Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[Craig_H]

It's weird because Vickery writes a lot on the BBC website.

[barnes10]

I think the club will insist that suarez take personal legal action against both Evra and the FA. Reputational damage is at stake here for both him and, sorry to say more importantly, the club.

Can you see Henry & co letting this lie as things currently stand? Our best player and the club united behind him accused of racism? **** that. We have probably put ourselves in this situation - of having to see it through to the end - by not hanging luis out to dry. but the case against him is flimsy as **** and its a massively unprofessional kangaroo court we've just witnessed. we have a strong case.

This episode has caused potentially irreparable damage to the reputation of the player and club and from a branding perspective, that is absolutely massive. how much could this cost us through lost support?

[Shaggy]

They clearly do not like his views.

[BigChief]

To be honest if Suarez played for Newcastle or Bolton and the same sequence of events happened, with the same findings, I would find it next to impossible to defend Luis. Sky News and Tim Vickery article or not.

[Exiled_red]

It's funny how Rory Smith of The Times had to publish his piece on the Anfield Wrap while Vickery's latest thoughts are left to gather dust on some obscure Australian football blog.

It's weird because Vickery writes a lot on the BBC website.

They clearly do not like his views.

It does look like the BBC don't agree with Vickery and The Times don't agree with Smith

[Craig_H]

To be honest if Suarez played for Newcastle or Bolton and the same sequence of events happened, with the same findings, I would find it next to impossible to defend Luis. Sky News and Tim Vickery article or not.

If Suarez played for Newcastle and they'd found him guilty of such a serious offence, and then given him a stern punishment, based on 'probability' then yes i would find it equally ridiculous.

[Exiled_red]

To be honest if Suarez played for Newcastle or Bolton and the same sequence of events happened, with the same findings, I would find it next to impossible to defend Luis. Sky News and Tim Vickery article or not.

Would that not be because if it happened to a Newcastle or Bolton player you wouldn't bother to read all the details and just believe what the press say?

Or because you don't believe the defence credible

Also IMO if this was a Newcastle/Bolton player it wouldn't be getting the same attention. I know racism should be as serious an issue whoever is involved, but I don't think that's actually the case (I'm not just saying that because it's us I think that more would be made of this because the clubs and players involved are so high profile).

[MrMichael]

It all comes down to whether he used the term negro in a pejorative way or not. It's that simple really. On a football pitch there's hardly any love lost in a match such as this so the FA's stance on this is absolutely farcical. It's been blown out of proportions completely.

I'm not sure that is what it comes down to mate. That's what we were thinking before the judgement was published, but now it seems to me to come down to the difference in the accounts between Evra and Suarez, and the fact that the FA chose to believe Evra's account.

As I understand it, Evra has alleged that Suarez used the word "negro" in their exchange on multiple occasions, including saying something along the lines of "I don't touch blacks" and also "...negro, negro, negro". Now however we are chosing to understand the term "negro" and its nuances, IF Evra's account is correct then it would be pretty clear that Suarez was not using it in a familiar sense, but as part of an insult he was repeating as it was getting to Evra. In all honesty, if Evra's account is completely correct then I don't think many people can have many valid arguments with the judgement; that Suarez was perhaps not intentionally being racist, but was using racially motivated language to wind Evra up and thus deserves his ban.

However, Suarez' account is very different, he says he only used the term "negro" once in passing, as part of on ongoing exchange. IF that account is true then all the stuff about linguistic nuance to me becomes completely relevant, and it would logically seem quite fair to judge that there was no intent or anything behind its use. We've discussed that scenario to kingdom come the last few weeks, and almost all of us are agreed I think that in that case, Suarez really isn't guilty of anything.

So, for me, what this all comes down to really is not a question of linguistics, but of who is telling the truth, Suarez or Evra. We, of course, are going to be siding with Suarez in this, just as ManU fans will obviously side with Evra. What seems incredible to me is that the FA have decided to side with Evra too, based on very little other than a difference in their demeanours, and a couple of inconsistencies they have chosen to highlight in Suarez' statements (which would be explained by translation issues) as opposed to the inconsistencies in Evra's which they have overlooked. That to me is the crux of this case, which explains really why the LFC statement a few weeks ago attacked Evra's credibility so much (seemed odd at the time, not now).

