Originally posted by TheElephantMan
View Post
-
Ah ok. Sorry for the misunderstanding."With Ron Yeats in defence, we could play Arthur Askey in goal."
Bill Shankly -
-
Using Ryan Giggs as a witness (who lied to a court of law previously) does give LFC glaring holes to pick and on and challenge the FA. There's more if a studious analysis of the 115 page document is done. The more and more I read from it, the more and more I think there is a case to argue.Are we winning?Comment
-
If that is accurate, it drives a bus through the FA's entire case.Originally posted by PoolG View PostComment
-
Suarez has never been charged with being a racist or being racially offensive.222. Secondly, the decision is limited to the Charge brought. The Commission has to make a decision on the Charge (and any penalty to follow, if the Charge is proved), and nothing else. We have set out above the Charge that was brought in this case. It was limited to whether Mr Suarez used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Mr Evra in the match on 15 October and, if so, whether that conduct included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race. We were not asked to decide anything beyond this limited, albeit important, matter.
223. Mr Greaney emphasised the limited nature of this task in his opening written argument for the FA as follows:
"First, this case is not about whether Mr Suarez is in fact a racist. Indeed, the
Commission will no doubt conclude that there are some indications that he is not.
For example, Mr Suarez is himself of mixed heritage, it seems clear that he has
experienced the diversity of life and it is plain from the materials submitted on his
behalf that he has done good work in the field of community relations. Moreover,
even Mr Evra says in his witness statement: "I don't think that Luis Suarez is racist".
However, the question is not whether Mr Suarez is in fact a racist. Rather the
question is whether, on 15th October 2011, for whatever reason, Mr Suarez used
language and behaviour which was racially offensive. This is an important
difference and, we submit, that the Commission will need to take care to ensure that
the questions it answers at the end of these proceedings are the narrow questions
posed by the charge and not any broader question as to the personal attitude of Mr
Suarez."
224. We agree with that submission subject to one qualification. We would not ourselves
describe the question for us as whether Mr Suarez used language and behaviour which
was "racially offensive". Those words are not found in the relevant Rules or in the Charge brought against Mr Suarez, and are prone to mislead. The question for us is, as we have stated, whether Mr Suarez used abusive or insulting words or behaviour which included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin, colour or race.
Comment
-
Also I fail to see how someone who had been so upset and shocked by the whole case could be a calm witness. Wouldn't it make you somewhat agitated as victim to recount the events that upset you so much?Comment
-
I think these points are interestingOriginally posted by PoolG View Post
That seems a remarkable viewpoint to meThe other evidence the FA panel relied on was the fact that Suarez’s story changes slightly. However, all of the changes can be fully explained by the fact that the situation happened very quickly and the fallibility of memory means that the exact sequences of events often merge into one. The FA acknowledge this as a possibility but do not accept it as an excuse.
It doesn't seem like something Spanish speaking players would forget if they were told it.There are inconsistencies in Evra’s testimony. In his evidence, Evra states that he told the players after the game that Suarez said he kicked him "porque tu eres negro" (“because I am black”). None of the four Spanish speaking Manchester United players recalled Evra saying this in their witness testimonies. In the FA’s report, they confirm this is the case but state that it is possible the players simply forgot he said it. They do not point to the other possibility: that he did not say it. Under this scenario, it could be used as evidence that Evra is an unreliable witness.
Also why are the FA 'defending' the they forgot position, this suggest a bias to me.
It seems remarkable that in light of 4 pieces of evidence suggesting him as an unreliable witness the FA can believe his version of events.There were four pieces of evidence presented by Suarez's lawyer to the FA that suggest Evra is an unreliable witness. The interesting one is the coin toss. Here is the transcript of that incident:The only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can't ignore it, top it; if you can't top it, laugh at it; if you can't laugh at it, it's probably deserved.Comment
-
This may have been mentioned earlier but can't find it so can someone answer me this.
If the FA had this video evidence that swings so much in Evras favour wouldn't they have to reference it within their report, and produce a copy for the club to watch, and possibly even the media?
The other thing, and I may be wrong but, If if Evra was racially abused multiple times instead of the one time originally suggested surely he would have gone to the ref, or even the linseman straight away?The times they are a changin'.Comment
-
Also can someone explain to me why the coin toss is relevant?
Maybe I need to read the report.
The times they are a changin'.Comment
-
I would think so, I read somewhere mention of video that hasn't been shown on TV, they may not release this to the media/public but they would surely have to show it to the club.Originally posted by Gibbo9 View PostThe only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can't ignore it, top it; if you can't top it, laugh at it; if you can't laugh at it, it's probably deserved.Comment
-
I was defending Suarez in arguments with my friends when I was under the impression that he had used the word negrito, however I think we should just accept the ban and move on.
Maybe Suarez never used the word 7 times or said to Evra "Its because your black" ( I do find that hard to believe) but he has admitted to using the word Negro twice and the problem I now have with his defence is he is saying he uses this type of language to talk to Glen Johnson ...REALLY??....
Does Suarez REALLY turn up to training and say "hola Negro" or something along those lines to Glen Johnson and no one has ever pulled him up on it ??? I would have believed his defence more if he hadn't mentioned Glen Johnson now it just sounds like total bull to me...Last edited by Sebastian Rooks; 01-01-12, 06:55 PM."If you can't support us when we lose or draw, don't support us when we win." - Bill ShanklyComment
-
It shows he was arguing a case that the referee thought he had no argument against, highlighting inconsistencies in his report.Originally posted by Gibbo9 View PostAlso can someone explain to me why the coin toss is relevant?
Maybe I need to read the report.Are we winning?Comment
-
Johnson has supported Suarez throughout this affair, so I find it highly unlikely that Johnson has blindly ignored this so-called "lie" of Suarez's and continued to back him regardless.Originally posted by Sebastian Rooks View Post
Johnson also speaks Spanish.Thanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’Comment
-
More on the "kick"/foul...
Thanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’Comment
-
Well, yeah, he might do, cos it's not actually offensive let alone racist to do so.Originally posted by Sebastian Rooks View Post
Like blood on ironComment
Comment