Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[Vermilion]

The Salute.

But pretty much saying what Luis and other Uruguayns have said, that they use Negro 'matter of factly'.

And tbf to her, i too am worried Suarez will now be open to all sorts of abuses from Black players in the heat of battle and in the name of 'get the nasty racist ****!, do people think certain Black players won't have this on their mind when they play against Suarez ?

[Neil Young]

I'm unconvinced that flippancy is going to help.

[Exiled_red]

The line about other black players going looking for him doesn't help things

[badpiggy]

Is it unreasonable to suggest that Luis ' family be asked not to speak to the media even in Uruguay until the whole process is over? ****in mirror. She doesn't say anything unreasonable in one way but it's certainly not just black players who will use this to wind him up from now on.

[Vermilion]

Is it unreasonable to suggest that Luis ' family be asked not to speak to the media even in Uruguay until the whole process is over? ****in mirror. She doesn't say anything unreasonable in one way but it's certainly not just black players who will use this to wind him up from now on.

I think she's more worried about someone hurting him, rather than winding him up though.

[badpiggy]

I think she's more worried about someone hurting him, rather than winding him up though.

Yeah I guess so. But it reads pretty badly - all the "blacks" will be out to get him ffs. Maybe I'm going overboard - and maybe there's nothing could be done - but I have the sense that we're one step behind again. Surely in a case like this the first goddam ******* thing the club agrees is no ****in talking to the poxy press until we have an appeal prepared, heard and ruled on? Including or even especially his Mother in Uruguay who in all fairness is likely to say something that can be easily misconstrued given the highly emotive nature of the case?

[Vermilion]

Yeah I guess so. But it reads pretty badly - all the "blacks" will be out to get him ffs. Maybe I'm going overboard - and maybe there's nothing could be done - but I have the sense that we're one step behind again. Surely in a case like this the first goddam ******* thing the club agrees is no ****in talking to the poxy press until we have an appeal prepared, heard and ruled on?

Tbh, i think she did ok, for an angry MUM that's seen her son put through what he has, and..er..maybe the Mirror asked her if she was worried he'd be a target.

I just hope he doesn't have a sister like Konchesky. (or was that his mum too)

Most telling thing was her assuption that an appeal was imminent.

[TheElephantMan]

I don't understand why the FA have given Suarez an additional opportunity to hurl racist abuse before he gets a permanent ban? They didn't say that he'll be banned next time, but the time after that?! Is that advocating the use of racist abuse?

I still don't understand why if the FA believe Evra's evidence (which clearly they do) they haven't issued a more severe punishment? To racially abuse someone 5, 6, 7 or 10 times on the football pitch - there cannot be any doubt (if Evra is to be believed) that Suarez must be a racist and the FA should ban him permanently now. Except they haven't, they've told him it's okay to do it one more time.

[badpiggy]

Tbh, i think she did ok, for an angry MUM that's seen her son put through what he has, and..er..maybe the Mirror asked her if she was worried he'd be a target.

I just hope he doesn't have a sister like Konchesky. (or was that his mum too)

Yeah she's done OK and it's a Mirror translation of a Uruguayan paper but I still think that it should have been impressed upon Luis and his family - given the almost universally adverse press coverage so far - that saying nothing would protect him far more than saying something supposedly supportive at this stage.

[Mostar]

Tbh, i think she did ok, for an angry MUM that's seen her son put through what he has, and..er..maybe the Mirror asked her if she was worried he'd be a target.

I just hope he doesn't have a sister like Konchesky. (or was that his mum too)

I don't think they did an interview with her. They took the bits and pieces of the one she did for Uruguayan daily paper El Observador and paraphrased it to suit their needs.

I would think this one is kinda "lost in translation".

[badpiggy]

I don't understand why the FA have given Suarez an additional opportunity to hurl racist abuse before he gets a permanent ban? They didn't say that he'll be banned next time, but the time after that?! Is that advocating the use of racist abuse?

I still don't understand why if the FA believe Evra's evidence (which clearly they do) they haven't issued a more severe punishment? To racially abuse someone 5, 6, 7 or 10 times on the football pitch - there cannot be any doubt (if Evra is to be believed) that Suarez must be a racist and the FA should ban him permanently now. Except they haven't, they've told him it's okay to do it one more time.

It's known as the "Terry's Last Chance" rule - we know you're a racist cunt but we'll give you one more chance to get a dig in at someone so make it count cos after that you're in trouble.

[Alex]

THE ANFIELD CRAP

Regista Blog decided life was too quiet for him, so wrote this:

In English football there are few institutions more emotive and seductive than the cult of Liverpool. The club’s slogan ‘You’ll Never Walk Alone’ is a strap line for collective solidarity. This can be a source of great strength and a force for good, such as the ongoing campaign for full disclosure of Cabinet discussions on the Hillsborough tragedy. The Liverpool identity that is promoted by the club sets them apart and the best examples of the Anfield atmosphere are remarkable. It may be one of English football’s great clichés (I’m looking at you, Clive Tyldesley), but when the Kop is in full voice it remains the most impressive display of noise you’re likely to experience in the Premier League. Deep down, most of Liverpool’s rivals know this, and they reveal their jealousy by mocking and deriding the hysterical nature of Liverpool fans. It’s understandable that the Anfield hierarchy is keen to promote the Liverpool identity and defend it from attacks. However, the lengths that their followers will go to preserve it are stretching credulity way beyond breaking point, and in the process creating a legacy that will damage the reputation of Liverpool for years to come.

This train was set in motion by the club’s infamous statement in support of Luis Suarez, but I’m more concerned by the musings of Liverpool fans, eager to take up the cause laid out by their masters. If you thought the official Liverpool FC line was built on shaky ground, then the Anfield Wrap website is very much the house made of straw.

