Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[little dave hedgehog]

At what point do you stop calling a black person a black person and mixed race. There are plenty of mixed race people, who look majority black.

you never do. one ounce of taint ruins the whole pot.

[The_weatherman]

The cultural norm is that you don't refer to a person's race when you are arguing with them, so it shouldn't really be an issue.

But if he was just ****ing with him, "because your black?", I have to say that looking at the whole context I find it a bit funny and not remotely racist, he's just making a joke at Evra's expense really.

[Nicey]

As the word negro is simply Spanish for the word black I fail to see what is remotely racist about that? Do black people object to being referred to as black?

There is a severe cultural misunderstanding here, you cannot blame people in the UK for not getting this, unless they have lived in S America or have a lot of S American friends. As this case has moved along I have just become more and more convinced of Suarez innocence and really there needs to be some major clearing of his name.

I find it hard to beleive that Evra did not know this was not racist, but I will leave the door open that perhaps he did not.

That it would seem would be the easiest way out for the FA, cultural misunderstanding.

[Red_Polo]

And I'm saying it may not have racist connotations because it's not as culturally stigmatised. The use of a 'non racist' word to describe race when used in the context of insulting someone is still racist (I assume here that his comments were in some way derogatory overall). e.g you Afro-Caribbean idiot. The translation is pretty much irrelevant if whatever you settle on only applies to one race.

I'd also say that if he has admitted using the word negro, the onus is on Suarez to justify it's use, rather than Evra's representatives having to he knew.

This pretty much sums it up:
http://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/show...&postcount=196

As I've said before though, that's in our linguistic context. Suarez was speaking a different language so you cannot apply the same rules when establishing meaning. It is commonplace in much of the Spanish speaking world to attach a descriptor of people's appearances whether you are insulting them or not; so even if he was being insulting it doesn't mean it was insulting regarding race.

A lot of these descriptors have some correlation to race but are not bound by race, for instance you wouldn't call a brunette white person 'blondie' though you might call a naturally dark skinned (but white) raven haired girl 'mi negra' (the feminine of negro). I have a couple of Spanish speaking friends I call mi negra from time to time. Neither are black.

As the word negro is simply Spanish for the word black I fail to see what is remotely racist about that? Do black people object to being referred to as black?

This is what Kenneth and I are referring to above; in our linguistic context we cannot attach such labels onto a description of someone's behaviour without implying there is a relationship between the two things; hence 'you black cunt' being obviously more offensive than 'you cunt', and more subtly but crucially 'that guy is a black cunt' being more offensive than 'that black guy is a cunt'.

[BootRoom]

He looked a bit off today, and I hope it's just a natural dip rather than this bollocks weighing down on him.

[Jack D Rips]

Kenny said after the match that he had only trained Tuesday and Saturday this week. Then he spent three days in a hotel.

[Exiled_red]

Kenny said after the match that he had only trained Tuesday and Saturday this week. Then he spent three days in a hotel.

That probably had a large part of it today, but I think his form has suffered a little all the time that this has been hanging over him.

[RedReet]

TBF, if them two shots had of went in, people would have been saying it was one of his best performances for us. Fine margins...

[Exiled_red]

TBF, if them two shots had of went in, people would have been saying it was one of his best performances for us. Fine margins...

Those were a couple of his only major contributions, he certainly didn't look as sharp as he did earlier in the season. But as you say, had he scored those two we wouldn't be talking about this affecting him.

[Mattshark]

TBF, if them two shots had of went in, people would have been saying it was one of his best performances for us. Fine margins...

He is also vital to us being an attacking threat.

[RedReet]

Imagine if we ever get a fit Gerrard on the same pitch as him.

[Fredo]

Yeah, a fully fit and at his best Gerrard and Suarez on the pitch is bound to improve us (and our goalscoring). Though it has to be said that Stevie's been out for a long time and it's gonna be very hard for him to come back at the level he was 2/3 years ago.

[RedReet]

Aye, I was optimistic during the summer about Gerrard, but it's getting harder to remain positive.

[Bender]

before today's game on talksport alan brazil said good news that gerrard is on his way back...... that's all he said

[Le Chef]

A good article in todays independant

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/sam-wallace-three-wise-men-know-theyre-damned-either-way-in-case-of-suarez-6279057.html

Sam Wallace: Three wise men know they're damned either way in case of Suarez
Talking Football: The backdrop is the most bitter rivalry in English football, two cities with an acute mutual dislike

The three men of the Independent Regulatory Commission sitting in judgement on Luis Suarez's racial abuse charges will rise this morning, eat breakfast, flick through the newspapers and then go back to the worst bloody job in football at the moment.