Can anyone who has read more about this than I in the last 24 hrs correct me in any of that, or does that seem about right?

[Exiled_red]

I'm not sure that is what it comes down to mate. That's what we were thinking before the judgement was published, but now it seems to me to come down to the difference in the accounts between Evra and Suarez, and the fact that the FA chose to believe Evra's account.

As I understand it, Evra has alleged that Suarez used the word "negro" in their exchange on multiple occasions, including saying something along the lines of "I don't touch blacks" and also "...negro, negro, negro". Now however we are chosing to understand the term "negro" and its nuances, IF Evra's account is correct then it would be pretty clear that Suarez was not using it in a familiar sense, but as part of an insult he was repeating as it was getting to Evra. In all honesty, if Evra's account is completely correct then I don't think many people can have many valid arguments with the judgement; that Suarez was perhaps not intentionally being racist, but was using racially motivated language to wind Evra up and thus deserves his ban.

However, Suarez' account is very different, he says he only used the term "negro" once in passing, as part of on ongoing exchange. IF that account is true then all the stuff about linguistic nuance to me becomes completely relevant, and it would logically seem quite fair to judge that there was no intent or anything behind its use. We've discussed that scenario to kingdom come the last few weeks, and almost all of us are agreed I think that in that case, Suarez really isn't guilty of anything.

So, for me, what this all comes down to really is not a question of linguistics, but of who is telling the truth, Suarez or Evra. We, of course, are going to be siding with Suarez in this, just as ManU fans will obviously side with Evra. What seems incredible to me is that the FA have decided to side with Evra too, based on very little other than a difference in their demeanours, and a couple of inconsistencies they have chosen to highlight in Suarez' statements (which would be explained by translation issues) as opposed to the inconsistencies in Evra's which they have overlooked. That to me is the crux of this case, which explains really why the LFC statement a few weeks ago attacked Evra's credibility so much (seemed odd at the time, not now).

Can anyone who has read more about this than I in the last 24 hrs correct me in any of that, or does that seem about right?

That seems about right to me - I haven't read the thing from cover to cover but I've read alot of it.

[dizzycat]

What really bothers me is that the FA need to attack Luis's character in order to justify their judgement.

[Suarez]

Just read this and I'm livid. What person says I dont talk to blacks or I did it because you are black???? Utter bull****. I'd believe it more if the accused was 5 years old, but not an adult.

Knowing what Evra is like (a bit simple and with form) its quite clear to me that this part is bull**** of the highest order.

[Mostar]

We won't appeal IMO.

I think we will.

Their decision is made without any conclusive evidence and based simply on the personal judgement and their interpretation of the events guided solely by probability who was telling the truth (are you ****ing kidding me ), which is beyond the belief.

In addition, I think we will also appeal coz we came with the official statement of 100% being behind Suarez and if we don't appeal it almost look like we conceded the loss here and accepted that Suarez was guilty and that he did in fact used racial slurs to offend Evra, which Suarez and club denied from day 1.

That said, appeal may not change a thing but personally I think we'll submit one.

[MrMichael]

That seems about right to me - I haven't read the thing from cover to cover but I've read alot of it.

Seems like we've all gotten a little sidetracked by the whole "negro" thing then in the last few weeks. Sure its important to establish that it does not actually = n*****r in Spanish, and that it could be used in a normal, non offensive way, but ultimately the FA's judgement does not seem to have been massively based on that linguistic nuance, given that they have accepted Evra's account that it was used repeatedly, in a context where it could easily be said to have had offensive intent. In the same way as me describing someone as "that cool black guy I met last night" is not remotely offensive, but my calling someone a "f***ing black b*****d" would obviously be very offensive.

Reading some of the segments of the judgement posted here, that appears to have been essentially what the FA have thought too. Therefore the bit we should really be looking at is why they've believed Evra over Suarez. What I'd like to see now would be a solid breakdown of the areas of contention where the accounts differ, and their precise basis for accepting one account over the other. Because, although I'm obviously biased, as we all pretty much are, it seems on a skim reading of the stuff posted in here etc that this is where the judgement is extremely flimsy.

[cream]

i think we will appeal, but only to get the ban reduced, no chance of overturning it.

[TheElephantMan]

If we appeal how could the FA justify reducing the ban? It was racially offensive, but not all that offensive?