Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[Sebastian Rooks]

According to The Guardian:

The report stated that after Evra asked Suárez during the game why he had been kicked, he replied in Spanish: "Porque tu eres negro," which translates as "Because you are black". Evra said he would punch Suárez if he repeated the comment to which Uruguayan said: "No hablo con los negros": "I don't speak to blacks."

What have I missed on here, as this is far less nuanced than I was led to believe. In fact, if this is true, it's blatant racism. What's the counter argument?

Well the counter argument to that is you'd just be taking Evra at his word with no witnesses or video evidence to support this...

[MrMichael]

What have I missed on here, as this is far less nuanced than I was led to believe. In fact, if this is true, it's blatant racism. What's the counter argument?

That its not true I think. That's certainly not Suarez' version of the conversation.

And I guess that the video of the supposed foul doesn't show Suarez kicking him at all, indeed it appears to show Evra blatantly diving & making a huge meal out of the incident (01:20 in the youtube clip above), which would perhaps make it rather odd for him to be going on about being kicked 5 minutes later?

[alunevans]

Is there any evidence that he said it?

[Exiled_red]

Anyway, lets say the club accept, as Luis has , that he shouldn't have used the word Negro and he wont use it again in the future, the FA have doubled what would ordinarily have been a four-match ban because he used the word seven times ?

Have they based this on Evra's word or is this referencing the unseen video footage of him saying this?

If the video evidence doesn't show this can we not appeal on the fact that there issuing an 8 match ban on Evra's evidence only, so if we can appeal that we could have it reduced to 4 games?

Did they say it was doubled because he supposedly said it 7 times? I read that the punishment was so harsh because it was supposedly said multiple times. Obviously this is still on Evra's word but if they actually said it was doubled that would presumably make it easier to appeal (as you suggest).

[JHP]

According to The Guardian:

The report stated that after Evra asked Suárez during the game why he had been kicked, he replied in Spanish: "Porque tu eres negro," which translates as "Because you are black". Evra said he would punch Suárez if he repeated the comment to which Uruguayan said: "No hablo con los negros": "I don't speak to blacks."

What have I missed on here, as this is far less nuanced than I was led to believe. In fact, if this is true, it's blatant racism. What's the counter argument?

The counter argument is that Evra also said that Suarez isn't a racist. As Suarez would have to be a racist to make those comments, they therefore can't be true

[Shaggy]

Is there any evidence that he said it?

No.

This guy is a 'football lawyer'.

FootballLaw Daniel Geey
My concern re #suarez decision is that Evra's claims about what Suarez said is not corroborated by any additional evidence.

FootballLaw Daniel Geey
A lack of corroborating evidence makes something very difficult to prove full stop. #suarez

[Exiled_red]

Is there any evidence that he said it?

It seems to boil down to the FA believing Evra's version of events to be the more reliable, as far as I'm aware there is no video footage. It's a balance of probability, they think Evra's version of events is more likely to be true than Suarez version of events, hence the ruling.

[JHP]

Is there any evidence that he said it?

Only Evra's word which they conclude was supported by a few things including Suarez's demeanour, therefore making Evra's version of events true

[Fredo]

**** all evidence, unless the FA have something up their sleeve - seen something about video evidence in their report.

[Exiled_red]

**** all evidence, unless the FA have something up their sleeve - seen something about video evidence in their report.

Surely if the FA had video evidence we (the club) would have seen it before or in the hearing.

[MrMichael]

Is there any evidence that he said it?

Yeah, that Evra was calm and spoke in English to the panel, wheras Suarez looked shifty and had to use a translator

TBH, I haven't seen anyone come up with any. There's some video stuff referenced in the report I think, but none that's been shown different to what we've already seen. And as that clip (again) shows, and the stuff about that being a deliberate foul (like wtf?) the FA's version of what they've seen seems well random.

Otherwise, no, there's no corroborating evidence at all it seems. They've just chosen to believe Evra. No chance of "not proven either way" and absolutely no "reasonable doubt". According to the "principles of British justice" though according to Football against Racism in Europe

[Sebastian Rooks]

Did they say it was doubled because he supposedly said it 7 times? I read that the punishment was so harsh because it was supposedly said multiple times. Obviously this is still on Evra's word but if they actually said it was doubled that would presumably make it easier to appeal (as you suggest).

I was just reading the feeds from all the papers and according to the daily mail - " The FA rejected Suarez's assertion that he had used the word 'negro' - Spanish for black and commonly used both with and without racist overtones in South America - in a friendly manner as 'incredible' and doubled what would ordinarily have been a four-match ban because he used the word seven times."

[Exiled_red]

I was just reading the feeds from all the papers and according to the daily mail - " The FA rejected Suarez's assertion that he had used the word 'negro' - Spanish for black and commonly used both with and without racist overtones in South America - in a friendly manner as 'incredible' and doubled what would ordinarily have been a four-match ban because he used the word seven times."

Ok interesting I hadn't seen that before. Thanks

[Fredo]

I was just reading the feeds from all the papers and according to the daily mail - " The FA rejected Suarez's assertion that he had used the word 'negro' - Spanish for black and commonly used both with and without racist overtones in South America - in a friendly manner as 'incredible' and doubled what would ordinarily have been a four-match ban because he used the word seven times."

They said that on the basis of their 'unfriendly' exchange, meaning that those overtones had to be with connotations aimed at harming Evra rather than being 'conciliatory' to him - which Luis said in his statement re: the 'pinching incident'.

[Shaggy]

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/sport-news/liverpool-fc/2012/01/01/comment-liverpool-fc-striker-luis-suarez-s-name-smeared-on-a-hunch-55578-30044683/#.TwDDM_ObFko

COMMENT: Liverpool FC striker Luis Suarez's name smeared on a hunch

By Ben Thornley
Jan 1 2012

IF you have neither the time nor inclination to read the Football Association’s hefty report on their investigation into the Luis Suarez/ Patrice Evra racism row, let me save you the trouble.

After two months and 115-pages, the entire case came down to one man’s word against another’s.

There was no evidence nor supporting witnesses to back up either player’s version of the events.

And in the end, the much discussed linguistic nuances of the word “negro” and its use in South American Spanish mattered little.

Language experts brought in by the FA concluded that what Suarez admits to having said – “what, negro?” – wouldn’t be considered offensive in his native Uruguay, but what Evra says he hurled at him would be.

So it all came down to who the three-man panel believed.

They decided Evra was the more credible witness, chiefly because his version of events tallied closer to the television footage of the incident than Suarez’s

It is worth noting, however, that while the Frenchman was allowed to give his evidence while watching the video of the confrontation, Suarez was not.

The FA report also claimed that the Manchester United player’s testimony was preferred because he remained calm throughout – importantly, though, he was not the one on trial.

As a result of the report’s publication, most media outlets are now presenting Evra’s claim to have been racially abused “seven times in two minutes” as fact when that is far from the case.

Unlike in a court of law, the panel did not need to be satisfied that Suarez was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, working instead to a balance of probability rule. And the word “probably” can be found in plentiful supply in the report.

Essentially the Liverpool striker has been convicted on the hunch of three men.

Is that acceptable when a man’s reputation is on the line?

If Suarez used the word negro with the frequency and in the manner in which Evra alleges, he deserves every game of his eight-match suspension.

But that hasn't been proven, with only the two players aware of the truth. And try as the FA might to suggest otherwise, the report hasn’t changed that.
l Follow me on Twitter @B_Thornley