Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[Nicey]

Can someone explain the whole commoli and Kurt testimony situation please

[Nicey]

I hope we all dont lose our appetite for clearing this mans name, our names as fans and out ****ing wonderful clubs reputation. The FA has branded us all Racists, I am ****ing disgusted.

[Gibbo]

I hope we all dont lose our appetite for clearing this mans name, our names as fans and out ****ing wonderful clubs reputation. The FA has branded us all Racists, I am ****ing disgusted.

The worst thing I've seen is someone branding us a Racist football club because Johnson is our only black player.

It's gone beyond a joke its turning into madness.

I think what fans of other clubs, the Mancs and possibly even some Liverpool fans are failing to see is that this has gone beyond football now, people need to get past their opinion of a football club and make judgement on the person that is being slowly pushed out of English football by a clueless governing body.

At the end of the day, sooner or later if the FA are allowed to carry on acting this way it will eventually come back to haunt everyone. It will get to the point where every time a derogatory comment is made about someone there will be complaints/appeals/bans. And now the FA have set the bar with 8 games. Its their duty to be consistent.

[Rabiosa]

The worst thing I've seen is someone branding us a Racist football club because Johnson is our only black player.

It's gone beyond a joke its turning into madness.

I think what fans of other clubs, the Mancs and possibly even some Liverpool fans are failing to see is that this has gone beyond football now, people need to get past their opinion of a football club and make judgement on the person that is being slowly pushed out of English football by a clueless governing body.

At the end of the day, sooner or later if the FA are allowed to carry on acting this way it will eventually come back to haunt everyone. It will get to the point where every time a derogatory comment is made about someone there will be complaints/appeals/bans. And now the FA have set the bar with 8 games. Its their duty to be consistent.

It also disgusts me how they can give an 8 game ban judged on an opinion from a cunt like Evra.

[Nicey]

If any club or its fans can get justice in such matters its us, I would never ever ever ever get into a verbal argument with a scouser.

Joking aside, this leaves a very bad taste, its obvious to me, editors up and down the country have decided on a narrative, podcasts I listen to who usually would be all over this have been unusually muted in there coverage. I think from very high up people want this now to go away as quietly as possible.

When I say people high up I mean people outside of the football world. The UK as always stuck me as a racial tinderbox and in these current economic days the weather is extremely dry.

I hope we can come to some sort of compromise with all of this. The best situation would to have a compromise, reduce the ban and have both players release a joint sentiment which allowes to both to walk away with some lessons and some face. Otherwise its just ****ing incendiary. The bad feelings between both clubs is at boiling point right now, I am expecting lots of trouble at the next match

[topscorer]

Yeah, agreed. The issue really isn't the language here and its nuances anyway, if Suarez used it the way he says then he's innocent, whereas if he used it the way and with the frequency Evra says he did, he's guilty.

Its really quite simple imo. In Evra's account it is obviously being used in a way which is at the minimum intended to wind him up and offend him, now he could have used much worse terms (in Spanish) were he intending outright racist abuse, but none the less I think it is pretty clear that "I don't touch blacks" and "black, black, black" would still be derogatory in intention well beyond the point of "cultural misunderstandings" being a good excuse.

However, in Suarez' account he uses the word once, in passing, not with force or intent or anything like what could be called racist abuse, especially once one understands the proper uses of "negro".

The FA believe Evra, which is why they can call Suarez' defence on linguistic grounds laughable etc. Because it is... once they accept the detail of the "used 7 times" account is true. If they actually believed Suarez', or even something close to it, then that defence would be completely valid instead. The issue for us then imo, is simply whether there is any decent evidence that Evra is actually more credible. That is what I really can't see....

I think you've summed it up very well. The linguistic meaning is indeed pretty much irrelevant when you read the report and it looks to me like the LFC defense team have made a bit of a balls up in defending Suarez.

The whole focus of the hearing seems to have been trying to determine which account to believe and once they believe the version that Evra gives it's inconceivable to suggest it was a linguistic misunderstanding.

I haven't read the whole report, just the sequence of events bit but the logic by which they have decided to accept Evra's word is a joke but we don't seem to have put much effort into disputing his version of events from what I've read so far and this seems to have been taken as an acceptance by us as to what was said and then we are using a linguistic argument as a defense of what Evra says Suarez said. Which is indeed 'laughable'.

