that Suarez racially insulted Evra and so deserves the ban he has received?

[TBM]

cmonurz is far from embarrassing himself on this thread.
I suppose the outcome of this case ,which of course has received far more publicity than the gang warfare on the streets of London leading to a young lad being murdered over a pair of trainers because football is SO important,is that players will be miced up like the referees are.
We would then all be able to hear what every player is saying (automatic 3-match ban if he turns the mic off)and can sit in judgement on the utterances made.
Proof would then be clear on any racist comments or indeed on any bad language that the Rooneys of this world use constantly during games but we might need multi-lingual dictionaries just in case we felt like being abused by use of language other than English.
Perhaps also the players should be banned for using any language other than English because,after all,they are earning their living in the English Premier League.

I do wish that I was as perfect as some of you on here who presumably lead a more saintly existence (even than that pinnacle of correction his holiness Saint Patrice Evra) judging by your comments on this topic.
One final matter that I still can't get my head round is why it is so offensive for one man of black breeding (Suarez)to call another man of black breeding (Evra) a black person especially when nobody else heard it particularly when rap songs written and performed by black people regularly go on about niggers.
I could understand the uproar if a white guy had called Evra the same in front of a number of others,then he might well feel offended and undermined but for a one-on-one in the heat of battle I'm sure these words and many similar have been uttered without undue malice many times before .

lol another typical deluded Liverpool fan

[Scylla]

cmonurz you're embarrassing yourself tbh, next you'll be wearing a Suarez t-shirt

Stating my opinion is embarassing myself? Grow up TBM.

Now you are being silly

We're Utd, we do what we want (saving were it might cause offence)

[Scylla]

cmonurz you're embarrassing yourself tbh, next you'll be wearing a Suarez t-shirt

Stating my opinion is embarassing myself? Grow up TBM.

Now you are being silly

We're Utd, we do what we want (saving were it might cause offence)

Edit: I seem to have embarrassing mixed up two different Scouseophobes.

[Extended-Phenotype]

I’m more shocked at the people defending Suarez than the little racist prick himself.

1. Suarez is NOT black. He is from Uruguay, a country which is 88% white Hispanic. He is no closer to being “of black breeding” (what is this, f/cking Crufts?) than a white Brit.

2. He did not call Evra a “black person”, he knowingly used a violent, hateful and illicit term of abuse which is steeped in historical misery.

3. The fact that black people reclaimed the term “N***ers” to use it as a term of solidarity and unity in the scowling face of hostile Caucasia, has little to do with the issue and a certain poster should educate himself a little before spewing forth Sunspeak akin to “dey call each uvver dat, so why cant we?”


Facts are, Suarez’s version of events sound like utter bullsh/t, while Evra’s is consistent.

And I’m still waiting for the bright spark to enlighten me as to how someone can use racist language with intent to offend and NOT be a racist. If the colour of someone’s skin jumps out at you as a trait with which to deride somebody, then you are quite obviously racist.

[Wax Jacket]

cmonurz is far from embarrassing himself on this thread.
I suppose the outcome of this case ,which of course has received far more publicity than the gang warfare on the streets of London leading to a young lad being murdered over a pair of trainers because football is SO important,is that players will be miced up like the referees are.
We would then all be able to hear what every player is saying (automatic 3-match ban if he turns the mic off)and can sit in judgement on the utterances made.
Proof would then be clear on any racist comments or indeed on any bad language that the Rooneys of this world use constantly during games but we might need multi-lingual dictionaries just in case we felt like being abused by use of language other than English.
Perhaps also the players should be banned for using any language other than English because,after all,they are earning their living in the English Premier League.

I do wish that I was as perfect as some of you on here who presumably lead a more saintly existence (even than that pinnacle of correction his holiness Saint Patrice Evra) judging by your comments on this topic.
One final matter that I still can't get my head round is why it is so offensive for one man of black breeding (Suarez)to call another man of black breeding (Evra) a black person especially when nobody else heard it particularly when rap songs written and performed by black people regularly go on about niggers.
I could understand the uproar if a white guy had called Evra the same in front of a number of others,then he might well feel offended and undermined but for a one-on-one in the heat of battle I'm sure these words and many similar have been uttered without undue malice many times before .

lol another typical deluded Liverpool fan

[FiNeRaIn]

Na not having that Extended-Phenotype, you can make a racist comment without being racist i'm afraid. John Mackie did it, Terry supposedly did it and suarez did it, all have had team-mates from varous backgrounds supporting them on their behalf in saying they are not racist. In the heat of the moment things can be said which you don't really mean. People also say things for reactions. Its massively naive and ignorant to label someone as racist just because they say a particuarly taboo word. If there is consistent pattern in negative treatment or abuse towards a particuarly race of people then fair enough.