Two of their contributors, Jim Boardman and Rob Gutmann, have posted recent articles in defence of their man, Luis Suarez. The crux of both articles suggests their interpretation of the case is a more sophisticated approach to understanding racism than has been considered by the public or the FA. This is bollocks.

In their pre-emptive strike, (Suarez: why we must stand by our man) published shortly before the FA’s evidence was made public, Gutmann claimed, “it has been unedifying to see how this issue has armed so many with a sense of courage to keenly spot a clear wrong from a right.”

I can only assume Gutmann believes the public have jumped on a ‘hang him high’ bandwagon without considering the evidence, and their outcry is therefore misplaced. He’d have a point, if he and so many other Liverpool fans weren’t guilty of exactly the same response. As Gutmann continues, “This is about justice and politics, and about the pernicious persecution of a good man.” He’s not exactly holding back, despite being in possession of zero evidence. This is powerful stuff, and it is also very wrong.

The position of the Anfield Wrap and that of Liverpool FC is that Suarez didn’t use any language that could be construed as racist. But, in arguing about the failure of everyone else to understand the nuance of what Suarez said, they are ignoring their own subjectivity by promoting their own interpretation above all others. Who are they to tell Patrice Evra what is and isn’t offensive? Thankfully, that wasn’t their job; it was that of the FA’s independent panel.

The credibility of Gutmann’s speculative argument was destroyed by the evidence (that he hadn’t seen). It describes how the Panel was required to consider all of the evidence and take an objective view, as is made clear in paragraph 50 of the written reasons:



“In particular, is it sufficient to prove that in a case such as this, the words or behaviour are objectively speaking abusive or insulting in the judgment of the Commission (the objective test)”

Alas, Gutmann had already speculated that Suarez was “more likely to be referencing the harmless diminutive version, ‘negrito’”. I think we can assume such an arbitrary description of a word as ‘harmless’ would comprehensively fail the objective test.

We now have the evidence, so further speculation is redundant. Depressingly, the Anfield Wrap has chosen not to moderate its views, but to attack what it describes as the ‘When In Rome’ nature of the rules designed to protect against racist abuse (see ‘Out with old, in with the new’). On this issue, they have spectacularly missed the point and torpedoed their credibility in favour of promoting this ridiculous position. The regulations are in place to protect players from racist abuse. To attack them for failing to grasp cultural relativity takes you into very dangerous ground. It is unclear what Jim Boardman is advocating as an alternative, should the rules on racist abuse be amended to apply only to English born players addressing other English born players? Does Patrice Evra have no right to be offended? The evidence describes Evra’s shock at the abuse he suffered from Suarez:

“As the players went into the dressing room at the end of the game, Mr Evra was really angry and upset. Valencia said he could see it. He explained that Mr Evra is not normally angry after games. Mr Evra said that he was angry because Mr Suarez had insulted him.”

I refer you once again to Mr Gutmann’s assertion that Suarez most likely referenced the ‘harmless diminutive’ term, negrito. Bear in mind that Boardman proceeds to chastise the arrogance of England. A more ironic statement you’ll struggle to find.

We know from the evidence that other insults were exchanged, and Boardman is alarmed at the inconsistencies in the evaluation of Evra’s initial exchange with Suarez. His argument is that the FA accepted that the literal translation of Evra’s comment was more offensive than when used in its native Spanish context, but they didn’t accept the same of Suarez. You can argue that point from now to eternity, but you won’t be able to argue that “Concha de tu hermana” is racist abuse. And that is the point that the Anfield Wrap’s authors consistently fail to grasp. This was a trial to determine whether words that were exchanged could be considered as racist abuse. I don’t think this is a difficult concept to grasp, yet still there are Liverpool fans refusing to accept it.

Boardman isn’t finished yet, though. He signs off with a warning that the Panel’s judgement will act as a deterrent to foreign players coming to England, as they “might decide it’s better to play in a country with a cultural background closer to their own”. They might, or they might think, ‘here is a league that takes racist abuse seriously, where the authorities will protect me from being racially abused, and where I won’t be subjected to disgusting, primitive monkey chants as I might be in Italy or Spain’. To argue that the FA are damaging the reputation of the Premier League abroad by penalising Suarez for his behaviour is the most pathetic and embarrassing argument of the lot. If this argument continues, the only reputation likely to suffer lasting damage is that of Liverpool FC.

http://www.surrealfootball.com/2012/01/03/the-anfield-crap/

[Vermilion]

I don't understand why the FA have given Suarez an additional opportunity to hurl racist abuse before he gets a permanent ban? They didn't say that he'll be banned next time, but the time after that?! Is that advocating the use of racist abuse?

I still don't understand why if the FA believe Evra's evidence (which clearly they do) they haven't issued a more severe punishment? To racially abuse someone 5, 6, 7 or 10 times on the football pitch - there cannot be any doubt (if Evra is to be believed) that Suarez must be a racist and the FA should ban him permanently now. Except they haven't, they've told him it's okay to do it one more time.

There is an amost blanket acceptance in english football that the fa are right, i hear people saying things like...'well after the release of the report i see no reason for an appeal' like the evidence is overwhelming, and yet the report is so far from being conclusive it's laughable! w.t.f. is going on in this country ?

[Neil Young]

http://www.surrealfootball.com/2012/...-anfield-crap/

Oh great, so now this website has an analysis from another website about what's been said on yet another website by some people who aren't any closer to events than any of us.

The internet is eating itself.

More heat, less light.

[fred_plasticine]

Oh dear..

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-star-Luis-Suarez-s-mother-I-m-worried-about-his-future-article848604.html

I'm worried black players will target Luis after FA ruling, says Suarez's mother

my gosh, that statement is racist itself as she's basically claiming that black players will try to get their son to racially abuse them.