Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[BootRoom]

When Terry gets off, the difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "balance of probability" will be conveniently overlooked as our hero is lauded for his brave fight and bulldog spirit.

[BigChief]

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.

Beware Trojans bearing gifts. This Brown's Unversity lecturer could be a hoax. His claim is Porque Tu Es Negro does not make grammatical sense in Madrid or Montevideo. But I did a basic google translation and it translated perfectly.

Do we have any Spanish residents / speakers here that can verify if the bit in bold is a grammatically correct sentence in your version of Spanish?

[The_weatherman]

Beware Trojans bearing gifts. This Brown's Unversity lecturer could be a hoax. His claim is Porque Tu Es Negro does not make grammatical sense in Madrid or Montevideo. But I did a basic google translation and it translated perfectly.

Do we have any Spanish residents / speakers here that can verify if the bit in bold is a grammatically correct sentence in your version of Spanish?

Exactly, Evra used it writing up the screen play

[Jack D Rips]

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.

They clearly agreed on point 31.1. All of it. Not half of it.

[MrMichael]

Beware Trojans bearing gifts. This Brown's Unversity lecturer could be a hoax. His claim is Porque Tu Es Negro does not make grammatical sense in Madrid or Montevideo. But I did a basic google translation and it translated perfectly.

Do we have any Spanish residents / speakers here that can verify if the bit in bold is a grammatically correct sentence in your version of Spanish?

I'm pretty sure we don't have any natives of Uruguay posting.

I really don't think google translate disproves his post mate, nobody's arguing that that phrase doesn't translate into Spanish, the argument is that its just not the form of Spanish someone with Suarez' background would even choose to use. A bit like comparing "the queen's English" and someone from Australia's speech. Init Fernandinho?

Or perhaps a Geordie even

[BootRoom]

Beware Trojans bearing gifts. This Brown's Unversity lecturer could be a hoax. His claim is Porque Tu Es Negro does not make grammatical sense in Madrid or Montevideo. But I did a basic google translation and it translated perfectly.

Do we have any Spanish residents / speakers here that can verify if the bit in bold is a grammatically correct sentence in your version of Spanish?

He actually said:

"The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish."

I did the google translate too, and underneath the Spanish fragment after the translation it said: "Did you mean: porque tu eres negro", of which the Brown Uni fella says:

"In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid", because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”.

[BootRoom]

They clearly agreed on point 31.1. All of it. Not half of it.

The only part of the text that could be changed if they didn't agree is the part I highlighted. We had no discretion to change the burden of proof from "balance of probability" to "beyond reasonable doubt". I have already shown you the segment of the report that states this.

[REDTILDEAD]

In Leymans terms, Evra is a gimp and wound up Suarez deliberately calling him Suad or something, which it self has racist over tones, so Luis asked why because you are black and the gimp got a sad on.

This, in the FA's own code is a 2 game ban with a possible extension to 4 games normally, so why 8?

Also, if we get through the next 2 rounds of the FA Cup, I believe Luis might be available for the Carling Cup Final if we beat City.

We should ask for Evra to be charged as well and get our head down with the is ban!

[Arn]

He's already been tracked down

Seen this just now on twitter

http://brown.edu/Departments/Hispani...?id=1187272621

The club should use him as a witness when they appeal.

[TheElephantMan]

The club should use him as a witness when they appeal.

As long as he's a real person and the things he said are actually true.

[Shaggy]

That professor guy has made more posts in that thread and also copied one of his follow up posts on to his FB page

https://www.facebook.com/aldo.mazzucchelli/posts/2698938124695

Aldo Mazzucchelli

Mi último post relativo al asunto, también publicado en foros del Liverpool hoy. Saludos

Appealing?
I am really touched by all the comments following my post and I thank you all. I am no lawyer so I cannot have a grounded professional opinion on whether Liverpool should appeal or not. I have always seen the case as a disgrace, in the sense that what is really at stake seems to involve some of the contents of the public imaginary in GBritain --contents that, in some clear ways, are not nice towards us South Americans. The particular image Luis is projecting (I would say he is vaguely perceived by his rivals and the general public, with the exception of the Liverpool fans, as both a cunning and dangerous individual) set him up for this. It was just a matter of when he would make a mistake--or something that could be presented that way. That mistake happened.

In the football codes of our area of the world, Evra should be considered a pariah --and I wouldn't like to be him in the pitch facing some of the friends or fellow players of the guy he attacked. But in your codes, it seems it is seen the other way around by many--as if Evra was doing "Public Justice" or "the Law" a big favor with his report.

There are clear codes in football--at least in our football game in South America. Evra has not understood this, or is voluntarily breaking them.

It is not that we don't see football as an important thing, but (maybe because we have always had much bigger problems than that to cope with) we just cannot understand when somebody crosses the line and makes what was clearly a normal discussion within the limits of the game, occasion for a public lynching of a colleague. Justice is not being served there because the whole thing is completely out of proportion.

