Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[Vermilion]

When all this has blown over, and it will, then later on, in many months, years...to come, when i think back to the very important events of the past few weeks, the one enduring image i'll have in my thoughts, the thing that will stick with me the most ..............Is Robbie Fowler dressed as Lionel Ritchie.

[KingKenny77]

It's just not good enough, you should support someone else to show your disgust.

Bit unfair, I actually feel sorry for this great football club, it's name has been dragged through the mud by those with an Anti-Liverpool agenda.

This club has had dark days before and has overcome them and I believe this will be no exception.

[Craig_H]

When all this has blown over, and it will, then later on, in many months, years...to come, when i think back to the very important events of the past few weeks, the one enduring image i'll have in my thoughts, the thing that will stick with me the most ..............Is Robbie Fowler dressed as Lionel Ritchie.

[BJC]

I now will just think of this picture..

[Craig_H]

The FA respond to some questions

January 6, 2012 by Jim Boardman | 10 Comments

AN EMAIL was sent to The FA following on from the publication of their independent panel’s report into the verdict in the Suarez-Evra case. It’s taken them a few days but they have now replied. On reading the email it’s apparent that they received more than one email on the issue – their response includes answers to questions we hadn’t even asked.

Their response:

From: Info
Date: 6 January 2012 15:15
Subject: RE: Feedback from TheFA.com
To:

Dear Jim

Thank you for contacting The Football Association.

As you are aware an Independent Regulatory Commission found a charge of misconduct against Luis Suarez proven and has subsequently released the full written reasons of the commission. Liverpool FC and Suarez have accepted the sanction therefore Suarez will be suspended for a period of eight matches. Suarez was also fined £40,000 and was warned as to his future conduct.

In relation to your email we feel it is important to highlight the following:

a. It was accepted by all parties (including Mr Suarez) that the phrase “concha de tu hermana” properly translates into English as “f*cking hell”, “f*ck me” or similar and is therefore deemed an exclamation not a direct insult.

b. The Commission found as a matter of fact that Evra did not use the term “South-American” in respect of Suarez;

c. Evra’s further comments (i.e. “say it to me again, I’m going to punch you”, “okay, now I think I’m going to punch you”) were made in the context of, and in reaction to, him being spoken to in racially insulting terms;

d. Accordingly, there was nothing in Evra’s language which breaches Rule E3 when assessed against the standards The FA applies to all incidents of on-field verbal exchanges between players.

e. Similarly, language alleged to have been used by Dirk Kuyt could – on one reading – be said to amount to a breach of Rule E3; but, as stated above, The FA exercises a common sense approach to incidents of verbal exchanges involving players as they are seen to berate and engage with each other in relatively strong terms on a regular basis.

f. The FA therefore considers that there is a clear and significant difference between Evra’s comments and Suarez’s repeated use of racially insulting language.

We do appreciate all of the feedback we receive from supporters. This feedback is collated and used to build a picture of public opinion and is subsequently fed back internally within the organisation. Please rest assured your comments will form part of this feedback process.

Kind regards

Alex Burkwood | Customer Relations Officer



The original email referenced parts of that 115-page document, including the part where the panel played down the use of a very offensive phrase by Evra:

“Mr Evra stated that the goalmouth incident started when he addressed Mr Suarez, beginning with the phrase ‘Concha de tu hermana’. According to the experts, the literal translation is ‘your sister’s c*nt’ and it can be taken as a general swear word expressing anger, although the word ‘concha’ is not as taboo as the English word ‘c*nt’. It is thus equivalent to ‘f*cking hell’ or ‘f*ck me’. If directed at someone in particular, it can also be understood as ‘[you] son of a bitch’.”

As the report pointed out, “it is the Commission’s task to decide whether the use of the word in England is abusive or insulting. The use of the word in a particular way might be seen as inoffensive by many in Uruguay. The same use of the same word in England might nevertheless be abusive or insulting.” The document also said that the Commission: “…should apply standards that we consider should be applicable to games played under the jurisdiction of the FA. We are not deciding whether the words or behaviour would have been abusive or insulting if used in a match in Uruguay.”

