Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[3827]

I think we are seeing the classic media ploy of spinning a story out for weeks and weeks.

Player 'A' is charged which allows them to speculate like mad. Judgement is finally released on Player 'A' and they now have the evidence to damn said player. The evidence is a bit ambigious so this then allows them to continue writting on the story but this time along the lines of Player 'A' was hard done by.

The journos have basically had about a months worth of free copy without the need to leave their desks. TBH this does not just apply to footballers. Politicians and celebrities get the same treatment.

[Dalglish]

Nope, not according to the journalist muppet SSN role out in the morning.

He reckons, not one section of the media is portraying Liverpool as anything other than WRONG.......and likens us to the criminal shouting and screaming as they're sent down from the dock.
Picked out two "fantastic" pieces.....unsurprisingly they were two pieces of intransigent rubbish.

Mick Dennis was a right cunt this morning. Apparently there is video evidence that "proves" LS is "a racist." Not according to the FA report there isnt but hey ho.

It's all rather annoying that when we attempt to sensibly debate this as LFC fans we get accused of tribalism and blind loyalty etc (see Shaggy v Barry Gelndinning on Twitter last night) yet when they get a fact obviously wrong they fail to acknowledge it or even retract their point. Ollie Holt of the Mirror posted this yesterday:

@OllieHoltMirror Many are adamant that Suarez using racially abusive language towards Evra does not make him a racist

to which I responded

@davidjmcelroy Presume @OllieHoltMirror includes the FA and Patrice Evra in that

because Holt CLEARLY hasn't read the FA report properly. Any response from him? None at all. It's pathetic really and I must say not unexpected.

The media in this country is a sham.

[pondus]

Guess .no found their info here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...y-process.html

[pondus]

Liverpool to complain to FA over handling of Luis Suarez case and demand reform of disciplinary process

Liverpool will seek urgent talks with the Football Association chairman, David Bernstein, to demand reform of the disciplinary procedures that led to the suspension of Luis Suárez.



Although the Merseyside club have now accepted the eight-game ban, their anger at the guilty verdict has not diminished and the means by which the punishment was reached remains a matter of dispute.


Senior club officials are to contact Bernstein to register a series of complaints about the handling of the Suárez case, and request a thorough inquiry into how future incidents of this nature are dealt with.


They will even consider asking the FA if it would be prepared to take such a case to the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport to enable a player to clear his name beyond the English governing body’s jurisdiction. However, for Liverpool to have taken the Suárez case that far would have required the FA’s agreement.


Liverpool believe judging such an incendiary case involving alleged racial abuse should never have been based on ‘the balance of probability’ as the Commission was entitled to do. It could be argued a higher threshold of guilt, as will be required in the forthcoming John Terry race abuse case in the criminal courts, is justified.


In a criminal trial, Suárez’s guilt would have had to be established ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and, such was the seriousness of the charge, Liverpool’s lawyers believe the same weight of evidence should have been required.


Suárez, Liverpool argue, was found guilty on the kind of subjective evidence which would never have been given credibility in a court of law. The club believe Patrice Evra’s allegations would have been thrown out if pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service and believe the same standards should be applied.

Liverpool are also unhappy that the Independent Regulatory Commission, led by Paul Goulding QC, was selected by the FA, which was itself bringing the charges. They feel this represents a conflict of interest where the accusers are in effect selecting the jurors. That brings into dispute the notion of full independence.

Although Liverpool were within their rights to challenge the make-up of the commission and made no representation to oppose its members, they say it would have been pointless to do so because the FA would also have picked its replacements.

For a commission to be genuinely independent, it is Liverpool’s view that the FA should not have jurisdiction on who sits on it.

There are numerous aspects of the 115-page written report which Liverpool continue to find inconsistent with the commission’s findings.

Liverpool are unhappy that Evra was granted three meetings with the FA and given access to video evidence well in advance of the December hearing.

It is Liverpool’s belief that Evra was coached by the FA disciplinary team before meeting the commission, enabling him to piece together his version of events to tally with the footage and appear more consistent in his verbal evidence than he had been in earlier statements.

