Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[Jack D Rips]

danroan Dan Roan
Piara Power Exec Director of Football Against Racism in Europe calls on FA to charge Liverpool FC for disrepute over Suarez statements

[Exiled_red]

danroan Dan Roan
Piara Power Exec Director of Football Against Racism in Europe calls on FA to charge Liverpool FC for disrepute over Suarez statements

**** off

[Chrono]

badlyoverdrawndave jones


@


@TSKeysandGray Dignity from you! Hilarious. GET 2 BAGS OF CEMENT GET ONE FREE ONLY AT WICKES!!

1 minute ago FavoriteReplyDelete

FLMAO!

[McDermotX]

danroan Dan Roan
Piara Power Exec Director of Football Against Racism in Europe calls on FA to charge Liverpool FC for disrepute over Suarez statements

No doubt that other ****er Carlisle will be onto to SSN with his job interview attempt.........oh, I mean opinion.

[Chrono]

danroan Dan Roan
Piara Power Exec Director of Football Against Racism in Europe calls on FA to charge Liverpool FC for disrepute over Suarez statements

No chance that would ever happen. The FA are incompetant but not completely stupid, from their comments about welcoming us not challenging the ban it's pretty obvious that both sides have decided to leave it. They know that if they push us further that unlike most clubs we will come out swinging and take no prisoners. The FA know that however badly they could screw us if we ever challenged this we could drag their name through the courts and throw all sorts of mud.

[Assassin]

No chance that would ever happen. The FA are incompetant but not completely stupid, from their comments about welcoming us not challenging the ban it's pretty obvious that both sides have decided to leave it. They know that if they push us further that unlike most clubs we will come out swinging and take no prisoners. The FA know that however badly they could screw us if we ever challenged this we could drag their name through the courts and throw all sorts of mud.

Fully agree

[Shaggy]

Yep, they won't charge Kenny as they know it would mean Kenny has to give a blow by blow account of what actually happened....opening a can of worms the FA are desperate to keep a lid on.

[Reece]

Nothing new but

Matt Dickinson @DickinsonTimes 2m Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Sorry, mad day but thanks for all the feedback re Suarez piece. And, yes, still more to emerge via @TonyBarretTimes in tmrw paper

[RichC]

danroan Dan Roan
Piara Power Exec Director of Football Against Racism in Europe calls on FA to charge Liverpool FC for disrepute over Suarez statements

If this happens then Kenny will have to explain his actions and perhaps divulge the bits that are not out in the open, get the feeling he wants that

[Craig_H]

badlyoverdrawndave jones

@

@TSKeysandGray Dignity from you! Hilarious. GET 2 BAGS OF CEMENT GET ONE FREE ONLY AT WICKES!!

1 minute ago FavoriteReplyDelete

[McDermotX]

Ah memories ........

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...l-1280049.html

Alex Ferguson, the Manchester United, yesterday denied that his goalkeeper Peter Schmeichel had racially abused the Arsenal striker Ian Wright and described the accusation as a "slur" on the club.

Ferguson was responding to claims by Wright in the Sun newspaper that the scuffle with the Danish international in the tunnel at the end of Wednesday's highly-charged Premiership game at Highbury had been provoked by racial abuse.

The pair had earlier clashed on the pitch when a two-footed lunge by Wright left Schmeichel clutching his ankle.

"We can categorically deny any racist remark whatsoever from Peter Schmeichel, I can assure you of that," Ferguson told Sky Sport. "There is no question of that, so it's very disappointing to read that. He's very upset. He's got a family to think about too, his family back in Denmark reading all this."

Ferguson considers the accusation as a "slur" on the reputation of United, who are a "worldwide institution". He pointed out that the club frequently spread the football message overseas.

"Two years ago we were coaching in the townships of South Africa," he said. "And Peter was part of that. We have supporters everywhere in the world. We place great store in our reputation, so it's a big slur on us"

Schmeichel's reputation is already under threat from the possibility of criminal charges relating to alleged racist abuse arising from an incident with Wright when the teams met in the Premiership at Old Trafford in November.

