Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[BootRoom]

For all we know our lawyers made all the relevant points about language that the article brings up, Suarez's use of words etc etc, and they still ****ed us over.

Maybe that's why we were so sure he'd be found not guilty, and that's why we're so pissed and have acted so forthrightly.

All the points we made are in the report. If we appeal the findings of the report, the report's author can't answer a specific point by saying "oh, we considered that point and after some deliberation we dismissed it, but we didn't include it in the report".

This Brown University fella says he has read the whole report, and the gist I get from him is that the points he's making haven't been addressed in the report.

[Vermilion]

All the points we made are in the report. If we appeal the findings of the report, the report's author can't answer a specific point by saying "oh, we considered that point and after some deliberation we dismissed it, but we didn't include it in the report".

This Brown University fella says he has read the whole report, and the gist I get from him is that the points he's making haven't been addressed in the report.

I see. I wonder what the fa would have said to that evidence being presented, that Suarez wouldn't talk like that, wouldn't use those words.

They'd probably say..like they did with Kuyt, "don't believe you...and whatever Evra says is good enough for us"

[JHP]

I'd be on the blower to Browns university right now and organising Flight tickets for that lad.

What's he said, I can't find anything?

[BootRoom]

I see. I wonder what the fa would have said to that evidence being presented, that Suarez wouldn't talk like that, wouldn't use those words.

They'd probably say..like they did with Kuyt, "don't believe you...and whatever Evra says is good enough for us"

That's why I don't think there is much hope of success for an appeal within the FA's framework. The report bends over backwards and does multiple backflips to support Evra at every turn. They'll just give it the Suarez-is-an-unreliable-witness-therefore-EVERYTHING-he-says-is-bollocks routine, together with the Evra-is-an-impressive-witness-therefore-EVERYTHING-he-says-is-gospel nonsense.

[Jack D Rips]

I've just read a couple of things suggesting that they do use this 'balance of probability', if they don't normally then presumably an appeal on these grounds should be fairly easy on a change of procedure type technicality, however I suspect that won't be the case.

It says in the report that all parties agreed to a "probability" verdict

[Fivex]

In that case it's clearly not based on probability - it's based on favouritism.

[Fivex]

Hang on - why would we even agree to them using 'balance of probability' in the first place when Suarez was the only one being charged?

[RichC]

yup, completly and utterly stitched up - no way was this a fair hearing!

[G]

What's he said, I can't find anything?

Post 4797 on the previous page

http://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=2178385&postcount=4797

[Jack D Rips]

Hang on - why would we even agree to them using 'balance of probability' in the first place when Suarez was the only one being charged?

Who knows. We seemed to either agree to or lose the argument on all procedures

[BootRoom]

It says in the report that all parties agreed to a "probability" verdict

Eh? Where does it say that? Paragraphs 76 - 80 deal with the burden of proof, and I don't see where it says we agreed to it.

76. Regulation 7.3 of the Disciplinary Regulations is in these terms:
"The applicable standard of proof shall be the flexible civil standard of the balance of
probability. The more serious the allegation, taking into account the nature of the
Misconduct alleged and the context of the case, the greater the burden of evidence
required to prove the matter."

77. There are two different standards of proof which can apply in legal cases. One is the
criminal standard which applies in criminal cases. The jury must be satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt, or as it is sometimes put, so that it is sure, that the accused committed
the alleged crime.

78. The other standard is the civil standard on the balance of probability. This is enshrined in
Regulation 7.3 set out above, and applies to this case. It is a lower standard than the
criminal standard. It is for the FA to satisfy us on the balance of probability that Mr Suarez
breached the Rules. Alternative formulations for the civil standard are sometimes used,
such as more likely than not to be correct, or probably correct.

79. Regulation 7.3 includes an important reference to the civil standard of proof being flexible.
This means, as the Regulation states, that the more serious the allegation, taking into
account the nature of the Misconduct alleged and the context of the case, the greater the
burden of evidence required to prove the matter. This is sometimes described in this way:
the more serious the allegation, the less likely it is to have happened, and therefore the
greater the burden of evidence required to prove that it did. This does not set the standard
any higher than the balance of probability. But, the more serious the allegation, the
greater the burden of evidence required to prove the matter to that standard.

80. The FA accepts that the Charge against Mr Suarez is serious, as do we. It is for this reason
that we have reminded ourselves that a greater burden of evidence is required to prove
the Charge against Mr Suarez.

[JHP]

Post 4797 on the previous page

http://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=2178385&postcount=4797

Thanks I really hope that's not a fabricated story. It would indicate that in their haste to arrive at a decision they failed to fully understand and evaluate properly the evidence. Also that the "experts" were questionable, though I think the legal definition of expert is the most knowledgeable (about the topic) in the room.

[Jack D Rips]

31. In accordance with the Chairman's direction, the parties agreed that the following were,
simply stated, the issues which the Commission was required to address:
31.1. On the balance of probabilities, is the account of Mr Evra true and reliable?

[BootRoom]

31. In accordance with the Chairman's direction, the parties agreed that the following were,
simply stated, the issues which the Commission was required to address:
31.1. On the balance of probabilities, is the account of Mr Evra true and reliable?

The highlighted text is what they agreed on; they had no discretion in determining if the account of Evra was true beyond reasonable doubt or true on the balance of probability.

[Mostar]

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.

We are anti-racism club. We don't need to prove that to anybody..I don't see Chavs demonstrating that in any way after Terry's situation either..

I cant be ****ed to read it, can someone summarise please?

Basically that the way spanish language is used in Rio De la Plata in Uruguay, where Luis grew up, there is no way that he would have used "porque tu eres negro" phrase when talking to Evra, which should have destroyed Evra's credibility.

Basically it is Linguistic proof that Evra lied in his statement and it should be discredited especially as his statement was seen and used as more reliable in making their decision.