It wasn’t explained why different standards were applied to Evra’s words and Suarez’s words. Translate what Evra said into English and the word being used would not only be unprintable, it would be insulting and abusive and would contain a reference to a person’s gender. It would also quite likely lead to a punch in the face if said in English to an English player – and no leeway for the player throwing the punch and getting a red card for doing so, even if the recipient of the punch got a card or a charge of their own.

Anyway, let’s go along with the panel’s convoluted reasons for using Suarez’s alleged words translated directly into English but allowing Evra’s to be adapted to fit in with the cultural rather than literal translation. There’s still a problem in what Evra said.

Point a. in the FA’s reply ignores one of the translations the experts said applied to Evra’s words. Evra had directed his words at Suarez meaning it’s fair to assume the meaning was “[You] son of a bitch.” For reasons not explained in their 115 page report the panel had decided to ignore or forget that “son of a bitch” translation by the time they’d got to the bit where they were explaining how they made their decision. By then they decided the “f*cking hell” or “f*ck me” version would do.

But that panel wasn’t sitting to look at charges against Evra, so it’s wrong to fast-forward to the summing up bits of the panel’s report to decide what Evra meant – and replacing “son of a bitch” with “or similar” (as the FA did in point a. of their reply) doesn’t cut it either. “F*ck me” and “F*cking hell” might well be an exclamation – but “[you] son of a bitch” is a direct insult.

For point b. – we hadn’t mentioned anything about that in our email to the FA. Nice of the FA to take time to reply directly.

Point c. The problem with this answer is that it’s based on the assumption that the panel got it right in terms of what Suarez said to Evra – and the FA are hardly going to answer based on any other assumption. If Suarez had said those things then nobody in their right mind would have a problem with Evra threatening to punch him – even though the FA would normally frown on retaliation for any reason. It’s taken them a while but at least the FA have given a reason that adds up.

What The FA are saying in point d., needs looking at again in light of the inaccuracies of what they said in point a.

Point e. Again, this isn’t something we asked about – but the difference between what Kuyt was alleged to have said and what Evra admitted he said is that, quite simply, one admitted it and the other didn’t. If Kuyt was going to be charged under E3 he’d be entitled to call other witness and produce other evidence to mount his defence – after all his version of what he said doesn’t match what Evra claimed he said. If Evra is charged under E3 there is already an admission as to what he said, although he could arguably call more witness if they helped him to explain why he’d said what he did.

And then we come to point f. We didn’t ask the questions about Evra in comparison to what Suarez may or may not have said. It’s obvious that the words the panel decided Suarez had used were far worse than what Evra admitted to saying. But does that make what Evra said – and he said it before Suarez said anything – acceptable? If Evra’s words had been caught on camera and microphone and then, for whatever reason, the rest of the exchange didn’t happen what would The FA have done about it? Instead of cameras and microphones we’ve got an admission – so why has nothing been done about it?

Evra called Suarez a “son of a bitch” for an innocuous challenge and waited five minutes to do so. He did this after arguing the toss (literally) with the ref (accusing the ref of lying) and after another offence which the referee said he could have been booked for (waving the imaginary card to Downing). He had a gob on him, to put it simply, and by the time he went up to Suarez to call him a son of a bitch he looked to be in a foul mood.

Whether it was “son of a bitch” or “your sister’s c*nt” it was insulting language and as soon as it came to light he should have been charged for it. He should have been charged before the other hearing took place, then the two charges could have been heard as part of the same proceedings – as was the case with his FA charge that was heard at the same time as other charges resulting from the incident that led to false allegations of racist remarks being aimed at him by Chelsea ground-staff.

There is no point going back to the FA and clarifying any of this with them – their minds were made up a long time ago (otherwise they would have charged Evra at the same time as charging Suarez) and their aims have been met.