Ferguson's defence of his keeper was echoed by Arsene Wenger's assertion that Wright's tackle on Schmeichel did not rate in his top 30 worst tackles this season. The Arsenal manager insisted that it was the media and public's reaction that was over the top and not the striker's attempt to win the ball from the keeper.

"I have seen many tackles and punches that have not been judged or seen by the referee and nobody talks about them," he said. "I can show you 30 worse tackles since the beginning of the season in the Premier League that nobody spoke about.

"Is it a foul or is it the personalities of the two people involved, or is it the game? I think there is a little bit of all of that, more than the foul."

As the clamour for the Association to charge Wright grew, Wenger added: "I think it looked worse than it was. Maybe it was so spectacular because he jumped high but he touched the ball with two feet. I think it was a foul but I am really surprised [at the fuss] because the referee has made his decision. I am surprise that people still speak about that."

Wright has denied that he deliberately went over the ball. "I admit I lunged in, but I landed on the ball, not the man," he said. "The referee did not book me and there was no intent to hurt anyone."

Of the tunnel scuffle, Wright said: "I wouldn't have reacted like that if it was an ordinary insult. It was racial and completely out of order."

Wenger attempted to defuse the situation by suggesting a novel way of ending the feud.

"I think it will be good to bring this to an end because I think so much has been created from such a small thing," he said. "Maybe they will meet before the next game and sort this out, and kill each other!"

Ruud Gullit, Chelsea's dreadlocked manager, also resorted to humour when he disclosed how he keeps his temper when insulted on the pitch.

"If someone calls me a black so-and-so, I don't take it as a racist thing because I am black!" said Gullit, whose team play Manchester United in another vital title game at Stamford Bridge today. "Take it as a compliment, it means they are probably afraid of you."

As one of the most gifted players of his generation, the Dutchman with a Surinam background was confronted by all kinds of abuse from opponents desperate to unsettle him.

"The key is that there is emotion in the game and if someone is red, you'll call them a red whatsoever," he said.

"The best thing always for every player, wherever he comes from, is to just try to play well and play your own game and then all these things vanish.

"If people are swearing at me that means they are afraid of me. That gives me a sort of superiority over them."

However, he draws the line at organised racism. "When Ajax played in Hungary the crowd made jungle sounds all the time when the black players had the ball. That is abusive," he said.

"That had nothing to do with the football game, it had nothing to do with emotions, it wasn't funny."

[JHP]

Was speaking with an enlightened manu fan today. His view was that Evra obviously thought he heard something offensive and obvious Suarez thought he'd done nothing to cause offence. His view is that instead of alienating both sets of fans (given that we both have a fair share of morons) the FA, recognising Suarez isn't thought to be a racist, should have sought conciliation and tried to unite players, clubs and fans against racism.
Instead they've heightened animosity between the clubs and he's fearful of the consequences when both clubs meet next month if either Evra or Suarez play, worried that there could even be knifing attacks between fans.

I agree with his assessment but hope his prediction doesn't come true.

[Shaggy]

http://www.pfai.ie/news/283-stuarts-inquiry

STUART'S INQUIRY

TUESDAY, 03 JANUARY 2012 15:56

The Curious Case of Luis Suarez . . . . . . .

It has become an unavoidable cliche that the Suarez/Evra case cannot be viewed as black or white. Since New Year's Eve, when a 115 page tome landed in our inboxes, many opinions have been expressed as to whether the FA Regulatory Commission has got it right or wrong. Most have jumped to the conclusion that since the report is well written, very long, detailed and presented in nicely worded legalese, that it must be correct.

The truth, like with many tribunal decisions and, indeed most likely the case itself, lies somewhere in-between. There is much to be admired in the manner in which the commission dissected very complex linguistic issues as well as the nuances of what was said and not said. They have reported the facts in great detail and the result is that many of us are in a position to draw our conclusions.

