Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[Exiled_red]

Funny how people think differently, but so far, i've seen nor heard nothing that 'convinces' me of Suarez's guilt.

And if i'm to tar someone for making racist comments, and thus tar hium as a racist for the rest of his life...i need that evidence.

I think he has made a comment about Evra's colour which he has basically admitted, he was always going to get a ban for that under the rules regardless of context.

I'm not convinced he has said what Evra is claiming, there is no evidence to back this up. But the more I think about this, the more I think that the clubs initial approach hasn't helped matters. If we accept that he has made a comment to Evra about his colour (offensive or not) and the club then attack Evra's character (justifiably or not) I don't think this helps our case.

[Vermilion]

That he's made a comment is obvious, he's admitted it, but he says it was one comment, and a matter of factual one, not an insult meant as a racist one, i think Evra has taken this and ran with it, regardless of any real evidence...the fa have taken his hand and skipped along with him. imo.

edit: Actually no, it's Evra and the FA on the outside....Fergie in the middle....all skipping along happy in the knowledge they are nailing LFC......and the FA are nailing Blatter to the mast for his 'leniency' on racism and us not getting the world cup!

[badpiggy]

The club went at the situation like deluded and emotive fans. We were an organisation that had one of its employees accused of racism and we came out as being pro the employee and not against racism. I'm fairly sure even the 16 year old work experience student who makes the coffee in our PR firm knows why this is wrong.

[Vermilion]

The club went at the situation like deluded and emotive fans. We were an organisation that had one of its employees accused of racism and we came out as being pro the employee and not against racism. I'm fairly sure even the 16 work experience student who makes the coffee in our PR firm knows why this is wrong.

You have 16 students making you coffee...

[badpiggy]

You have 16 students making you coffee...

****in right

[Vermilion]

****in right

Have whips too i bet.

[Vermilion]

Shame really, but the moral of this story is.... Guilty or Innocent.....When faced with a similar situation to Suarez..........LIE!

When Suarez was convicted, come on be honest, even those thinking he may not be all sweetness and light in this, when he was found guilty...did you think the FA must have more on him than they've been shown to have ?

I did, the only witness seems to be Kuyt, who gave good...bad evidence against Evra.

[Fredo]

The club went at the situation like deluded and emotive fans. We were an organisation that had one of its employees accused of racism and we came out as being pro the employee and not against racism. I'm fairly sure even the 16 year old work experience student who makes the coffee in our PR firm knows why this is wrong.

Thank **** we did that, normally it's the other way round.

[Exiled_red]

That he's made a comment is obvious, he's admitted it, but he says it was one comment, and a matter of factual one, not an insult meant as a racist one, i think Evra has taken this and ran with it, regardless of any real evidence...the fa have taken his hand hand and skipped along with him. imo.

I don't think that matters under the current rules - whether they are right or wrong is another matter. Suarez was always going to get some punishment for that. I think the club should have focused on pointing out that the comment wasn't racist and was made due to cultural differences, and should have attempted to put a stop to the process as soon as possible. By allowing the PFA and the players to get together and deal with it (I find it odd that LFC didn't agree to this).

I think the club should have been aware that this balance or probabilities thing was quite likely so should have focused on getting a strong case together based on Suarez' version of events. I think rejection of PFA mediation and attacking Evra will have got the FA and Man Utd's backs up and we should have had good reasons for doing so beyond a strong defence.

I think that Evra has exagerated or (at least) misunderstood some of what was said. If we had presented our/Suarez' case in a consistent manner and then highlighted the inconsistencies in Evra's case and his previous form, rather than calling him a liar from the outset I think we would have had a stronger case and it would have been more difficult for the panel to pick one version of events or the other. In some ways I think the club have acted naively in this case and we may have tried to play the man rather than the ball.

[Vermilion]

I don't think that matters under the current rules - whether they are right or wrong is another matter. Suarez was always going to get some punishment for that. I think the club should have focused on pointing out that the comment wasn't racist and was made due to cultural differences, and should have attempted to put a stop to the process as soon as possible. By allowing the PFA and the players to get together and deal with it (I find it odd that LFC didn't agree to this).

I think the club should have been aware that this balance or probabilities thing was quite likely so should have focused on getting a strong case together based on Suarez' version of events. I think rejection of PFA mediation and attacking Evra will have got the FA and Man Utd's backs up and we should have had good reasons for doing so beyond a strong defence.

I think that Evra has exagerated or (at least) misunderstood some of what was said. If we had presented our/Suarez' case in a consistent manner and then highlighted the inconsistencies in Evra's case and his previous form, rather than calling him a liar from the outset I think we would have had a stronger case and it would have been more difficult for the panel to pick one version of events or the other. In some ways I think the club have acted naively in this case and we may have tried to play the man rather than the ball.

I don't see how the club would feel the FA would basically brand Suarez a racist on the back of probabilty, especially after looking at the evidence needed in other cases, ie. Emre, no 'probablity' used there, two witnessess within earshot, both reacted to Emre violently at the time on the pitch as it happened...did he probably say it ?

[Fredo]

I don't think the club called Evra a liar. Somewhere in the statement there was a reference to Kenny questioning Evra having a precedent of being a bull****ter, that's about it.

[badpiggy]

FFS this was not the time to take an LFC vs the world stance. Like it or not we should have tried to defuse the situation and be seen to be proactively and obviously anti-racism.

[Exiled_red]

I don't see how the club would feel the FA would basically brand Suarez a racist on the back of probabilty, especially after looking at the evidence needed in other cases, ie. Emre, no 'probablity' used there, two witnessess within earshot, bothe reacted to Emre violently at the time on the pitch.

It seems that this balance of probabilities is what the FA work on in cases where there are two different versions of events that they can't verify independently. I would have thought the club should have been aware of this.

[Fredo]

FFS this was not the time to take an LFC vs the world stance. Like it or not we should have tried to defuse the situation and be seen to be proactively and obviously anti-racism.

But there's **** all evidence mate. Unless the FA comes out with an 'appeal proof' version there's a lot to infer that Suarez has been hard done by. It's too important an issue to dismiss like that. Take the ****ers to court for tarnishing his and the club's image. Too many morons jumping on the bandwagon after 115 pages of 'probabilities'.

[Vermilion]

It seems that this balance of probabilities is what the FA work on in cases where there are two different versions of events that they can't verify independently. I would have thought the club should have been aware of this.

To me it would have seemed the fa doesn't use 'probabiltiy' in these so serious cases, going by their own precedent, which i'm sure our lawyers will have looked at.

I'm just not seeing any real evidence, enough to convict for such a serious, maybe life altering offence if found guilty.

Anyway, i'll leave it in the hands of our lawyers, Skyrim is a calling.