Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[Exiled_red]

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.

It seems that they chose to believe Evra over Suarez because of his manner in giving evidence and that there were some discrepancies in Suarez' version of events.

But when you consider what is at stake here is it any wonder that Suarez is more nervous/apprehensive than Evra? Also given the length of time Evra has been here you would imagine he would be more comfortable speaking and listening to the panel in English than Suarez. When you consider that Evra's version of events was prompted by the video and Suarez was not you would expect Suarez to get some things wrong or out of order. I've had arguements with people on a football pitch and couldn't remember exactly what was said at the end of the half never mind a month or two later...

[Exiled_red]

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

I think when they found him guilty they came out with the harshest punishment possible to set a precedent for cases of racist comments or racism. I think that they could reduce it on the basis of cultural differences or nuances of language, or new evidence (if there is any). I think reducing the ban will show the FA in a better light in world football, because at the moment IMO they look intolerant to cultural differences.

[Mostar]

It seems that they chose to believe Evra over Suarez because of his manner in giving evidence and that there were some discrepancies in Suarez' version of events.

But when you consider what is at stake here is it any wonder that Suarez is more nervous/apprehensive than Evra? Also given the length of time Evra has been here you would imagine he would be more comfortable speaking and listening to the panel in English than Suarez. When you consider that Evra's version of events was prompted by the video and Suarez was not you would expect Suarez to get some things wrong or out of order. I've had arguments with people on a football pitch and couldn't remember exactly what was said at the end of the half never mind a month or two later...

That requires impartial and well put together group of people that would look for irrevocable piece of evidence only knowing the huge implication of their decision on one's person's football career and future public perception of that individual for the rest of his life.

Everything you said would be logical to a rational person but FA is joke, bunch of incompetent idiots that allowed personal agendas to influence their decision without any concrete evidence.

Shame on them and I hope this will come back and haunt them one by one.

[TheElephantMan]

I think when they found him guilty they came out with the harshest punishment possible to set a precedent for cases of racist comments or racism. I think that they could reduce it on the basis of cultural differences or nuances of language, or new evidence (if there is any). I think reducing the ban will show the FA in a better light in world football, because at the moment IMO they look intolerant to cultural differences.

The FA clearly agree with Evra's version of events, how much more abusive would a player need to be to deserve the maximum punishment? The repeated use of a word which the FA deem to be racist is about as bad as it gets on the football field surely?

[Exiled_red]

That requires impartial and well put together group of people that would look for irrevokable piece of evidence only knowing the huge implication of ther decision on one's person's football career and future public percepetion of that individual for the rest of his life.

Everything you said would be logicial to a rational person but FA is joke, bunch of incompetent idiots that allowed personal agendas to influence their decision without any concrete evidence.

Shame on them and I hope this will come back and haunt them one by one.

[Bender]

i wonder how the liverpool based players who play for england would feel about not playing for england anymore ...... if this is so one sided in favour of that cunt evra and utd then this would be a step to show the fa they can **** off

[JHP]

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?

I agree with this. If Suarez used the racially abusive terms as stated I just can't understand how both Evra and the FA conclude he's not racist. As I see things a non racist just wouldn't do that.

[TheElephantMan]

I agree with this. If Suarez used the racially abusive terms as stated I just can't understand how both Evra and the FA conclude he's not racist. As I see things a non racist just wouldn't do that.

If Evra's statement is to be believed then Suarez clearly is a racist. The FA agree with Evra's account and therefore they must believe that Suarez is a racist.

[fidget]

If Evra's statement is to be believed then Suarez clearly is a racist. The FA agree with Evra's account and therefore they must believe that Suarez is a racist.

The FA will secretly refer to it as "Precedent Set for Our Terry Defence".

[TheElephantMan]

Suarez' repeated abuse of Evra is much more deserving of a severe punishment than John Terry using the N word once. If the maximum punishment for racist abuse is an eight game ban then I would expect JT to receive a two match ban.

[G]

A good dissection of the fallings in the FA Report and it's conclusions.

http://joescouse.blogspot.com/2012/01/suarez-evra-reliable-witnesses.html

[Jack D Rips]

Suarez' repeated abuse of Evra is much more deserving of a severe punishment than John Terry using the N word once. If the maximum punishment for racist abuse is an eight game ban then I would expect JT to receive a two match ban.

I take you are assuming that Evra's version is correct?

[TheElephantMan]

I take you are assuming that Evra's version is correct?

No. Evra's version of events is clearly a load of bull****. I was agreeing with the previous post - how can the FA state that Suarez isn't a racist yet agree with Evra's account? If Evra's statement is correct (I'm not saying it is!) then Suarez must be a racist.

[JHP]

I take you are assuming that Evra's version is correct?

I think he's not assuming Evra's telling the truth (probably the opposite) but pointing out what it would mean if he was.

[Rabiosa]

Clarke Carlisle is the PFA chairman? what aload of bollocks.

The FA won't reduce the ban, that would show the world that they are wrong, they can't have that..