That said, the report's findings are somewhat flawed and, in particular, the sanction meted out is completely out of line with the evidence and even the commission's own conclusions.

I should say, at this point, I am a Liverpool fan but also the solicitor for the PFAI, the League of Ireland's players' union. Although my allegiances are naturally with Luis Suarez, I'd like to think that I would take a similar view if a League of Ireland player asked me to represent them in similar circumstances. Indeed, I have defended an Irish player, Jason McGuinness, where allegations of insulting behaviour with racial overtones were made. He received a five match ban.

The Suarez case is unique in its complexity but in the end it comes down to some fairly basic questions.

1. What is the burden of proof?

2. Did Suarez use the word "negro" and, if so, how often?

3. If he did use this word, what should the punishment be?


The first question has been the subject of much debate and many commentators seem to believe that the "balance of probabilities" burden is too low. The implication is that the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" should apply.

I don't believe this is correct and instead a hybrid that is often used in tribunals where professional conduct is the subject of review is more appropriate. It is usually expressed as "highly probable" and it appear that the commission have rather clumsily agreed to this level by stating that this was a serious allegation and the more serious the charge, the greater the burden. It is a great pity that they didn't express this in clearer terms but I think it is fair to say that the test of high probability is what was applied and if so, I believe this was correct.

However, it's one thing to select the right burden of proof and it's quite another to apply it. This is where the commission made its first mistake. It's patently clear, and admitted by Suarez, that the word "negro" was used at least once. Whether it was used again is a matter of great debate and certainly could not be described as highly probable.

Quite simply, the only evidence that there was more than one use of the word comes from Evra himself and without independent corroboration, in addition to the inevitable linguistic confusion which is central to the whole case, it simply cannot even be described as probable, much less highly probable.

While the commission quite rightly point out inaccuracies in Suarez's evidence, they do not justify their quantum leap from this to believing everything Evra says without a scintilla of independent evidence.

Now, this is not to say Suarez is innocent. He's not, he deserves a ban for the inappropriate use of the word "negro" that he has admitted but this needs to be proportionate to what can be legitimately proven and not the educated conjecture of the commission.

The range of sanctions available is effectively from two matches upwards. It is clear that he is in breach of regulations and must serve at least a two match ban. Since there is a racial element, the entry point of four matches seems apposite. However, the commission have erred by increasing it largely due to the extremely dubious finding that he said the offending word seven times.

However, even if you accept that reasoning, it is very difficult to understand how considering the guidelines recommend a doubling of the sanction for a first offence and trebling for second. The effective quadrupling of the two match standard ban suggests that the Suarez findings were even worse than a standard second offence. This makes no sense whatsoever unless you reach the obvious conclusion that the commission were seeking to make an example of Suarez rather than employing the usual rules of natural justice.

An interesting example of how the commission glossed over certain inconsistencies while focussing on others is the manner in which it examines the motive for Suarez saying what Evra alleges he said. While agreeing that this upbringing, parentage and friends would militate against such behaviour, they can find no reason why he would engage in such behaviour and instead simply dismiss it as being out of character with no reason provided as to why he should suddenly remove himself from his normal characteristics.

This decision was driven by desire to believe either one party or the other, in the entirety. This was the fatal mistake that the commission made because there was no need for this. It is perfectly feasible for any tribunal to decide that part of the charge was proven and the balance was not. And quite simply, this is what they should have done.

So what now? In my humble opinion, Suarez should appeal. He should admit, on the one occasion which he accepts using the word, that he was wrong to do so. He could argue that he did not use it on other occasions and such instances remain unproven in accordance with the burden of proof, but that he regrets the use of the word at all. He should apologize for this and agree to assist the anti-racism campaigns. He can then legitimately argue that the ban is excessive and should be reduced to the entry point of four matches.

In my opinion, if he adopts such an approach, he will succeed in reducing the ban, maybe not to four matches but certainly to no more than six. The question now is whether Suarez is prepared to accept any level of contrition, whether football considerations will hold sway (the plethora of upcoming cup matches might provide an opportunity to see out the current ban) or whether he and Liverpool want to get the best result and help combat racism at the same time.

