Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[JHP]

The report says of Evra that he speaks many languages including Spanish. In fact he speaks it so well he clearly understands the nuances in statements Suarez is alleged to have used such as:
"Porque tu eres
negro",
"No hablo con los negros",
"Dale negro, negro, negro".

Suarez says that in the first example above he actually said “Por que negro” (when asked why did you kick me) which means why black, Evra's version is (I kicked you) because you're black.

However even though Evra demonstrates a good level of Spanish the panel went on to say, Mr Evra told us that he believed, from the moment he heard Mr Suarez use the word “negro”, that this meant ******.... It seemed to us that Mr Evra's understanding of the Spanish word "negro" was influenced by his knowledge of Italian. In his interview with the FA on 20 October, Mr Evra said that he thought "nero" meant "black", whereas "negro" meant "******". This was what he thought from his knowledge of Italian, and he went away to check the position in Spanish.

So on the one had Evra is demonstrating a good level of Spanish (to put Suarez in a bad light) yet on the other is displaying a poor understanding of Spanish (which enables him to claim racial abuse). Yet the panel doesn't seem to think this has any bearing on Evra's credibility.

[Exiled_red]

here it is...was just a post under an article.



Very odd if true, especially considering they threw out Dirks evidence that he heard Evra say "you only booked me because i'm black"

If Dowds notes are really gone, then you can bet it's because they corroborated Dirks evidence, imho, can't think of any other logical reason for them being destroyed.

It would be interesting to know where this guy has got this from, because as I said it's the first I've heard of it. It's hard to know if it's true or not. Surely the referee should keep his notebook especially after an incident such as this was reported.

[Mostar]

We have to appeal this decision, it's clearly an injustice to give such a harsh ruling on such flimsy 'evidence'.

or better yet complete lack of it

[JHP]

This (posted on YNWA) seems a balanced and well thought out position.

Once again, as with the initial announcement of the charge and the subsequent verdict, the Football Association displayed impeccable timing with the release of their report of the full findings of the Evra v Suarez Independent Inquiry.

Liverpool FC had been provided with a copy late on Friday. Wonderful, especially when you consider that the club were in the process of their final preparations ahead of an important Premier League game.

Add to this, the fact that it was sent at the end of the last working day before a Bank Holiday weekend, and the issuing of the report signalled the commencement of fourteen days time limit in which to digest the report and consider an appeal.

The publication to the media and the public was at tea-time on New Year’s Eve. Very convenient.

Without going into the detail of the report here, it is a safe to summarise as follows:
It was accepted by all parties that Suarez used the word ‘negro’ towards Evra.
The panel of language experts accepted the ambiguity in the use of the offending word stating that it is “by no means, always used offensively” and that it could be “used as a friendly form of address” or “affectionately” or as a nickname in everyday speech.
The confrontation was instigated by Patrice Evra, who used an abusive term to Luis Suarez. The term in question was delivered in Spanish and translates as “Your sister’s c*nt”. However the FA, translated it to “F*cking H*ll”, which is obviously much more prevalent on football pitches week in and week out.
The FA panel decided that Evra’s evidence was more credible, based on a number of factors. Much focus is paid to the fact that Evra’s evidence was delivered in a more calm and professional manner and was more consistent with the video evidence. (Hardly surprising, when you consider that Evra and his club have previous experience of similar hearings, whilst Suarez was facing a charge which has the potential to ruin his good name forever. Also, it is reported that Evra delivered his evidence in conjunction with being shown the footage, which was not the case with Suarez.
Bearing in mind the credibility ceded to Evra over Suarez, the panel accepted the United player’s version that the offending term was used on ‘probably’ seven occasions. Suarez maintained that it was only a single occasion. (The initial referee’s report states that Ferguson and Evra came to him after the game and reported that uis Suarez had used the term ‘n1gger’. Yet this contradiction in evidence is conveniently brushed aside)
Regarding the one occasion that Suarez admitted using the ‘negro’ word, again it coes down to which version of events is believed. Either Suarez’s “Por que (why), negro?” or Evra’s “Porque (because) tu es (you are) negro”. The FA opted for the latter, more damning interpretation.
Much emphasis is placed on Suarez lightly pinching Evra’s arm. In his first submission Luis Suarez claimed that this was a gesture of conciliation, only to later admit he did it to antagonise his opponent. This seems to form the basis of the panel’s decision that Suarez was an unreliable witness.

My thought on the report are that it is a shambles. Any decent team of legal experts could drive a bus through it. The report is very short of definitive conclusions. It contains the word ‘probable’ on ten instances, and the word ‘possibly’ appears thirteen times.