Talking of which, Alex Ferguson said today that there was no need for his club to enter into discussions with LFC over the incident and with the return league fixture in mind. The ageing manager is probably quite happy with how it’s all gone, if he’s honest about it.

http://www.anfieldroad.com/news/lfc/2012-01-06/5622/the-fa-respond-to-some-questions.html/

[Mostar]

deleted

[Craig_H]

Already posted Bender Moster.

[Mostar]

Already posted Bender Moster.

Deliberately trying to stay away (get mad and upset) from this thread except when I see something worthwhile posting

It's gone now

[Craig_H]

I wasnt saying you should delete it

[Mostar]

It's been posted before though so why keep it

[Craig_H]

Just as long as i'm not seen to be being racist here.

[Mostar]

[Shaggy]

Dion Fanning

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/liverpool-damaged-by-failure-to-grasp-reality-of-suarez-case-2982532.html

Liverpool's defence of Luis Suarez has at times been portrayed as the 21st century version of Major's explanation of racial nuance in Fawlty Towers "No, no, no, these people are wogs."

Liverpool have fought a pointless battle which many people have described as defending the indefensible. Given their chaotic and ineffective legal response, it would have been better described as badly defending the morally ambiguous.

There is a reality that Liverpool can't escape -- the tone of the debate was set by their intransigence from the beginning. By their refusal to accept that it was possible that Evra could be both a troublemaker and offended, they forced themselves into a corner and then discovered they were comfortable there, snarling at all opponents.

Evra claimed he was called a "******" by Suarez when he made his initial complaint. It was perhaps understandable that Liverpool reacted so vehemently to a charge which, if correct, would probably have led to Suarez's dismissal from the club.

So, having established that was false, they set themselves in opposition to everything that came their way. If Kenny Dalglish's presence has at times ruffled Alex Ferguson, Liverpool's ongoing response to the Suarez case demonstrates that Dalglish, too, is obsessed with Ferguson.

According to one report, Liverpool felt that Alex Ferguson, with his "knowledge of procedure", took advantage of the situation.

It might suit Liverpool to portray Ferguson as a giant of jurisprudence with whom they could not compete rather than a man who enjoys watching detective shows on TV and has a keen interest in the JFK assassination.

Liverpool's performance, in contrast, was like an audition for amateur hour. If they suspected the hand of Manchester United behind everything, then they fell for every trick. Liverpool's reputation has been damaged around the globe and Ferguson is the man, as his refusal on Friday to consider talks with Liverpool demonstrated, with all the power.

Anybody who has been in a minor car accident would know not to do what Liverpool did when first informed of the allegations.

Ferguson remains an ethereal presence in the official report. The portrait of Dalglish is vivid. He is sarcastic and the first to utter the falsehood that Evra had previous for this kind of thing, a smear that managed to last all the way to Liverpool's statement the night Suarez was sentenced.

The idea that Suarez was trying to spread peace and love is laughable. Despite the apology and the acceptance of the ban, it remains the bedrock of his defence and the most compelling case for the prosecution. It allowed the FA to transform the case into something more than one man's word against another. Their leap of faith in accepting Evra's version of what went on in the goalmouth was assisted by the inconsistencies of Suarez and his supporting witnesses including Dirk Kuyt and Damien Comolli.

Liverpool have not concealed their hostility towards Evra and this blinded them to the failings of their case and the reality that once Suarez had referenced Evra's colour in an argument, they would have to make some sort of apology.

Suarez could only bring himself to make some sort of watered down apology as he maintained his innocence and it was an apology that came too late.

If you're explaining, you're losing and if you're explaining the linguistic nuances of how you can address a black man in the Rioplatense dialect, then you've already thrown the deeds of your house into the pot and are banking everything on the roll of a dice.

Liverpool have been criticised for their response to the initial complaint and for their response to the response. They are used to defying England's expectations. In this instance, the suspicion that the enemies of their club were out to bring them down blinded them to some of the realities of the situation.