There is still scope for a sensible conclusion to this fiasco but it needs brave decisions. History to date suggests we shouldn't hold our breath.


Stuart Gilhooly is the solicitor for the Professional Footballers Association of Ireland and was also recently named Journalist of Year at the Irish Magazine Awards.

He can be followed on twitter @PFAISolicitor

[Shaggy]

http://tomkinstimes.com/2012/01/suarez-%E2%80%93-still-not-a-racist/

Luis Suarez - (still) not a racist

Luis Suarez is still being labelled a ‘racist’, and Liverpool FC are being castigated for supporting said ‘racist’. Never mind that the FA’s findings stated, quite clearly, that they felt that he was not a racist.

And never mind that if those at the club truly believe their employee, colleague and friend to be innocent, they have every right to support him. So many in the media have shot down anyone who dared suggest Suarez is innocent, as if the guilty verdict was handed down by the Lord almighty.

To suggest that you cannot support a man who has been found guilty by one single, partially-independent panel (clearly under pressure to make an example of someone, if you read many of the editorials on the subject) based on the balance of probabilities is insane.



Just look at the amount of people found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of crimes due to police coercion in the 1970s, and go and tell their supporters that they were wrong to stand by their loved ones who were later fully exonerated. Whatever the crime, you have a right to stand by someone you feel incorrectly treated, and not be seen as condoning what it was they were accused of. Normally, you’d be able to make a full appeal. All the reporting on this issue states that only the sentence can be appealed.

Yes, people support the genuinely guilty, too, out of blind faith, but Suarez is not a man found definitely guilty by the highest courts in the land, after all appeals and judicial reviews failed. He was found probably guilty by three men in room.

Probably. (This isn’t even a Carlsberg ad; and anyone who’s drunk that lager will know that it’s almost certainly not the best in the world.)

Admittedly, hardly anyone comes out of the report well: Suarez, Evra, Liverpool (and its sloppy legal representative), and the panel themselves, who, despite writing 115 pages, left far too many holes, and took far too many leaps of logic.

Anyone reading it looking to find pantomime villain Suarez guilty will see their confirmation bias duly satisfied (just as officials ‘saw’ Joey Barton’s headbutt the other day, or why Craig Bellamy should have been booked for being forehead-prodded by Clint Dempsey), but anyone looking to find faults – as people should, with every judicial process – will discover plenty of disconcerting inconsistencies.

(More on the inconsistencies here, from Stuart Gilhooly, who “is the solicitor for the Professional Footballers Association of Ireland and was also recently named Journalist of Year at the Irish Magazine Awards.”).

That these faults are only being found by Liverpool fans is not the point; they exist, no matter who points them out. (It’s probably the case that only Liverpool fans have the motivation to question the inconsistencies. Daniel Geey, a football lawyer, has promised to share his view on this site as to the reasons why Liverpool would have had a case, had the process allowed a proper appeal.)

Suarez was not found guilty due to the weight of evidence proving it beyond a doubt; he was found guilty on the balance of probabilities, based on a verbal exchange that lacked even one first-hand witness. The only witnesses to be called heard no more than what the participants had later told them; less ‘he said, she said’ and more ‘he told so-and-so, she told so-and-so’.

The video evidence proved nothing as to what was said. And even what was claimed to have been said had to be deconstructed by linguistics experts, with others noting that the report’s findings – as to what was said – were incompatible with the Spanish language, as used by anyone who speaks it.

(See this, for more on the language issue.)

In cases where it’s essentially one man’s word against another – including what the two parties told people after the event – miscarriages of justice are rife. Look at the Innocence Project, which, coincidentally, is thankfully freeing lots of black men imprisoned decades ago because someone said, often with all honesty, “it was him!”. I’ve seen women who swore on oath that Man X raped them apologise 20 years later, when DNA proved it was Man Y. Memory is an unreliable witness.

