Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[Havors]

I still maintain the best way forward is to appeal and insist on the use of Lie Detectors. There would only be one winner........Luis

Thats a big assumption. The whole argument is that nobody can prove exactly what was said and in what context it was meant. i.e. there should be no case.

The fact remains that it is possible Suarez used the terms offensively (whether we believe he did or didnt), but it can not be proved by the say so of one unreliable witness.

[Assassin]

Thats a big assumption. The whole argument is that nobody can prove exactly what was said and in what context it was meant. i.e. there should be no case.

The fact remains that it is possible Suarez used the terms offensively (whether we believe he did or didnt), but it can not be proved by the say so of one unreliable witness.

It is a well documented fact that evra is a lying cunt. Most, if not all of his well rehearsed evidence would be shown to be a pack of lies

[Neil Young]

Unfortunately I think we've all watched a little too much Perry Mason/Crown Court/LA Law/Judge John Deed* (delete as appropriate according to your age group). The criterion of judgement is not reasonable doubt, it's balance of probability.

It's therefore not about proof but about who is more credible. From what little I've read the panel has decided to accept Evra's word because he seems to have got his story straight, er, I mean, not changed his story.

What I don't understand is that Evra supposedly said Suarez said it ten times but the panel found him to have used racist lanugage seven times. So Evra doesn't seem all that reliable...

But I can't cba reading the judgement so maybe I've read inaccurate reports.

[Havors]

It is a well documented fact that evra is a lying cunt. Most, if not all of his well rehearsed evidence would be shown to be a pack of lies

Yeah I agree. But by the same token when Suarz is asked "did you mean to offend Evra when saying Negro?" would you be 100% sure that he would pass that question??

Anyway... we are also forgetting that lie detectors are a load of ****e and give false positives and can be manipulated pretty easily, hence they have no credibility in law.

[Havors]

Unfortunately I think we've all watched a little too much Perry Mason/Crown Court/LA Law/Judge John Deed* (delete as appropriate according to your age group). The criterion of judgement is not reasonable doubt, it's balance of probability.

It's therefore not about proof but about who is more credible. From what little I've read the panel has decided to accept Evra's word because he seems to have got his story straight, er, I mean, not changed his story.

What I don't understand is that Evra supposedly said Suarez said it ten times but the panel found him to have used racist lanugage seven times. So Evra doesn't seem all that reliable...

But I can't cba reading the judgement so maybe I've read inaccurate reports.

Thats about right. I cant believe that they actually even charged Suarez; to potentially ruin a players career/life based on hearsay and the word of someone who has previously been described as unreliable and caused countless players to be banned by his national FA is just plain wrong. If there was actually witnesses or evidence then yeah throw the book at him, but there isnt.

[Assassin]

Yeah I agree. But by the same token when Suarz is asked "did you mean to offend Evra when saying Negro?" would you be 100% sure that he would pass that question??

Anyway... we are also forgetting that lie detectors are a load of ****e and give false positives and can be manipulated pretty easily, hence they have no credibility in law.

Negro, as a word is used on a daily basis in Uruguay. I am sure he would easily pass the test

The things that really pisses me off with all of this, is the "South American" comment that kicked off the whole episode. Fergie 3 lackies, agreed this was provocative and the reason for the incident. They should have manned up and said there was no case to answer based on this racist provocation.

[ChesterDave]

Incidentally, when is the referee going to be punished for not taking issue on the racism.

If Evra has such an accurate and true testimony then "thats what you meant by calling you black" means the ref did hear the allegation but didnt question it on the pitch.

Obviously excluding it from his testimony means he was arse covering to make sure he never got in trouble.

Clearly that last sentence is a crazy suggestion but it is silly season.

[Jack D Rips]

So far I have read 80 pages and to be honest they have made it look as though there is more unexplainable inconsistencies in Suarez's evidence than that of Evra.

But it seems to me that they have gone out of their way to highlight the Suarez inconsistencies but have gone the other to bring up plausible reasons for Evra's.

For example, evra claims that he told the ref during the match that he hd been called black, but in the ref's room claimed he had been called a n****r fives times, whilst on Canal TV he claimed that he had been abused ten times. The committee explain that by saying he was thinking of the Italian ( WTF) word "negre" which means n****r when in the refs room, and the the 10 times claim is a nuance of the French language. They also accept that he told the ref he had been called black was because he was uncomfortable using the word n****r.

[Exiled_red]

Unfortunately I think we've all watched a little too much Perry Mason/Crown Court/LA Law/Judge John Deed* (delete as appropriate according to your age group). The criterion of judgement is not reasonable doubt, it's balance of probability.

It's therefore not about proof but about who is more credible. From what little I've read the panel has decided to accept Evra's word because he seems to have got his story straight, er, I mean, not changed his story.

What I don't understand is that Evra supposedly said Suarez said it ten times but the panel found him to have used racist lanugage seven times. So Evra doesn't seem all that reliable...

But I can't cba reading the judgement so maybe I've read inaccurate reports.

Keep up, the FA accepted that when he said 'at least 10 times' he didn't mean it literally

[Baracus]

The quicker this thing ends the better for the club it would be. It died down over the last couple of days with the Shock Premiership results now its flared up again

[Neil Young]

Keep up, the FA accepted that when he said 'at least 10 times' he didn't mean it literally

Of course, silly me. How very kind of the FA to be so forgiving of the inconsistencies in Evra's version of events.

[Jack D Rips]

Of course, silly me. How very kind of the FA to be so forgiving of the inconsistencies in Evra's version of events.

Yes indeed. The nuances of the French language are clearly more believable that the nuances of the Spanish language.

[topscorer]

The 'black', 'n***r' thing is bull****.

He speaks Spanish and has Spanish colleagues in the dressing room and he and Suarez spoke to each other in Spanish.

It would be impossible for someone that even only spoke 'restaurant' Spanish not to know that negro means black and can never ever be translated as meaning 'n****r', as the Browns University guy said the n word doesn't even exist in Spanish.

So in my mind Evra has deliberately and in a calculated way exaggerated what was said for effect when speaking with team mates, his boss and later when he went to the referee.

That by itself undermines his credibility as a witness because it shows vengeful intentions.

[wavydavy]

Isn't then the logical thing for the FA to do is compile a list of words not to be uttered on the field of play? Then everyone know where they stand. If someone comes up with a phrase (negrito,negro etc?) that's not on the list then he's given the benefit of the doubt and it is then decided whether it warrants being put on the list. Ridiculous I know but this is getting seriously ****ed up IMO. Players need protecting from being tarred racist or homophobic for merely uttering a certain word or phrase. You can bet your bollocks to a barndance this incident will be repeated soon. As soon as the stakes are high enough it will.

[Jack D Rips]

The 'black', 'n***r' thing is bull****.

He speaks Spanish and has Spanish colleagues in the dressing room and he and Suarez spoke to each other in Spanish.

It would be impossible for someone that even only spoke 'restaurant' Spanish not to know that negro means black and can never ever be translated as meaning 'n****r', as the Browns University guy said the n word doesn't even exist in Spanish.

So in my mind Evra has deliberately and in a calculated way exaggerated what was said for effect when speaking with team mates, his boss and later when he went to the referee.

That by itself undermines his credibility as a witness because it shows vengeful intentions.

Strangely enough all his team mates say that he claimed he was called black.

Im not sure if it has any significance but I've noticed that the four team mates he spoke to Nani, Hernandez, Anderson and Valencia, and who sent in written statements, were not on the pitch at the time of the incidents.

Seems strange that he should just speak to four guys who were sitting on the bench when it happened.