Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[TheElephantMan]

Someone mentioned releasing a full rebuttal but not an appeal. I think this is the right thing to do as the ****ing Assholes won't budge.

Let's get on with our football and see what happens.

Makes sense. We cannot just accept the report, but an appeal could do more harm than good.

It seems so obvious that this is a stitch-up, but we're fighting a losing battle. I feel sorry for Luis Suarez, he isn't going to be allowed to clear his name and I'm pretty sure he won't be playing in the Premiership next season.

[Shaggy]

Taken from TLW.

Originally Posted by redmann

I have attempted to do an analysis of the possible course of action and any grounds of appeal. The findings of the FA are riddled with inconsistencies. a proper hatchet job has been done, considering Luis face a possible further ban for any repetition, it is imperative that his name and the good name of LFC is cleared.

In accordance with the rules LS is only able to appeal against the severity of the sentence issued against him, with the hope of attempting a reduction. An appeal also leads to the possibility of an increase in the ban if it is found to be without merit and frivolous. LS is unable to appeal against the findings of the FA COM. For LS / LFC to succeed in an appeal against the findings then an appeal to the FA in accordance with FA RULE K: ARBITRATION must be made. This rule states:

Rule K1(a) shall not operate to provide an appeal against the decision of a Regulatory Commission or an Appeal Board under the Rules and shall operate only as the forum and procedure for a challenge to the validity of such decision under English law on the grounds of ultra vires (including error of law), irrationality or procedural unfairness, with the Tribunal exercising a supervisory jurisdiction.

This is a civil case and therefore test applied by FA COM was balance of probability. FA COM has accepted that the more serious the nature the case then the greater the burden of evidence required. FA COM (PARA 80) accepts that this case is very serious therefore there is a greater burden of evidence needed to find against LS. Video, audio and oral evidence was used aswell as written testimonies of witnesses.

FA COM found LS to have used insulting language with reference to PE skin colour on seven occasions. No audio evidence demonstrated that LS was at fault. If there was any then FA COM would have detailed it in their determination. FA COM has stated that no witnesses heard any of the alleged insults. FA COM has stated that no video evidence shows him saying any of the alleged insults. FA COM found LS credibility to be in question and has found PE to be more credible witness. They also found that players motions on video evidence supports PE claims on Balance of Probabilities. This to the FA COM satisfies the ‘greater burden of evidence’ test for finding against LS.

In order for any appeal to be successful LS / LFC have to demonstrate that the FA COM decision was irrational or an error of law has occurred. In order to succeed therefore LS / LFC have to show that the FA COM was irrational in finding PE evidence to be CREDIBLE, that PE’s evidence is littered with inconsistencies.

PE’S CREDIBILITY:

1. COIN TOSS INCIDENT

In PARA 329 PE asserts that the ref has wrongly called the toss of the coin “Mr Evra knew that he had won it”. This assertion is advanced by him calling Ryan Giggs over, remonstrating that an incorrect toss had been called. No determination was made by FA COM about this or any reference to his credibility about this incident. If ref is telling truth then PE is either lying, calling into question his credibility and has made an implied accusation that the REF has cheated, his behaviour is improper in accordance with rule E3. If the FA COM accepts that PE has told the truth then the REF has clearly cheated and action against the ref must be taken. It is irrational for the FA COM not to make a determination about this or PE’s credibility.

This is critical as PE’s credibility is called into question prior to the game kicking off and the occurrence of the alleged incident. PE also states “when such a coin was used, he always called yellow given that the alternative, blue, is a Manchester City colour”(para 329) Once again PE has made an incorrect assertion, given that Manchester United regularly play in blue, and did indeed on the match in question. Not to mention that the colour blue is the colour of PE national team, France. The FA COM erred in making no finding as to this inconsistency in PE’s evidence.

2. PE’S USE OF THE WORD N****R

PE states in PARA 130 that “he told the referee that Mr Suarez had called him a nigger”. This is later substantiated when PE comes with AF to the REF after the game and is included in the refs report. The words written in the report are N****r and are not refuted by PE. PE, evident by his team-mates testimonies reiterates that this was the word used by LS.

The FA COM are irrational in finding that “nothing turns on the fact that Mr Evra may have thought that the word "negro" as used by Mr Suarez in the match translated as "******".” PE’s thoughts on the use of the word are the nucleus to the credibility of his testimony. The FA COM has stated that PE is fluent in Spanish; also they have stated that it was he who instigated the conversation in Spanish with LS. The FA COM have relied upon PE detailed testimony as to what he later said in Spanish and to what LS replied to him; again in Spanish. In fact the whole conversation took place in Spanish. It is irrational for the FA COM to find that PE was not aware of the meaning or use of the word ‘negro’ and to find PE use of an Italian definition in a Spanish conversation as credible. The FA COM have erred in accepting PE claim especially given the abhorrence to the word n****r and its pejorative use in British Society and culture.