These were cases where juries were supposed to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt; not just say “hmm, it’s probable”. Given the seriousness of the accusations aimed at Suarez, “it’s probable” doesn’t seem fair at all.

In cases built on words only, you have to try and discredit the witness who makes the accusation. What else is there to go on? Otherwise false claims can be made without compunction.

If the ‘victim’ stands up to scrutiny, all well and good. I’m not sure that in this case, either party seems particularly reliable; either because they are wilfully twisting the facts, or struggling to remember them. And whilst having a story straight suggests truth telling, it can also be reminiscent of practiced liars; just as having a confused story can simply mean that you were confused.

In this case, I’d say that it’s possible that Suarez is guilty as charged. With so little evidence, anything can seem possible; it’s how conspiracy theories get their oxygen, after all.

I’d also say that it’s possible that he’s not guilty; not least given the fact that his accuser was criticised for giving unreliable evidence in a previous FA hearing. After all, if you lied in court, your testimony at subsequent trials should be worthless.

Again, I’m not saying that Evra was lying this time. I’m just saying that I don’t see enough evidence to saddle Suarez with a conviction that, even though the wording claimed otherwise, would doubtless lead to lead to “RACIST!” headlines.

Suarez did admit to using the word ‘negro’ (pronounced neg-gro) once; plenty of media outlets have since claimed that he admitted to using the far more racially loaded term, negro (as in knee-grow) on seven occasions. This admission is not true.

Suarez’s defence was that in Uruguay, such language is commonplace, and not deemed offensive; our culture loads the word with meanings that do not exist in his country, where racial integration has been rife for much longer.

Just because an adjective was used in an argument, it does not mean the adjective was laden with hatred; presumably why Suarez was found guilty of ‘referencing colour’, rather than being a racist – although the guilty verdict means he’ll just be labelled a racist anyway.

If offence was taken by Evra, it’s fair to understand why; however, he initially admitted that he took offence due to thinking that Suarez meant ‘******’, which he later admitted was wrong. So there’s a lot of misunderstanding inherent in the case.

What I would question is Evra admitting to the use of “your sister’s cunt” to Suarez to initiate the exchanges, and getting away with it scot-free. That falls foul of the FA’s rules, but nothing appears to have been done. And when only one side gets punished, it smacks of bias.

I also think that, by choosing to speak in Spanish, Evra in essence dictated the linguist nuances; this may have been on English soil, but it was not an English dispute. After many years here, Evra presumably speaks good English; yet he chose to insult Suarez in Spanish.

Apparently, in Spanish, “your sister’s cunt”, means something less incendiary, like “****ing hell”. But while Suarez was held to literal translations of what he said, Evra was not. It was ‘just a saying’. Also, the idea that Evra was in deep shock from a slight kick on the knee, just seconds before he goaded the Liverpool fans in the Main Stand by kissing his badge on the touchline, is hard to reconcile.

Again, the report correctly notes that Evra was even getting into a lather over the coin toss. He does genuinely appear like someone who – with a history of spats in his career, including one a Stamford Bridge and one with France in the World Cup – was looking for a fight; and equally, there’s no denying that Suarez is someone who could get involved in a contretemps on a deserted island. Both of them are ‘winners’ who get carried away, to put it politely.

For the misjudged, if not malignant, use of the Spanish word for ‘black’, which also just happens to be spelt the same way as something deemed very offensive in the West, Suarez could have been given a small ban and an explanation about how it could easily be misconstrued in our culture. (Just as we hope to see Brits abroad not being taken to task over foreign customs they are not aware of; despite ‘ignorance of the law being no defence’, we don’t like to have to stick to their rules, wherever ‘over there’ may be, if we think them unfair to our ‘superior’ understanding of the world, but Brits are good at saying “but this is our country!” when a foreigner falls foul of the law.)