Of course, they have some reasons to be aggrieved. This was not a straightforward case and there was something comic in commentators telling Liverpool to accept the verdict from the three-man panel, only one of whom was capable of delivering a legal opinion, as fact. It's not as if this is a world in which miscarriages of justice have never taken place.

There was, alongside the commendable drive to deal with anything that could be considered racist, some familiar storylines. There was a cultural failure of imagination, a suppressed little Englander tendency that had found an acceptable release in demonising Suarez. An all-white panel and a virtually all-white media told Suarez what he must do if he didn't want to be considered a racist.

Suarez told the panel he will never use the word 'black' again. Columnists said the word 'black' was wholly unacceptable and could not be used on a football field.

If this column was being written in Spanish, we would use the word 'negro', the Spanish for 'black', but to write it in English, as everybody else did, removed it from the context of the conversation which was initiated by Evra in Spanish. So they talked about the word 'negro' when they should have talked about 'black' which is the word Suarez used in Spanish.

Outlawing the word 'black' would make things a little less comfortable to those who were taken over by the 'ecstasy of sanctimony' during the past fortnight. 'Negro' was something other, something so alien to the English way of speaking that it allowed them to make a pure judgement, content that it didn't apply to them. Perhaps they should have decreed that all conversations should take place in English from now on, ideally between Englishmen.

The word 'black' is often unacceptable too. Most people would consider they had crossed a line if they used that word in an argument with a black person.

Liverpool failed to accept this and the club was damaged. The week ended with an Oldham defender claiming he was racially abused by a Liverpool fan at Anfield on Friday night and the sense grew that the Suarez case had done more than just damage the image of the club, it had shaken it to its very foundations.

They have acquired this image mainly through their own incompetence. There were suggestions on Merseyside last week that Liverpool didn't hire a QC because they didn't want to be seen to take the allegations too seriously. It might be the first example of somebody employing a low-powered delegation to deal with an important matter.

If Dalglish refused to isolate Suarez, his loyalty was abused by the club. An impotent legal defence and a failure to comprehend the gravity of what they were facing pushed the manager towards the point of isolation. This was compounded by a self-righteous refusal to consider they -- or one of their players -- could have done anything wrong.

The idea that society is becoming more abusive should be viewed with scepticism when it's put forward by journalists who are finding that society has new ways of abusing them. There is little evidence for any increased abuse in society but there are public platforms for idiots that have never existed before.

Liverpool fans viciously criticised anyone online who disputed their stance. This was most troubling when, say, a black Liverpool fan would voice some disquiet about the unconditional backing of Suarez and be informed through a chorus that he can longer be considered a real fan.

They were cleaving to the qualities of the mob and then becoming outraged when some pointed out they were behaving like a mob. They were comfortable dealing in absolutes, except when those absolutes might apply to them.

[email protected]

[Kenneth]

One of the better articles on the topic.

[el matador]

this is wholly a question of semantics. I speak both french and spanish and whats acceptable in one language isnt acceptable in another.

cabron means goat in spanish but calling someone goatboy over here doesnt mean ****. in french theres loads of ways of insulting black people but you would always use a prefix like salle noire - dirty black so and so.

the fa say suarez used the word negro as to call evra the english "neegro". suarez claims he said negro in spanish in response to evra saying dont touch me. allegedly asking him a question "porque tu es negro" roughly translating as "why not, is it because you are black".

asking him a question whilst using negro and using the english word pronounced "neegro" are two totally different things.

but he as a history of trouble and the fa panel are fergies rent boys. in south america and spain they will be aware of the linguistic differences and put it down to a misunderstanding albeit a serious one. however, in the rest of the english speaking world he will be labelled a racist and liverpool will be slaughtered for protecting a racist player.

the john terry trial will be interesting especially since he clearly called ferdinand a ****ing black ****. however.im sure the fa will smooth that one over quickly. suarez as been vilified especially by sky sports but no ones mentioned the whole terry thing during this.