The report is distinctly short of hard evidence. It is one version against another’s. The report basically states that they prefer to go with Evra’s version. Yet Evra is not without inconsistency. There is the matter of the coin toss. Liverpool won the toss, at which Evra argued that he had called correctly. The referee decided otherwise. Then there is the ‘n1gger’ claim. Then there is the claim that he was abused on at least ten occasions. This latter inconsistently was described as a figure of speech. (Expect to hear me singing “In Istanbul, we won it ten times” next time we play United)

This 115 report of the panel’s findings, looks to me like nothing of the sort. I write reports as part of my employment. A report should look at all the evidence, weigh up both arguments, consider and then present conclusions, before summarising. Instead, this has the appearance of a long-winded document which sets out merely to provide justification for an inevitable conclusion.

In taking such a long time to publish and by going into such length, the FA look to have been fully aware that they need to cover themselves procedurally in the face of an expected appeal.

Ominously the report includes a warning that any further indiscretions by Luis Suarez could lead to a permanent suspension. Consider that carefully. Suarez must take the pitch in the knowledge that any future spurious claims will be dealt with on a ‘he said, she said’ basis and a lifetime ban coiuld rest on whether he gets nervous and confused in his recollections. Imagine the scenario. ‘The FA can find no evidence, but in light of Suarez’s previous unreliability we have imposed a lifetime ban on the say so of player X and manager Y.’

So where does all this lead Suarez and Liverpool Football Club?

The club have stated that they will take the opportunity to examine the report before deciding whether to pursue an appeal.

Forget the eight game ban, what is at stake here is the good name of Luis Suarez. No doubt he was ill-advised to use the language he did on that fateful afternoon. No doubt he can be irksome, even annoying, when caught up in the helter skelter of a football match. However, was Evra, as the instigator, any less ill-advised in using the term he admitted? Is he any less irksome. Football is full of these characters – loved by their own fans, despised by opposing fans. Craig Bellamy is a perfect example.

No, Suarez must accept some of the blame and probably some punishment for his role in the drama that day. Evra too, as his initial tirade also breaches the FA’s Code of Conduct. (Worth noting that Evra’s mitigation was that he was in a ‘state of shock’ after a foul by Suarez five minutes earlier. He also stated in his immaculate evidence that when Suarez abused him he was shocked because Luis was a player he respected greatly. Respected him so much, in fact, that he used the ‘sister’s c*nt’ reference!)

Sadly, my opinion is that the FA have succeeded in backing Liverpool FC and Luis Suarez into a corner here. An appeal would have to be based on more than not agreeing with the verdict, and the report has evidently been draughted with this in mind, and although extremely short of logic or hard facts, does appear water-tight procedurally.

In my humble opinion Suarez/LFC should issue a statement completely debunking the FA’s report. This should be done on a point by point basis. Each and every conclusion which is based on probability or a preference for one version of events should be questioned vociferously. The statement should maintain that in the interests of football the verdict of misconduct is accepted but clarification should be sought that Luis Suarez is NOT guilty of racism.

Off the record, I would hope LFC’s lawyers would make it absolutely crystal clear to the FA that they are confident that if they so desired they could drag this through the courts as a professional footballer’s livelihood is on the line, especially with the threat of a permanent ban looming. I would strongly suggest going in heavily in this regard, with a proposal to accept the misconduct verdict in return for an amendment such that four games of the ban are suspended.

This, for me, is the option which provides the only feasible escape route for all parties.
Accept the misconduct charge, seek a reduction in suspension ( by making it a four game ban plus four matches suspended) – based on the following...
Issue a statement regretting any offence, condemning racism in all forms, and stressing unequivocally the absence of any racial intent on behalf of Suarez.
Arrange an early meeting with the FA’s legal advisors, presenting a legal case for a possible appeal through the courts based on the glaring weaknesses in the FA report.
Appeal the severity of the suspension. (Basically strike a deal offering the FA an orderly escape from the mess which their report threatens to land them in)
After all this sorted I would strongly back Liverpool FC and Luis Suarez in any actions taken against publications or journalists who have used the charge/verdict/report as justification for libel against Luis Suarez.

[Vermilion]

Suarez, Evra & Reliable Witnesses

The verdict in the Suarez case hung on the reliability of the witness testimony. In blunt summary, the FA decided that Evra was a more reliable witness and therefore found Suarez guilty. Here are the crucial parts of the testimony with some analysis...

Is the Word “Negro” Racially Offensive?

The panel of language experts used by the FA described the connotations of the word “negro” as follows:

“It is important to grasp that the word "negro" is ambiguous in all countries and regions of Latin America. The word "negro" is by no means, however, always used offensively. The term can also be used as a friendly form of address to someone seen as somewhat brown-skinned or even just black-haired. It may be used affectionately between man and wife, or girlfriend/boyfriend, it may be used as a nickname in everyday speech, it may be used to identify in neutral and descriptive fashion someone of dark skin; several famous people in Uruguay are known as "el negro/la negra such-and-such".