If PE is mistaken in his use of the meaning and understanding of Spanish words, then his credibility with regards to his testimony is also crucial. The accuracy and his understanding of what he said and what was said to him was incorrectly addressed by the FA COM. The FA COM is irrational in finding PE testimony to be credible given the above rational conclusion.

3. CANAL + INTERVIEW

The FA COM is irrational in finding PE phrase ten times as a figure of speech and not to be taken literally, in relation to his interview on French TV. In making this finding they have accepted PE and DC opinion as to the meaning of the phrase. As with the Hernandez incident where part of his testimony was discounted on the grounds that he is not an expert, then the FA COM should have applied the same criteria in assessing the meaning of the phrase ten times and accepting DC’s opinion. The whole charge is dependent on the meaning of words that were said.

Nevertheless PE has stated that he always gives interviews to French TV and that he did not wish to discuss racial slurs he faced having earlier informed the interviewer off recorrd as to his anger. The FA COM were irrational in not attributing sufficient weight to PE ‘ten times’ claim in this interview, especially as Libel laws come in to play, to dismiss the use of the phrase ‘ten times’ as not being literal is irrational, especially given PE claim that he did not wish to discuss this, the question remains why did he then do so on record?

4. PE’S BEHAVIOUR

PE’s own evidence states that he has used threatening behaviour against LS. PARA 92: "Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you". PARA 94: "Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you".

This is in breach of rule E3 relating to general behaviour which states:

“A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.”

The FA COM has failed to make a finding or take action against PE, in doing so have failed to uphold the FA’s own rules.

5. NO SUPPORTING TESTIMONY

The finding of the alleged ‘five times use of negro’ by the FA COM is irrational. The incident is alleged to have occurred in the goal mouth during a corner to be taken. On the balance of probabilities there is a greater chance for any alleged use of the word ‘negro’ to have been heard by PE team mates. The finding of the FA COM that De Gea would not have heard anything as he was concentrating on the match is irrational. As a goalkeeper his senses would be alert to visual and audio stimuli, especially calls of ‘keeper’.

6. PE’S HISTORY IN RACIAL ALLEGATIONS

Given the serious nature of the charge against LS and that the corroborating evidence was inconclusive and therefore the FA COM were in the main reliant upon PE credibility as their main burden of evidence; the FA COM, in the interests of justice should have considered previous FA COM findings on PE behaviour and credibility in previous racial allegations with reference to the Chelsea FC grounds man.

PE experience of previous FA COM hearings would account for his calmness and demeanour in front of this FA COM. FA COM erred in not addressing this when relying upon PE demeanour and conduct in this hearing.

[ChesterDave]

I'd prefer it replaced the PE History stuff with the procedure of allowing him to give comments while watching the video evidence but not allowing Suarez. Other than that is good.

[Kenneth]

I'm not sure an appeal on the basis of a character assassination of PE is going to have a positive ending tbh.

[BobTheCharmer]

Let's accept the ban and report. But issue a statement detailing all of evras actions in the game, so at least the rest of the country who has no interest reading all 115 pages, knows what kind of cunt he is. Also admit the obvious flawes in the report. Show full support to Luis and reaffirm he is not a racist. Leave it at that. No apologies. Move on.

[Exiled_red]

I'm not sure an appeal on the basis of a character assassination of PE is going to have a positive ending tbh.

Character assassination no, but if we are to appeal we will IMO have to use an approach that focuses on the lack of evidence and the larger burden of proof required for a case as serious as this. As we will only have one shot at this, and the FA's case relies on Evra's version of events we will have to highlight any inconsistencies in Evra's case and provide reasonable explanations such that it implies that Evra's testimony isn't as reliable as was originally believed.

[Exiled_red]

A number of people are mentioning that we should accept the punishment and issue a statement saying we don't agree with the report, however to me the problem with this is it appears inconsistent, and you would also wonder what Suarez might think about us taking this approach.

[Shaggy]

Character assassination no, but if we are to appeal we will IMO have to use an approach that focuses on the lack of evidence and the larger burden of proof required for a case as serious as this. As we will only have one shot at this, and the FA's case relies on Evra's version of events we will have to highlight any inconsistencies in Evra's case and provide reasonable explanations such that it implies that Evra's testimony isn't as reliable as was originally believed.

[TheElephantMan]

A number of people are mentioning that we should accept the punishment and issue a statement saying we don't agree with the report, however to me the problem with this is it appears inconsistent, and you would also wonder what Suarez might think about us taking this approach.