Let me quote something the great Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges said in one of his essays --and what he says about Argentines applies equally well to Uruguayans, since we are such close and similar countries and basically the same culture:

"The Argentine, unlike the Americans of the North and almost all Europeans, does not identify with the State. This is attributable to the circumstance that the governments in this country tend to be awful, or to the general fact that the State is an inconceivable abstraction. One thing is certain: the Argentine is an individual, not a citizen. Aphorisms such as Hegel's "The State is the reality of the moral idea" strike him as sinister jokes. Films made in Hollywood often hold up for admiration the case of a man (usually a journalist) who seeks out the friendship of a criminal in order to hand him over to the police; the Argentine, for whom friendship is a passion and the police a mafia, feels that this "hero" is an incomprehensible swine." (Borges, "Our Poor Individualism")

In our South American vision, Evra falls right into the category of the incomprehensible swine. You might have a discussion in the field, but to go out to the authorities and report a fellow player with the clear purpose of destroying his career is even worse than trying to break his leg. The captain of the Uruguay national team, Diego Lugano, said exactly this: that Evra was breaking all football codes. I think Evra made a huge human mistake, and I can see he is getting away with it, which aggravates me a big deal and is the motivation I had to took the pains of reading the 115 pages of the **** the FA offered the world. I don't understand why Evra did what he did; I do not understand how come he suddenly became so hatred towards a fellow player --especially since Suarez does not seem to have done anything outside what could be consider normal exchanges in any football match --some winding up, some insulting, etc. For us South Americans, football is a GAME, not a High Morals public school or something like that. You need to keep things that happen in the field confined to that dimension, because football IS A GAME. To some extent, players are actors in a public performance. And they are, of course, not serious representatives of the public morals making display of ideal ethics of a given society. They should not be judged on those absolute grounds. It looks to me like the case of those members of primitive theatrical plays that would jump into the stage to defend the actress being assaulted by the villain...

I perceive a self-righteous attitude in everything surrounding Suarez's case in England that, to some extent, is out of proportion--to the extent is is almost hilarious. Now, making some normal events on a football pitch part of a public discussion on racism and using Suarez as a weapon on that discussion (basically, making Suarez himself a sort of a bomb-man that has been detonated, destroying Suarez's image) is disgusting, at least to me.

Maybe the best thing would be to negotiate with the FA a way that, after a calculated and silent appeal, the penalty would end up being reduced a little bit, and on the other hand the player and Liverpool would issue a strong statement saying that 1) it has been stated by the FA and by Evra that Suarez is obviously not racist (quoting the FA paragraphs that say that), 2) that it was not the intention of Suarez to offend Evra, or to compromise Liverpool reputation in the battle against racism, and 3) that Luis Suarez will make an extra effort to participate and help even more in campaigns against racism.

After that, Luis should take the ban, get some rest, and come back for a great final half of the season for Liverpool. He can still do a lot of good to Liverpool and himself, and I guess that this could help him out learning a lesson about how careful you need to be while in such an visible public position. Probably the rivals would start respecting him even more after they see he accepted the penalty and they start perceiving how out of proportion all this issue has grown. People are noble after all, and I am sure many players will feel sympathetic for Luis.

This scapegoating of Suarez might end up integrating him even more definitely into British football culture, which I don't think would be a bad outcome at all for him --and might help British culture, after it has vented all its anger and prejudice, to take a step in the direction of understanding foreign cultures a little bit more --and start laughing a little bit more about football and what is at stake in it. No wonder it is South American players, used to consider football just a game you play for fun where you intend to defeat your rival through invention and, yes, some level of "cheating", among the ones that are bringing the most imaginative and creative ways of playing into England fields. Or isn't a good dribbling a form of deceiving (cheating) your rival?

[Mostar]

I wouldn't say that I agree with everything he said but nevertheless very interesting read.

[Kenneth]

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.

Indeed.

[ChesterDave]

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.

Its possible. We cant tell though, because the FA have neglected to include the original language transcript of the interview.

[TheElephantMan]

It irks me that we're expected to quietly accept the punishment, apologise and move on. I'm incensed at the way the FA have handled this. If any club can smash those self-serving *******s we can. We're always up for the fight and this is well worth fighting for, there is no evidence whatsoever. This is a total stitch-up and we need to fight our corner. We haven't been as professional as we should have been thus far, this really needs to be sorted out. With the right people on board we should be able to destroy the weak arguments in the FA's verdict. I have no understanding of legal practice, but the document released by the FA is so full of holes that it simply has to be challenged. Despite the fact that everyone else seems to be eager to agree with the crap contained within the report, the discrepancies are obvious and we can easily dismiss the FA's limp reasoning.