The experts concluded that if the panel believed Evra’s version of events, they could assume the word "negro" was used in a racially offensive way. However, they say of Suarez’s version of events:

“The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez's account as follows. If Mr Suarez used the word "negro" as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America.”

The panel therefore needed to deem one of the accounts to be false in order to establish guilt, since Suarez’s defence was proved to be inoffensive in racial terms.

How Events Transpired

The conversation began with Evra saying "Concha de tu hermana" which translates as "your sister's pussy". Evra says he meant “****ing hell”. There is no dispute about who started the argument: it was Evra. There is no dispute about who threw the first insult: Evra. The dispute is whether Suarez’s reaction used racially offensive words. The FA ruled that it did.

So, how unreliable a witness was Suarez, and how reliable was Evra?

Immediately after Evra’s insult, the video evidence that can be lip-read shows Suarez saying "What did you say?" Suarez, before this video evidence came out, told the FA he said “What did you say?" That is a reliable statement.

They both agree that Evra then said "Why did you kick me?" What they dispute is the answer. Evra claims Suarez said "Because you are black". Suarez claims he said "it was just a normal foul" then shrugged his shoulders. The video evidence shows Suarez shrugging his shoulders, backing up his testimony. So far, the video evidence supports Suarez.

Next comes the crucial piece of Suarez evidence, the part the FA panel relied heavily on to find him guilty. Suarez said in his statement “I was trying to defuse the situation”. Under cross examination, Suarez more or less admitted that he was not trying to defuse the situation. The FA used this admission to discredit Suarez as a witness.

The really important thing he says comes just after this comment: “Under no circumstances was this action intended to be offensive and most certainly not racially offensive. It was not in any way a reference to the colour of PE's skin.” This, the FA deemed, was also untrue.

The 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.

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.

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:

“Mr Marriner explained that he used a FIFA coin which is blue on one side and yellow on the other. He asked Mr Evra, as the visiting captain, to call the colour. Mr Marriner tossed the coin, it came down yellow, and he awarded it to Steven Gerrard who elected to stay in their current ends. Manchester United had kick off. Mr Evra remonstrated that he had called correctly but, Mr Marriner said, he had not. Mr Evra then spoke to Ryan Giggs about it, and Mr Marriner walked over to Mr Evra to assure him that he (Mr Marriner) had got it right. Mr Evra's evidence was that when such a coin was used, he always called yellow given that the alternative, blue, is a Manchester City colour, which he would never call. The toss came down yellow and so Mr Evra knew that he had won it. He particularly wanted to change ends at the start, he explained to the referee that he had called yellow, and why he had done so. Mr Evra was angry but the referee did not change his mind.”

Evra either could not remember what colour he chose or lied about it afterwards. This at best questions his reliability as a witness and at worst suggests he is willing to lie to gain an advantage. Crucially, he reacted outwardly far more to the coin toss than he did in the goalmouth when he claimed that Suarez used the word “negro” five times. Had that really been the case, surely Evra’s reaction would have been much stronger?

Another inconsistency is Evra's use of the term "ten times" to describe how many times Suarez allegedly said "negro". Evra has retracted this claim and said it was a "figure of speech". Really?

What about previous form? Suarez has no history of any form of racism and is an ambassador for racial equality. Evra, on the other hand, has been at the centre of a racism scandal in the recent past. It was alleged that ground staff at Chelsea racially abused Evra in 2008. The allegation was thrown out and here is how the panel described Evra's testimony:

"We find Mr Evra's description exaggerated... There was no good reason for Mr Evra to have run over and barged Mr Griffin as he did. It was unnecessarily and gratuitously aggressive of Mr Evra... Mr Evra's suggestion that he was concerned about Mr Strudwick's safety is farfetched. They were two grown men having an apparently strong verbal disagreement but no more than that. The clear implication by Mr Evra that Mr Griffin's pitchfork gave some reason for concern about Mr Strudwick's safety is ridiculous...We find Mr Evra's account exaggerated and unreliable. It is an attempt to justify a physical intervention by him which cannot reasonably be justified..."

Compare this to the conclusions drawn by the panel in the Suarez case:

"We considered it improbable that Mr Evra would act in such a dishonest way in order to damage the reputation of a fellow professional whose footballing skills he admires, with whom he had had no previous run-ins, and who he does not think is a racist."
There is therefore evidence to suggest that both Suarez and Evra made statements that were not 100% true during this case, and that Evra has a history of doing this. By using Evra’s account as “the truth”, the FA have concluded that Suarez’s entire evidence can be completely discredited whilst the inconsistencies in Evra’s testimony, and past, can be ignored.