The report is a load of bull****, but there is a real danger that fighting will cause greater damage to the club. I am torn between supporting Suarez and supporting LFC. I feel that there is real injustice here, but our options seem limited. We need to make it clear that we do not accept Evra's claims and we do need to highlight the inconsistencies within the report.

The club have a big decision to make. If we appeal it will get very dirty.

[Fredo]

The report is a load of bull****, but there is a real danger that fighting will cause greater damage to the club. I am torn between supporting Suarez and supporting LFC. I feel that there is real injustice here, but our options seem limited. We need to make it clear that we do not accept Evra's claims and we do need to highlight the inconsistencies within the report.

The club have a big decision to make. If we appeal it will get very dirty.

There's enough in there to think he's been hard done by mate. We've got to stand by him, unless as I say, the FA have evidence that we haven't seen yet.

[Arn]

I think the pinch matters piss all to what he has said. Luis change of stance from this being concilatory to an attempt to wind up is whats got him convicted of this.

I may get some of this wrong as its all merging into one big mess in my mind but lets look at the chain of events.

1. Evra insults Suarez - he is given significant character credit for admitting he did this.
2. The term he used can have three possible translations - a vulgar reference to female genitalia, son of a bitch, or ****ing hell.
3 .Suarez admits he did not hear this - Suarez receives little or no credit as a character for acknowledging he did not hear this
4. After disputed exchanges it is agreed that Evra physically threatens Suarez. No character discreditment for this threat of violence
5. The pinch movement. The FA have decided that as Suarez changed his story on motivation his is unreliable. Therefore Patrice Evra's events are correct and Suarez had said all those words. The pinch then becomes significant to further wind Evra up after Suarez has made reference to his skin colour. Of course, if the Suarez version of that chat is correct then Evra is being a big wuss getting himself wound up over nothing and a pinch has **** all to do with his skin colour and is just designed to get Evra sent off.
6. The ref calls them over, talks to them, Suarez walks off pats him on the head and uses negro once in a concilatory manner as he claimed.
7. Number 6 is bull**** because the FA have already sided in favour of Evra on point 5. Further more, because point 5 has been decided to be true, number 6 is seen as a further attempt to inflame the situation.
4. Its OK to threaten violence as he had just been called blackie blackie blackie so he is antagonised in a hostile situation and unable to act calmly
3. Far from receiving praise for failing to hear an insult, Suarez is demonised as a discreditred witness.
2. The FA decide that as a credible witness compared to a discredited one the most favourable translations of Evra is obviously the one he used. He sparring partner of course used the worse possible translation because he is discredited.
1. Further praise heaped on Evra because he is so credible.

The FA have decided the pinch movement was inflamatory and moulded the evidence [sic] around that.


Pure. Unadulterated. Bull****.

Suarez could have said nothing to the media or anyone. He was honest enough to admit that he said something.

That proves IMO that he isn't a bull****ter.

If he had said nothing then it wouldn't even be a case but Suarez is just Suarez, an honest man that will tell the truth even if it may hurt him.

He probably wouldn't been able to look at himself in the mirror if he hadn't said something.

[TheElephantMan]

There's enough in there to think he's been hard done by mate. We've got to stand by him, unless as I say, the FA have evidence that we haven't seen yet.

If the club decide to appeal then I'm 100% behind them. I don't think that they will. It's sickening that someone's reputation can be damaged in this way and it's frustrating that beyond our own supporters hardly anyone else can see the injustice. This is one battle I feel we can't win sadly.

[Exiled_red]

The report is a load of bull****, but there is a real danger that fighting will cause greater damage to the club. I am torn between supporting Suarez and supporting LFC. I feel that there is real injustice here, but our options seem limited. We need to make it clear that we do not accept Evra's claims and we do need to highlight the inconsistencies within the report.

The club have a big decision to make. If we appeal it will get very dirty.

It's a big decision, I think that we have to challenge this because there is something wrong with the system and the way this case has been handled. I would be tempted to take things further and challenge the 'balance of probabilities' ruling in terms of evidence in such case, whether an appeal is successful or not.

[Exiled_red]

There's enough in there to think he's been hard done by mate. We've got to stand by him, unless as I say, the FA have evidence that we haven't seen yet.

That can't be the case, if they had 'stronger' evidence they would have used it, so the club at least will have seen it and it would be documented in the report.

[Arn]

Look at what he said after he saved the ball on the line in WC.

He told the truth the way he felt about it. He didn't try and hide something. He knew it would piss off a lot of people but telling the truth is much more important than that.

The reaction from him when they missed the pen also show how reliable he is and how emotional he is.

He won't hide anything. He want the world to see the real Luis Suarez, not a fake made up one.