I'm not sure what the rules of appeal are. Yes we can appeal but on what basis are we allowed to appeal? What we must not do is accept Evra's version of events, unless of course (God forbid) it's true, in which case we would have made a huge mistake in the way we have gone about defending Suarez so vigorously.

If he did say that, which I do not believe he did, we should have been completely contrite from the beginning and done everything to turn a negative into a positive and accept any punishment that came. But if he did not say what Evra says he says, and I believe this to be the case, then we absolutely must continue to fight his corner, and ours, to the end regardless of the consequences because, as we know, justice is worth fighting for.

[truefan999]

Considering the impact that this judgement has on Suarez's reputation and career, to base it all on "balance of probability" is a joke.

Having said that, for those that have read the whole report, you have to admit that the inconsistencies shown by Suarez, Kuyt and Comolli are concerning. There are a few things in the report that I think are ridiculous and a bit harsh from the panel, but I wouldn't want to be so blinkered as to believe that Suarez wasn't racially offensive to Evra (which is what the punishment has been based on).

No balance of probabilities is the correct burden. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria is only used in criminal trials. This is not one.

[Suarez]

I wonder what Lebron James is making of all this?

[rodo]

Luis Suarez is coming under increasing pressure to apologise to Patrice Evra as Liverpool were urged to shelve any thoughts of appealing against his eight-game ban.
This follows the release of the Football Association’s report which found the Anfield striker guilty of racially abusing the Manchester United defender seven times in two minutes.
The FA delivered the written verdict on New Year’s Eve and the withering contents of the 115-page document exposed the full details of Suarez’s clash with Evra at Anfield on October 15

According to its findings, Suarez — who admitted using the word ‘negro’ — gave ‘unreliable’ evidence and had ‘damaged the image of English football around the world’.
The row between the pair exploded in the second half of the 1-1 draw when Evra asked Suarez why he had kicked him. Suarez replied ‘Porque tu eres negro’ (because you are black).
The independent three-man Commission, which was led by Paul Goulding QC, illustrated why the case against Suarez was considered proven and why they gave him such a long suspension, plus a £40,000 fine.
The Commission, which also took into account expert evidence that the word ‘negro’ in Uruguay is often used in a friendly way — it can be offensive depending on the context — described Suarez’s version of events as ‘implausible’ and ‘simply incredible’.
While the Commission established that Suarez was not a racist, many will be looking to him to act with contrition and back up his words of November 7 last year when he claimed he or Evra would have to express regret, depending on what the Commission found.
‘Now we have to see how the matter is decided,’ he said while away on international duty with Uruguay.
‘Then — the United player as much as me — we are going to have things clear. And wherever the fault lies, we are going to have to say sorry.’



The Commission reported that because Suarez used the word ‘negro’ so often, the length of ban they administered was necessary to preserve the image of the English game and act as a deterrent. If he was found guilty of two similar offences in the future, Suarez could face a life ban.
Suarez breached the FA rule E3 which prevents reference to any player’s skin colour. In his defence he said: ‘I would refer to Glen Johnson as ‘negro’ in the same way I might refer to Dirk Kuyt as ‘Blondie’ (because of his blond hair) or to Andy Carroll as ‘Grandote’ (Big Man).’
The commission’s report revealed how previously unseen video evidence — including 12 clips of the altercation — were analysed. Evra is described as being an ‘impressive witness’ who gave his evidence in a ‘calm, composed and clear way’.


Liverpool have made no comment since issuing a brief statement on Saturday saying they would ‘consider the contents’ of the report, and they have 12 days left to lodge an appeal.
If they decided not to appeal and Suarez served his suspension immediately, he would next be available for a trip to Old Trafford on February 11.
Should Liverpool appeal, however, Suarez would be able to play in the first leg of the Carling Cup semi-final at Manchester City on January 11.
The risk is that the length of ban could be increased, and the evidence in the report suggests an appeal would be futile.
Piara Powar, executive director of Football Against Racism in Europe, said: ‘Luis Suarez and Liverpool have the right to appeal, but we would call on the club to think again about their public campaign to dispute the charges.
As a club with a good international standing the vehemence of their campaign is unquestionably causing them reputational harm.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz1iHkcEIpX

[sssiho]