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

[Red_Polo]

You really expect me to believe that Suarez uses the word Negro when addressing Glen Johnson ?

Right ok... so picture this, a new guy starts in our work from South America next week, after a few days he gets into a bit of a discussion with one of the workers who is black because they have a difference of opinion to how the job should be done. In the end the new south american worker agrees with the Black worker over how the job done should be done and he says "OK Negro"

your right its fine to say that

****ting Christ.

Neh-grow (Spanish) IS NOT THE SAME AS Knee-grow (English)

Words have different meanings in other languages.

It is normal and not at all racist to say 'hola negro'.

The expert witnesses to the FA panel fully acknowledged this basic point. If you can't grasp that I'm not going to waste any more of my time arguing with you.

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 report contains Evra's version and Suarez' version. Because they found Suarez guilty albeit on balance of probability, sections of the media are now going to assume this means the panel have proven everything Evra said to be correct and start printing stuff about Suarez based on that.

[Vermilion]

So then, would Suarez know the n word, not negro or negrito, but the really well known n word that's most offesive ?

Because if he's got into this long running battle of words with Evra where he's racially abused him 10 or 7 or 5 times, and his intention is to racially insult, why the feck didn't he use....that....n word ?

[Boogs]

Nicked from some chap on Twitter.....

Regarding any #lfc appeal on #suarez. My reading of FA Rule K is that there is no scope to appeal the decision of an FA commission such as this. the only appeal is against the sentence itself. the only other option would be arbitration proceedings under rule K but this would be limited to a "challenge to the validity of the decision under English Law on the grounds of ultra vires (including error of law), irrationality or procedural unfairness"

[Red_Polo]

So then, would Suarez know the n word, not negro or negrito, but the really well known n word that's most offesive ?

Because if he's got into this long running battle of words with Evra where he's racially abused him 10 or 7 or 5 times, and his intention is to racially insult, why the feck didn't he use....that....n word ?

I think I read in the report he claimed not to have known that word beforehand; anyone confirm?

There are certainly more clearly racially abusive words in Spanish he could have used, some of which were mentioned in the report by the expert witnesses.

Does anyone have any footage of the 'pinch'?

[KingKenny77]

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 ?

Suarez is Uruguayan and he speaks Uruguayan Spanish and in Uruguayan Spanish, Negro means black. Patrice Evra is Black. Is Evra ashamed to be Black or something?

Suarez's language uses the word Negro, therefore Suarez is allowed to use it. Denying Suarez the right to use the word Negro breaches his basic human rights, not only that, it is xenophobic and racist for anyone to brand his language unacceptable in England which is after all a "Multicultural" country that embraces all cultures and religions, yet discriminates against Luis Suarez's native tongue.

The FA like most things English is inherently racist, as shown in their dealing with Luis Suarez.

[Vermilion]

When Emre was accused of using racist terms, and two witnesses heard him on the pitch, Lescott and one other, but in their statements they gave different words for the one used, why didn't the fa make a similar assuption as they have with Suarez..in that Emre 'probably' did say something, but the witnessess just got mixed up giving their statements, they reacted on the pitch to what Emre said too... so more evidence there.


Suarez has been well and truly stitched up on this.

[RichC]

seems to me then they've set a precedent there they've not followed without reasonable cause.

This needs to be taken above the FA, a half competent lawyer would tear a new arsehole out of their decision

[BootRoom]

seems to me then they've set a precedent there they've not followed without reasonable cause.

This needs to be taken above the FA, a half competent lawyer would tear a new arsehole out of their decision

I don't think we've got any chance of success within the FA's framework. We should be exploring every opportunity to take this to a different forum, preferably outside the country.

If we are in a situation whereby the commission can arrive at any decision it likes so long as the procedures are followed then we are snookered, as they can interpret events any way they choose and spin a narrative to support that with impunity.

[Vermilion]

Another post i found with an interesting quote from the report..

Has any one actually read the report - Quote taken from* report - The footage was
not of any real direct* assistance in terms of what was said by Mr Suarez in* the goalmouth.
It was not possible to try and lip-read* what Mr Suarez said largely because his face was*
obscured at the crucial moments, either because his* back was to the camera behind the
goal, or because his* face was obscured by a camera fixed to the back* stanchion

Their 'evidence' gets more non existant by the hour, and it looks like it basically is one mans word against the other, so these idiot journos talking like the fa proved the case is pretty stomach churning!

That Suarez said 'Blackie' several times seems to be soley based on Evras word.

This is just so very very wrong and unfair.

[TheElephantMan]

one mans word against the other

That's it. Nothing more concrete than that. So which statement is more likely to be true? Does anyone really believe that Suarez made the racist comments "because you're black", "I don't speak to blacks" and "okay blackie blackie blackie"? Does that sound remotely likely to anyone?