Perhaps Suarez and Liverpool should have admitted to the guilt of cultural ignorance at the start. An apology for the misunderstanding may have helped defuse the situation, although even the report is not full of every last fact and detail, so it’s hard to second-guess Liverpool FC’s full reasoning. One can only assume that the club wanted to help Suarez defend his honour, and feel that vital things were missed.

Unfortunately, and perhaps outrageously given the seriousness of the charge, even though Suarez was only found guilty on the balance of probabilities – which, by its definition, suggests that there’s a good chance (up to 49%) that even those finding him guilty could concede that he is innocent – he could not appeal the guilty verdict; just the length of the ban. What kind of system allows for no appeal on a verdict, apart from witch trials where drowning is involved?

And appeal the length of a ban to the FA, and they’re likely to accuse you of being ‘frivolous’, even though they’ll take advantage of Uefa laws that don’t work in the same way.

(The FA had a right to appeal Wayne Rooney’s ban, but what does it say for their policy of a decision being final? Just because Uefa allow it, it still undermines the notion of one decision being the end to the matter.)

Liverpool, and Suarez, were not in a position to appeal, due to the nature of the beast; and therefore the player was seen as ‘admitting’ to the charges, rather than simply seeing no way to overturn them.

Had it been Glen Johnson who was on the receiving end of the same wording from Javier Hernandez, for example, I’d probably be outraged in the manner that a lot of United fans and neutrals are over Suarez (although neutrals can still hate other clubs, and other clubs’ players). But my outrage wouldn’t make me right, in terms of knowing what actually happened.

(A note: Johnson, who should know more than almost anyone else, stands by Suarez. People keep using him as an example of someone who should have been appalled at Suarez’s behaviour, or using him as an example of how Liverpool fans would feel if the shoe was on the other foot. But his support of Suarez is being glossed over.)

As a fan of fairness and justice – I follow true crime issues obsessively – I’d also hope that any accused was not universally condemned and vitriolically vilified merely because he or she was ‘probably’ guilty. I’d expect such serious charges to come with a criteria of ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. This is not a case of whether or not a player meant to injure an opponent, which does not carry the same stigma.

Like other Liverpool fans, I don’t want to be seen to defending a ‘racist’. We would not support someone who admitted to, or was caught on tape, being racist. (As an aside, I posted this first in TTT’s debate section, to check that the site’s multicultural readership was behind publication. Subscribers of all races felt that it should indeed be made public.)

However, like most other Liverpool fans who have closely followed the whole sorry saga, I am yet to see the evidence in a case where there was no smoking gun; no forensic evidence; no independent witnesses (or indeed witnesses beyond those given second-hand information); and no conclusive video footage, beyond showing that an argument taking place (which we already knew).

Just stories, possibly told by truthful folks, possibly told by liars, or possibly told by those with all-too-common cases of unreliable memory.

To conclude, to me, it’s clearly probable that Luis Suarez did not say the word ‘negro’ (neg-gro) more than once, and that no ill meaning was intended. It’s probable, because he admitted to a single use of the word, when he could have denied it and gotten away with it. It’s probable, because he himself is from a black background, and – logically, at least – that makes it less likely, if not impossible, that he’d be racially offensive.

His innocence is probable, because no-one heard what he is alleged to have said, and no recording device, visual or audio, picked it up – and the chances of that happening, while not impossible, are less likely than if it was definitely said. (Some of the things you do might not get captured by a dozen cameras; but none of the things you don’t do can end up on tape.)

If it was any friend or relation of yours who was found guilty of a charge based on the balance of probabilities, and it was splashed all over the papers in the most damming manner, I’d expect you’d want better, too. Let’s kick racism out of the game, and out of society – but let’s have standards of evidence, so that the innocent, or misunderstood, aren’t caught in the crossfire.

[SimonNo7]

The FA can charge him if he's found not guilty.

Whether they will or not, we don't know. Time will tell.

There's no point getting all wound up about it in advance.

Yes he can. Didn't Bowyer and Woodgate get banned for bringing the game into disrepute or something like that?