Why on earth are Liverpool being advised to accept this judgement? Why is Suarrez being advised to apologise?
From what I have read(I'am absolutely no legal expert) it boils down to being Evra's word against Suarez and the FA have chosen to believe Evra. If Liverpool believe Suarez is innocent they should absolutely follow it through to the bitter end, even if we end up losing.
We must fight for what we believe is right.
It appears to me that Evra was more believable because he was calmer and gave his testimony in a relaxed way, well he's been through this before, so he knows what to expect, he has lived in England a lot longer so his command of the language is much better, and being able to give your version of events whilst watching the video is laughable, do we not think he's been coached by his legal team so that his version was flawless. It also seems that anything anybody connected with Liverpool said was dismissed out of hand in favour of what Evra said and that can't be fair.
To my simple mind there are all sorts of holes in this judgement and a legal expert must be able to find them also and again if Liverpool belive Suarez then they back him to the hilt, whatever it takes to all courts that will hear the evidence.
I'm not stupid I don't think either player is blameless in this, but I also thought that you are innocent until proven guilty in England.

[G]

Two similar offences in future could lead to "a permanent suspension".


What does that mean?

It means he'll be banned for life if hes found to have done it again in the future. Worryingly, given how this one went, he's at much at risk from future fabricated accusations as he would be if he actually did racial abuse someone

[redwill]

Few interesting snippets from Bascombe

By Chris Bascombe
Last Updated: 11:59PM GMT 01/01/2012
Liverpool are coming under mounting pressure to abandon plans to appeal against Luis Suárez’s eight-match suspension following publication of the highly critical judgment in the Patrice Evra race abuse case.

The 115-page written verdict, which was released by the Independent Regulatory Panel on behalf of the Football Association on New Year’s Eve, presented Suárez’s evidence as “unreliable” and “inconsistent” and painted a sorry picture of the manner in which the Merseyside club handled proceedings.

The Professional Footballers’ Association and anti-racism groups have supported the judgment and called on Liverpool to preserve their reputation and accept the verdict.

The commission stated Suárez had referred to Evra as “negro” on seven occasions during the fixture between Liverpool and Manchester United on Oct 15, dismissing a defence which argued it was used just once in the same ‘friendly and conciliatory’ way he applies it to team-mate Glen Johnson.

While United defender Evra was described as an “impressive” witness, Suarez’s key witnesses, Liverpool’s director of football Damien Comolli and forward Dirk Kuyt, were forced to alter their testimony because of contradictions in earlier written statements.

In one of many startling revelations, Suarez’s legal representative, Peter McCormick, admitted some of the club’s own evidence was the subject of “bad drafting”.

Liverpool’s fanciful suggestion that Evra might have had made the abuse charges up because, among other reasons, he was seeking vengeance having been fouled during the game and was also upset at losing the toss before kick-off in a game in which he was United’s captain was dismissed out of hand.

Seventy-two hours after receiving the full adjudication, Liverpool have released only a short statement saying they are still considering a response.

That is not unusual given the timing of the publication in the middle of a Bank Holiday weekend, but still represents a major shift in tone from the belligerence which followed the initial announcement of Suarez’s eight-match suspension and £40,000 fine.

The club’s American owners, Fenway Sports Group, will be disturbed by the contents of the dossier which presents the club’s response in such an amateurish light.

They face serious questions about why Liverpool failed to hold an internal investigation into the affair, why they immediately issued such an emotive statement reacting to the guilty verdict, and why they allowed all their players to become involved in the dispute when they controversially wore T-shirts supporting Suarez against Wigan a fortnight ago.

This was despite their legal team admitting flaws in their own evidence and failing to offer a satisfactory response when quizzed on the contradictions within the club’s and player’s testimony.

Piara Powar, the executive director of Football Against Racism in Europe, says Liverpool risk damaging their reputation unless they accept the findings.

Powar, a former director of the anti-racism organisation Kick It Out, said: “Luis Suarez and Liverpool FC have the right to appeal, however we would call on the club to think again about their public campaign to dispute the charges and contest the principles involved in the case.

“As a club with a good international standing the vehemence of their campaign is unquestionably causing them reputational harm.

“Racial abuse between players on the field of play has been an unspoken taboo for too long, an area that has been unsatisfactorily dealt with by English football despite many cases over the past 10 years.”

Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish had complained about the length of time to hold the hearing, but the written report reveals it was the availability of McCormick, representing Suarez, that determined the dates.

