Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[G]

Evra thought Negro meant n****r.
Given that he got this fundamental part of the Spanish language so wrong why is the rest of his recollection of a conversation that was carried out in Spanish excepted as fact with such ease?

In part 7,the charges, they fully accept Evra's version of events without question,despite the fact that he has previously been labelled an "unreliable" witness who gave an "exaggerated" account of what happened in the Chelsea case.

The whole thing stinks but the fact that Comolli's and Dalglish's evidence as to what Suarez said differs from what Suarez said himself is not helpful.Ironically the difference seems to arise out of another french man's(Comolli) understanding of what Suarez was telling him in Spanish

[Craig_H]

The panel believed that in the context of the discussion that the two players were having that they didn't believe it was a friendly comment so therefore it was mean in a deregetory manner.

My view is that Suarez was being sarcy not racist. However it is arguable that evra heard it as an insult.

Not sure that the punishment fits with all that tbh.

I agree with the panel in as much as I doubt Suarez was being friendly during the argument, i do think he was being sarcy which still means that negro wasn't meant in a bad way. A bit like two people arguing and one saying mate etc.

The punishment is the only area in which i feel we might have a chance of some kind of re-think.

It's the most severe punishment handed out for a non-violent/non-drug related action and by claiming ignorance due to severe cultural differences, i think we'd have a case in saying that the punishment, given the panel's confirmation that they do not consider Suarez to be racist, is too harsh.

[Exiled_red]

The punishment is the only area in which i feel we might have a chance of some kind of re-think.

It's the most severe punishment handed out for a non-violent/non-drug related action and by claiming ignorance due to severe cultural differences, i think we'd have a case in saying that the punishment, given the panel's confirmation that they do not consider Suarez to be racist, is too harsh.

Also given that the decision is given on "the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt". ...Although if the FA were to admit that then it would seriously undermine their case.

[CJ]

The punishment is the only area in which i feel we might have a chance of some kind of re-think.

It's the most severe punishment handed out for a non-violent/non-drug related action and by claiming ignorance due to severe cultural differences, i think we'd have a case in saying that the punishment, given the panel's confirmation that they do not consider Suarez to be racist, is too harsh.

though I do wonder if they haven't considered the sarcy defence.

Some form of suspended sentence perhaps

[JHP]

Below is a blog, from a lawyer, that deals with conflicting evidence in such cases. Seems to me from this the case has followed the proper course. However the bit I've highlighted would seem to be key i.e. was Suarez given the opportunity to deal with the assertion that his evidence was unreliable.

I'm also still struggling with the concept that a non racists can racially abuse someone. If someone racially abuses another does that not make them a racist? By the same logic if someone isn't a racist how can they racially abuse?


It’s just his word against mine, right?
Quite often in civil litigation there is a direct conflict of evidence. Two different people say different things about the same event. When that happens I am often asked how a judge is going to “decide who is telling the truth”, or, as we lawyers like to put it, how the judge will resolve that conflict of evidence.
In civil proceedings the task of the judge is to decide the facts of the case on the balance of probabilities. That is, he must decide which is more likely to be the true position.
Of course the judge was not there. He does not know the absolute truth. He has to decide the facts of the case on the basis of the evidence before him. So how does the judge do this when the witness statements indicate that on some key facts it is one person’s word against another’s?
This is why I always tell clients that we need to look for corroboration. Is there some other piece of evidence that will support what the client is saying on this question? This could be some other witness, although courts will be reluctant simply to play a numbers game of I have 3 witnesses against your 2 . The best corroboration comes in the form of a credible document: a letter or an e-mail or an order form, or indeed any other document, which supports what my client says. We can then tell the court that it must be more likely that our client is to be believed on the particular question, because the other evidence supports him on the point.
I have decided to make this the subject of this blog post because earlier this week the Court of Appeal handed down a decision in which it discussed this point. It may therefore be helpful to see what Lady Justice Arden said in the Court of Appeal.
First of all, in deciding whose evidence to accept, Lady Justice Arden said the trial judge will consider how a witness behaves in giving evidence, including factors such as body language and tone of voice.
Beyond that, the judge will want to see what other evidence is available to support the witness. This would usually be documentary, but could be other oral evidence. This may be particularly important where the witness is from a culture with which the judge is unfamiliar.
Lady Justice Arden went on to say “Contemporaneous written documentation is of the very greatest importance in assessing credibility. Moreover, it can be significant not only where it is present and the oral evidence can then be checked against it. It can also be significant if written documentation is absent.” What this last point means is that, if the judge is satisfied that if what one party says is right there should have been a document to prove it, but that no such document has been produced by that party, the judge may be able to reach conclusions from its absence.
Where witness A says that witness B is lying, A’s barrister should directly challenge B so that he can respond to the accusation. This did not happen in the particular case, leading Lady Justice Arden to so say that while a judge should not find that evidence was given in bad faith or was false if the witness was not given the opportunity to deal with those points, the judge can still decide how much weight to give the evidence and may prefer other conflicting evidence, particularly if there is corroboration of that other evidence.
So, the answer to the the point “It’s just his word against mine, isn’t it?” is: No, not if there are documents or other evidence on the point.

[RoadEnd]

Considering the impact that this judgement has on Suarez's reputation and career, to base it all on "balance of probability" is a joke.

Having said that, for those that have read the whole report, you have to admit that the inconsistencies shown by Suarez, Kuyt and Comolli are concerning. There are a few things in the report that I think are ridiculous and a bit harsh from the panel, but I wouldn't want to be so blinkered as to believe that Suarez wasn't racially offensive to Evra (which is what the punishment has been based on).