Whichever way their judgement goes, Paul Goulding QC, Denis Smith (former manager of Sunderland, Wrexham among others) and Brian Jones (Sheffield and Hallamshire Football Association chairman) will be held up by an element of one set of supporters as incompetent, biased, useless – maybe even worse. You might say they are on a hiding to nothing.

The FA's charges against Suarez, which allege racism, touch a nerve right through British society, never mind English football.

What Goulding, Smith and Jones – alas, poor Goulding, Smith and Jones – have to decide is whether Suarez's language (and the word negrito seems to be the key, although it has never been officially confirmed) towards Patrice Evra in Liverpool's home game against United on 15 October constituted racial abuse.

The backdrop to this is the most embittered rivalry in English football. This is United v Liverpool in 2011, a fixture that draws bigger worldwide television audiences than Barcelona v Real Madrid. It is two northern cities with an acute dislike of one another. It is the two most successful clubs in the history of English football locked in a perpetual argument about their respective claims to greatness. It is, on many levels, pure hatred.

Throw into that mix a complicated race row with all sorts of nuances to do with language and cultural norms and you have a disciplinary case best described as a hospital pass. And that is before the conspiracy theories begin circulating.

The latest one, doing the rounds on Twitter, is a real corker. Some Liverpool fans claim that the three-man commission is biased against Suarez because of the presence of Smith, who was manager of Sir Alex Ferguson's son Darren when he was a player at Wrexham. They also point to glowing remarks made by Smith about Ferguson in the former's autobiography.

What those who make these accusations have overlooked is that both clubs have the power of veto over any member of an independent regulatory commission. At any point in the fraught legal arguments leading up to this case, Kenny Dalglish or Ian Ayre could have objected to Smith's presence on the panel. It is not every walk of life in which you get to choose your own judge but, hey, this is football.

So while the knives are sharpened for Smith in the event of a guilty verdict for Suarez, it should be known that no-one at Liverpool Football Club objected to him being on the commission. If they had, he would not be there. In fact, it is rare indeed for a club to object to the appointments on an independent commission. Those I spoke to could not recall the last time it had happened.

Why? Because clubs are realistic about the small-world nature of English football.

Finding a connection between someone who has worked at a fairly significant level in the game and does not know either Ferguson or Dalglish or both is hard. These are two of the best-connected, significant figures in the game.

Finding an experienced person in football who did not have some connection with one of the two clubs would be even more difficult.

The independent regulatory commissions that sit in these cases draw upon three groups of individuals who are nominated by the FA at the start of the season and endorsed by the clubs. There is a group of around 12 from which commission chairmen are selected, usually those with a background in the law, of which Goulding is one.

There is a group of around 20 "football experts", including the likes of Graham Taylor, Gary Mabbutt, Colin Murdock (the former Northern Ireland international) and Paul Raven (formerly of West Bromwich Albion among others), from which Smith is drawn. Taylor, for example, would not be able to sit in judgement on Watford, where he is still a director. You would wager Taylor knows both Dalglish and Ferguson but you would also be confident he could put aside any friendship if asked to sit in judgement.

Then there are 20 FA councillors who have a specific background in disciplinary cases, the group from which Jones was selected. All three would have been carefully picked, not just on the basis of impartiality but also on the training and experience they have had in a particular kind of case.

The other accusation against the FA is that the Suarez case has taken too long.

Unfortunately there is nothing in the regulations or precedent that deals directly with the complexities of Uruguayan racial politics. This is a race case. It is complicated. It cannot be "fast-tracked". It is not the same as watching the footage of Alex Song stamping on Joey Barton and giving him a three-match ban. If the FA needs to take its time then it should.

The FA has charged Suarez with "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour" towards Evra "which included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race" of the United player. Naturally, Liverpool and Suarez reject those allegations and the FA, now acting as the prosecution, are regarded by the club as the enemy.

But to pre-judge the three men who have been selected to make this decision as true independents, endorsed and approved by both clubs, really does take this complicated, sensitive, dispiriting episode to a new low. Whatever side you find yourself on, at least acknowledge that these three, who reconvene today, have taken on a nightmare of a case. Because someone had to.