Suárez, who did not have access to the same video evidence until he sat in front of the commission, according to Liverpool, inevitably had a sketchier memory of what had happened at particular points of the game which had been played two months earlier. This made him seem less sure of what took place at certain moments considered of importance by the commission.

Despite all these concerns, Liverpool still decided not to appeal against the suspension and fine because they felt it would have been an exercise in futility given that they would have been working within the same procedures. A new panel, appointed by the FA, could have reduced the ban but would have had no power to overturn the verdict.

[Lee]

They had a journalist on Talksport this morning (Matt Scott from the Guardian I think), who was saying he was "dismayed" by Liverpool's response to all of this.

To his credit, Alan Brazil was actually pointing out how there was such little evidence and that it basically boils down to one man's word against another's. And that he can kind of understands our grievance.

In fairness, Brazil is usually quite balanced and one of the few TalkSport presenters that isn't on a wind up.

I still won't be buying his nuts though.

[Craig_H]

They had a journalist on Talksport this morning (Matt Scott from the Guardian I think), who was saying he was "dismayed" by Liverpool's response to all of this.

To his credit, Alan Brazil was actually pointing out how there was such little evidence and that it basically boils down to one man's word against another's. And that he can kind of understands our grievance.

Any idea roughly what time that took place? I'd like to listen to it.

[Reece]

Mick Dennis was a right cunt this morning. Apparently there is video evidence that "proves" LS is "a racist." Not according to the FA report there isnt but hey ho.

It's all rather annoying that when we attempt to sensibly debate this as LFC fans we get accused of tribalism and blind loyalty etc (see Shaggy v Barry Gelndinning on Twitter last night) yet when they get a fact obviously wrong they fail to acknowledge it or even retract their point. Ollie Holt of the Mirror posted this yesterday:



to which I responded



because Holt CLEARLY hasn't read the FA report properly. Any response from him? None at all. It's pathetic really and I must say not unexpected.

The media in this country is a sham.

It's so frustrating that their words carry so much weight in some quarters, when in reality they are no more qualified to speak on the subject than you or I. They usually seem to have an agenda too, or are at least looking to spin the most hyperbolic story they can.

I'm sure a lot of them are genuinely intelligent guys, so I can't fathom the amount of crap the constantly come out with.

I've really tried to think if I feel this way (RE the Suarez/Evra thing) due to my Liverpool bias, but no, I can't for the life of me understand why so many people can't see the glaring reasons why we are so upset about it.

In fairness, Brazil is usually quite balanced and one of the few TalkSport presenters that isn't on a wind up.

I still won't be buying his nuts though.

That songs gets annoyingly stuck in my head.

"Alan Brazil's nuts, buy them at the bar!"

[wavydavy]

About 7.25

[Reece]

Any idea roughly what time that took place? I'd like to listen to it.

Okay it was around the time I was ironing my shirt (whilst naked), so probably between 7:20 and 7:25

[Fosterbloke]

In fairness, Brazil is usually quite balanced and one of the few TalkSport presenters that isn't on a wind up.

I still won't be buying his nuts though.

Brazil nuts are a seed.

[Craig_H]

Okay it was around the time I was ironing my shirt (whilst naked), so probably between 7:20 and 7:25

Thanks for the detail.

[Reece]

"However, for Liverpool to have taken the Suárez case that far would have required the FA’s agreement."


Surely that is just so fundamentally wrong?! When our gripe is with the FA, we can only take it to higher powers if they agree for us to do so?!

[Craig_H]

I've said it before, but the fact that the FA are basically accountable to nobody (other than themselves) is ridiculous. When you add that certain people from certain clubs sit on the FA board, it makes it all the more absurd.

[Lee]

Brazil nuts are a seed.

Why are you so dull?

[Craig_H]

The Mail have only just discovered that Youtube video of Evra using the 'n' word....quick off the mark, eh?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2082325/Patrice-Evra-N-word-video-youtube.html