Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[Exiled_red]

I think the club will be banging their heads against brick wall though

The FA wont budge on this they believe everything Evra has said (despite inconsistencies) and have rejected everything Suarez gave as evidence

Its beyond a joke

I take it that the FA don't operate with a 'beyond reasonable doubt' principle, because if they did there's far too much doubt to find him guilty on that evidence IMO

[McDermotX]

Unreliable and inconsistent evidence from Luis Suarez...........that's Sky's tag line, so expect that to go down in the history books as the reason.

[spanky]

whats the final level that the club can take this if the FA dont budge on the appeal?

[peekay]

Did Ferguson write some of the statements.

[Exiled_red]

Unreliable and inconsistent evidence from Luis Suarez...........that's Sky's tag line, so expect that to go down in the history books as the reason.

No doubt the headlines tomorrow will be similar.

[BigChief]

this is ridiculous. mind you, if he had actually said those things, we would need to sack him, mutu style. fortunately i don't suppose that's too likely.

Playing devil's advocate, the FA would look foolish, incompetent (yes I know) and in serious legal trouble if they went ahead with publishing Evra's exact 'statement'. So they must have some belief it was true, in which case Suarez is in a whole heap of trouble and so is the club for covering up a racist.

I really hope it is the FA being silly buggers and I'm misreading but no man is bigger than our club. Even Suarez.

[JHP]

So The FA conclude Suarez racially abuses Evra and that he's an unreliable witness. That will be translated into racist liar.

[Shaggy]

229. Mr Evra has played for Manchester United and France for a number of years. He has captained both. He speaks a number of languages including Senegalese, French, Spanish, 59 Italian and some Portuguese. He gave his evidence to us in English. Although an interpreter was present to assist him in giving evidence if he required it, in the event he did not.

230. The FA applied for Mrs Wiley, the Assistant Club Secretary of Manchester United to be permitted to attend the hearing while Mr Evra gave evidence for the purpose of reducing his anxiety, which we allowed.

231. We found Mr Evra to be an impressive witness. He gave his evidence to us in a calm, composed and clear manner. Due to the circumstances in which the tape of the FA interview of Mr Evra on 20 October came to light, which we have described in paragraphs 18-19 above, we were able to listen to him giving his account of events on that previous occasion also. So far as we could tell from listening to the tape, he gave his evidence in a
similar way to that in which he gave it at the hearing before us.

232. Mr Evra also demonstrated a measure of balance in his evidence. For example, he was prepared to make a number of concessions before us. Prior to 15 October 2011, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez had played against each other when Mr Evra was playing for Manchester United and in a France v Uruguay match. They had no relationship outside football, and Mr Evra had experienced no problems with Mr Suarez on the pitch before this match. In
his written evidence, Mr Evra said:

"There is no need for any player to be racially abusive towards another player, it's completely out of order. I was so surprised because Suarez has played with many black players and I don't think he's racist but I don't know why he said that."

233. In his oral evidence, after giving his account of what Mr Suarez said when they were in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said: "For me it was like I think a bad dream, because I respect so much that player because he's a really good player"

234. In giving his account of their exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra described how he started the conversation with the offensive phrase, "Concha de tu hermana". He said this in his first interview with the FA on 20 October, and included it in his witness statement placed before us, even though it reflected badly on him. Mr Suarez did not hear Mr Evra 60
use these words, and would not have known that he had used them unless Mr Evra had said so.

Mr Suarez
235. Mr Suarez speaks little English. There were occasions during the hearing when he clearly understood a question in English because he gave a response in a few words of English or by a nod of the head. But these were few and far between.

236. Mr Suarez was present for the whole of the hearing. It was inevitably a stressful time for Mr Suarez facing, as he was, a serious charge in unfamiliar surroundings. He sat with his own interpreter, who translated the proceedings for him throughout. When he gave evidence, he did so through an independent interpreter. He gave evidence in a respectful manner. We are conscious of the difficulties for Mr Suarez in giving evidence in the
circumstances which we have described.

237. However, Mr Suarez was not as impressive a witness as Mr Evra. His answers were not always clear or directly addressed to the question. We give one example in paragraph 246 below. Whether this was due to language difficulties or evasiveness was not entirely clear and so, whenever we could, we gave Mr Suarez the benefit of the doubt. We were certainly more concerned by the substance of his evidence (as explained below) than by
the manner in which he gave it.

[Lecter]

I take it that the FA don't operate with a 'beyond reasonable doubt' principle, because if they did there's far too much doubt to find him guilty on that evidence IMO

They operate on the "balance of probabilities"

[JHP]

Playing devil's advocate, the FA would look foolish, incompetent (yes I know) and in serious legal trouble if they went ahead with publishing Evra's exact 'statement'. So they must have some belief it was true, in which case Suarez is in a whole heap of trouble and so is the club for covering up a racist.

I really hope it is the FA being silly buggers and I'm misreading but no man is bigger than our club. Even Suarez.

Given that the FA and Evra have said they don't think he's racist how do you conclude that?

[Exiled_red]

I can't believe that they didn't take into account Evra's previous.

[JHP]

They operate on the "balance of probabilities"

But they recognise that more severe issues require a greater burden of evidence. They discuss that in their document but I can't see where they have drawn the line between balance of probability and beyond reasonable doubt.

[Shaggy]

"In all the circumstances, we preferred the evidence of Mr Evra. His account was clear and consistent in all material respects. There is no basis for saying that he lied or was mistaken in what he heard. We found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened. The conversation was all in Spanish. The words which follow (below) were either Mr Evra's exact words or close approximations to them.

"probably"?

"preferred the evidence of Mr Evra"?

[ChesterDave]

215. It was accepted by both Mr Greaney and Mr McCormick in closing submissions that this is
not simply a case of one person's word against another. Mr McCormick nevertheless
submitted that the case turns very substantially on the evidence of the two main
protagonists, that we should think very carefully before reaching a conclusion based
solely on the word of the main protagonist for the FA, and that we should look at the
other evidence, and see whether there is other evidence that corroborates Mr Evra's story.
We agree that at the heart of this case is a dispute between Mr Evra and Mr Suarez as to
what was said. Before reaching our decision, we assessed the credibility of those two
individuals and examined all the other evidence with great care to see whether it
supported or undermined Mr Evra's or Mr Suarez's account. We asked ourselves which
account was more probable. We kept in mind the seriousness of the Charge, and the
burden and standard of proof.

ITs more probably that everybody on the panel is a ****ing nonce than badgers are really rabbits in suits. Doesnt make it ****ing true.

[Shaggy]

159. Mr Evra added, in his supplemental statement, that when he answered the question, he mentioned that a word had been said to him ten times. He told us that he did not mean this in the literal sense, it was just a way of talking. In French, he said, it is common to say something like "more than 10 times" but for you not to mean that it was actually over 10 times. It was just a figure of speech.