[CJ]

Considering the impact that this judgement has on Suarez's reputation and career, to base it all on "balance of probability" is a joke.

Having said that, for those that have read the whole report, you have to admit that the inconsistencies shown by Suarez, Kuyt and Comolli are concerning. There are a few things in the report that I think are ridiculous and a bit harsh from the panel, but I wouldn't want to be so blinkered as to believe that Suarez wasn't racially offensive to Evra (which is what the punishment has been based on).

You could get sacked on the balance of probibility. Its a common basis for findings at work.

Also isn't civil law based on the same basis

[Big-Red-Ed]

What do you mean by 'clear his name' though?

Suarez admitted using 'negro' so there's no dispute there. The report, the FA and Evra himself have said Suarez isnt a racist - so what is he clearing?

He doesnt need to clear his name against being a racist, because all parties have said he isnt one. He cant clear his name against saying 'negro' because he admitted saying it.

What's he clearing exactly?

Yes, Suarez admitted using the word negro in conversation. The use of one word in context does not make Suarez look like a racist and the FA and Evra have been careful in accepting that Suarez is not a racist per se.

However, Evra's account of what was said differs greatly from Suarez's and it is this part of the testimony that makes Suarez look very bad. Although the FA as I have said accept that Suarez is not a racist I'm afraid the public will and are perceiving him to be one.

If Evra's account of the conversation was true, I would find it very difficult to support Suarez because I cannot tolerate racism in any shape or form.

[Nicey]

Yes, Suarez admitted using the word negro in conversation. The use of one word in context does not make Suarez look like a racist and the FA and Evra have been careful in accepting that Suarez is not a racist per se.

However, Evra's account of what was said differs greatly from Suarez's and it is this part of the testimony that makes Suarez look very bad. Although the FA as I have said accept that Suarez is not a racist I'm afraid the public will and are perceiving him to be one.

If Evra's account of the conversation was true, I would find it very difficult to support Suarez because I cannot tolerate racism in any shape or form.

Agreed but I do not tust Evra as far as I can throw him, he's a liar, a cheat and a little **** of a man, Suarez on the other and seems solid if not somewhat nutty which I like

[Exiled_red]

You could get sacked on the balance of probibility. Its a common basis for findings at work.

Also isn't civil law based on the same basis

Yes I think it is.

[TheElephantMan]

Evra's account is laughable, it sounds like the kind of rubbish a five year old would make up. There is no way that Suarez could repeat a word 5, 7 or 10 times without it being picked up by the TV cameras, another player, the referee or one of the 45,000 supporters. Only one person in the ground heard or saw Suarez repeat a word 5, 7 or 10 times. Ridiculous.

[Exiled_red]

Evra's account is laughable, it sounds like the kind of rubbish a five year old would make up. There is no way that Suarez could repeat a word 5, 7 or 10 times without it being picked up by the TV cameras, another player, the referee or one of the 45,000 supporters. Only one person in the ground heard or saw Suarez repeat a word 5, 7 or 10 times. Ridiculous.

Now they've saying it wasn't 10 times it was 7 times. ...Although perhaps they don't literally mean 7 times

[Danish_Pastry]

Suares said black - he did not say "n.....". Black is a colour of skin - which is the only allowed reference to the colour of people of negroid origin. He was spoken to in spanish - so he replied in spanish. So it is NOT racistic, what he said - only as a referece to another persons colour. This though in itself is against the laws of the FA - and sadly you cannot claim, that not knowing the rules make you free of charge. What could be argued is that you are sworn against - and thats why you use stronger words (but still not racistic, only colour-referencial).

What also should count as support for the multilingual defense for Suarez, is that those comments given were always in defense, not knowing the full account and situation of the charge. Did Kuyt know of the whole incident? Did De Gea even give his version speaking spanish just in front of the two? How come the comments about being booked for being coloured hasn't appeared in the report - they give Evra a certain amount of incredibility in general and shows his bias that day.
Suarez claims, that he did not hear the words about his origin (!!!!) as South American - so he surely doesn't have a full rememberence of the other things mentioned (as he did not remember the conversation as so important from all the other situations on the pitch).

Sadly - a humble appeal may have the effect, that the gravity of the accusation is lowered - but else I am sure LS and LFC will have to stick together to stay through the ban (jan. is a compact month, so it will give LS a month off to SouthAmerica as the vacation he did not have in the summer).

Off the record LFC should make sure that the FA is made aware of the risky trail they are onto with one mans record basis for such a heavy ban - for the future. They should also make the FA pay attention to abusive language from both supporters and players in general, to cool down tempers.

[Fivex]

I'd like to know how the word Negro differs when said in Spanish for both variations Evra has mentioned - 'black' and 'blacky'

[Craig_H]

Yes, Suarez admitted using the word negro in conversation. The use of one word in context does not make Suarez look like a racist and the FA and Evra have been careful in accepting that Suarez is not a racist per se.

However, Evra's account of what was said differs greatly from Suarez's and it is this part of the testimony that makes Suarez look very bad. Although the FA as I have said accept that Suarez is not a racist I'm afraid the public will and are perceiving him to be one.

If Evra's account of the conversation was true, I would find it very difficult to support Suarez because I cannot tolerate racism in any shape or form.

I still dont get what part Suarez is meant to overturn and 'clear'

He admitted he said 'negro', so what is he clearing?