Liverpool chose to immediately reject the allegations based on minimal discussions with the player straight after the match. These were logged by referee Andre Marriner and fourth official Philip Dowd, but there is no reference to the club making their own written record on Oct 15 — despite acknowledging they realised a serious situation was developing.

In the 48 hours after Evra’s complaint, any efforts to resolve the situation privately — PFA chairman Gordon Taylor has admitted he wanted to bring all sides together on the weekend the incident took place — was rejected by Liverpool, who by then were seeking a charge against Evra for a false allegation.

“They needed to get it right and they’ve done all they can to get to the facts of what happened,” said Taylor, in welcoming the written adjudication. “What is coming out is things were said which are not acceptable in this country and I hope are not acceptable in other countries.”

The club’s principal owner, John W, Henry, and chairman Tom Werner will take a hands-on role to resolve the mess, and will give due consideration to the long-term consequence of dragging the saga into the next few months.

Detached from day-to-day events across the Atlantic, it is conceivable that throughout the process they have been bereft of sound counsel about how best to proceed.

The only consoling conclusion from the report was the acknowledgement by all parties Suarez is not a racist and was not found guilty of racially motivated abuse.

However, rule E3 forbids any reference to the colour of a player’s skin within the context of being abusive. Once the panel established the on-pitch spat was confrontational, they concluded Suarez had breached the law and felt a severe penalty was necessary to protect the image of the English game.

In another twist, it has emerged Suarez’s legal representative McCormick was involved in the last high profile FA dispute involving Liverpool and Manchester United in 2007.

McCormick was one of a two-man FA commission which ruled against Liverpool in deciding United had no legal obligation to sell Gabriel Heinze when the Argentine defender wanted to move to Anfield for £6.8 million.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8987529/Liverpool-under-mounting-pressure-to-abandon-plans-to-appeal-against-Luis-Suarezs-eight-match-ban.html

[The_weatherman]

The FA agreed with Patrice Evra's statement. If you believe Patrice Evra and the FA then Suarez is a racist. This is indisputable as far as I'm concerned. If Luis Suarez actually says "because your'e black", "I don't speak to blacks" and "okay, blackie blackie blackie" then he is definitely a racist. It doesn't get much clearer than that. The FA and Evra both stated that they don't believe that Suarez is a racist, but I'm sure that anyone making the statements alleged by Evra must be a racist. John Terry - what did he do? I mean seriously, compared to the allegations made against Suarez, John Terry's abuse is mild by comparison.

If Suarez said these words I think he was taking the piss out of Evra who complained that Marriner only booked him because he was black. Evra asks Suarez why he kicked him and Suarez replies, because your black. Evra is just too thick for irony.

[Suarez]

If Suarez said these words I think he was taking the piss out of Evra who complained that Marriner only booked him because he was black. Evra asks Suarez why he kicked him and Suarez replies, because your black. Evra is just too thick for irony.

We're certainly using every opportunity to make excuses for Suarez. That sounds reasonable though, but then it would only have legs IF he actually heard Evra say that. Do we know that Evra did say that? If this is the case then surely this would've formed part of the evidence?

I don't know what the way forward is with this.

We're not coming across well to the football world at the moment, 99% of the media is giving a very one sided opinion on this sorry affair. We should've known this would happen with the english press, so in that sense that in hindsight I think the T-Shirt thing was ill advised.

I don't know if Suarez is completely innocent of all this, I also don't think Evra's account is 100% accurate, but there is no way that the FA are going to change their decision in any shape or form so what is the point in appealing? Its only going to stoke the fires that are already burning, and football fans from rival clubs are never going to change their opinion, the damage has already been done.

I think its best we just take it and move on.

[KingKenny77]

Evra is a black French man, what about his cultural sensitivities?

He's Senegalese not French. He wasn't born in France.

What about Luis' cultural sensitivities? If Suarez has been racist, ban him, if he has called a black man a Negro then sorry, that's not racist to me. Negro in Spanish means black. Evra is black, so I can't see the problem and Luis speaks a form of Spanish.

This is just another PC driven agenda which is why I'll never support organisations dealing with Racism because they are themselves inherently racist. Olivier Bernard still hasn't responded to my email asking him to disclose which clubs supporters have been making monkey chants in the terraces in English football. It seems to me that Bernard is just like Evra, a natural born liar who is probably a racist himself.