I'm disappointed, but not entirely surprised how things have panned out today. I'm a stubborn sod - I would never apologise to anyone if I felt I hadn't done anything wrong. This is totally unjust, I am convinced that Suarez has been put under pressure to make his statement today. I am equally convinced that Suarez will leave at the end of the season. What a farce this whole thing turned out to be, we either stand behind our player or we don't.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Evra accuses Suarez of racism
Collapse
X
-
John Barnes has been superb throughout the whole of this pointing out the flaws and hypocrisy within the press and giving a balanced view from a man who has been through racist abuse first handOriginally posted by Craig_H View Post
Comment
-
Maddock making a complete cunt of himself again.
As a reminder of how **** his sources are.....
Napoli head the queue for Liverpool midfielder Lucas, who has not yet been offered a new Anfield contract.
The Brazilian international is closing in on the last 12 months of his current deal, and there have been no moves from within the club to extend.
That suggests his days on Merseyside are numbered, with the club already preparing their transfer plans for the summer under new director of football Damien Comolli.
The fact that talks have not even opened suggests it is now unlikely to happen, and Serie A side Napoli have taken note.
34 hours later.....
Liverpool today confirmed midfielder Lucas Leiva has signed a new long-term contract at Anfield.
Comment
-
Not sure if it's been posted before but what the ****. Long read but worth it.
Reading Twitter, it seems that Liverpool FC is pretty hated right now. Iād imagine that itās even worse in the mass media, but I do my best to avoid chip wrappings and rent-a-gob TV.
Maybe a lot of Liverpool fans donāt care ā and a siege mentality rarely hurts a football club ā but I feel weāre being seriously misunderstood right now.
(Then again, Joey Barton and Mario Balotelli probably feel the same, and they donāt get cut a lot of slack either. Sometimes they deserve criticism, other times itās just a bandwagon of condemnation.)
In PR terms, the club, and Luis Suarez, had little option but to apologise for the absence of a handshake. I can see why it didnāt look good to outsiders, but when Skyās Martin Tyler joins a list of people saying that Evra appeared to avoid the handshake too, itās sad to see it all about the evils of Luis Suarez.
Suarez had his hand out, but with Evra looking non-committal, he hurried past. If he grabs Evraās hand, heās forcing the United man to accept it. Both men were put in an awkward position, and yet again Britain gets into a lather about a handshake.
Septicemia
If games against Chelsea summed up Rafa BenĆtezās reign ā Mourinho winning the early league games, the Reds winning the big cup clashes ā then Dalglishās second tenure at Liverpool is defined by games against Manchester United.
First, he returned ā so unexpectedly ā to the hot-seat the weekend the Reds went to Old Trafford, and lost. Next, the Reds blew away United at Anfield, with Kuyt scoring a hat-trick and Suarez embarrassing the United defence. A couple of weeks ago, Liverpool won in the FA Cup thanks to a dramatic late Dirk Kuyt goal, but a few months before that came the 1-1 draw at Anfield, with the infamous Suarez/Evra affair. That game affected this weekendās encounter, and will affect many more to come, it seems. Bad blood has turned septic.
If youāre an LFC fan vehemently opposed to racism but not convinced of Suarezās guilt, youāre pretty much damned right now. If Suarez has indeed been guilty all along, then heās got a lot to apologise for. But if he has been innocent, heās been given an unimaginably tough time.
Life would be simpler for us now had Luis Suarez shook Patrice Evraās hand, although anyone saying his refusal was āpre-meditatedā is a mind reader. The apologies help put the issue to bed, and hopefully the world moves on. The hysteria has been exhausting.
My view before the match was that Suarez should have been left out, to give the goading Old Trafford a sense of anticlimax, and no-one at whom to aim its ire. After all, did United playing Evra the other week help them?
In truth, Suarez actually performed with a lot of self-control, and scored a goal, but United were hyped up by his presence. Evra, in trying to clatter Suarez after 30 seconds, instead almost put Rio Ferdinand in hospital. At the end, Suarez left the pitch in a dignified manner, unlike his accuser.
Of course, leaving Suarez out could be seen as another sign of his guilt over the racism issue. Itās therefore a call Iām glad I didnāt have to make. But in being seen to have refused Evraās handshake, Suarez sealed his reputation as the most hated footballer in England right now.
Iāve seen numerous angles of the handshake in video clips, and Evraās hand stays low, and Suarezās hand hurries past. Neither man seems to be holding a hand āoutā to the other. Evra escalates the situation by grabbing Suarez, making sure that everyone saw.
(The same Evra who kissed his United badge to the Kop when supposedly āin shockā at being kicked by Suarez in October, as if a footballer had never been accidentally caught thousands of times in his life before. The same Evra who was in a rage over losing the coin toss in October. The same Evra who started the row in October by saying, in Suarezās language and not his own, the phrase āyour sisterās cuntā. The same Evra who celebrated victory at the weekend in an undignified manner. The same Evra who was called a āliar and a man of low characterā by his own FA in 2010, and āunreliableā by our own FA five years ago.
In other words, not a calm, placid, likeable man like Antonio Valencia, whose word, as someone who appears to just get on with the game, Iād be far happier to accept ā even if a manās word is in itself evidence of nothing but an ability to speak. In cases of one word against the other, you have to consider the character of the accuser, and not just the accused. We know that the neutrals donāt trust Suarez with many of his antics ā he certainly exaggerates contacts on fouls, and will seek to gain an advantage in a number of ways ā but why trust Evra, either?)
If ā and I mean if ā Suarez feels that he was harshly punished due to Evra lying about him, then he has a right to feel very aggrieved and refuse a handshake. Yes, he let Liverpool FC down if heād promised to shake hands, but in the heat of the moment, perhaps he felt differently when confronted with the situation.
Itās time to make handshakes voluntary. The FA spared John Terry the ignominy at QPR, but here, only Luis Suarez was going to look bad if a handshake was refused.
John Barnes, whose views of racism have been enlightened, found the whole thing farcical:
āWeāre making a mountain out of a molehill. We are not the custodians of moral value in the world, we think we are but weāre not. Thereās worse things happening in the world, worse things happening in the country, everything should not be laid at footballersā doors.ā
Alex Ferguson had his say. āDisgraceful,ā screamed the headlines, as if heād written them himself (which, of course, in his own way he had). Suarez should be sold; he should never play for Liverpool again.
Who the hell is he to tell Liverpool Football Club how to conduct its business? Of course he wants to drive Suarez out of England and Liverpool, just as he did with BenĆtez, against whom his English LMA cronies ganged up. Of course he doesnāt want Dalglish in charge of Liverpool. He was happiest when Roy Hodgson was around, and the Reds were in the bottom half of the table. (The same Hodgson who refused to condemn Ferguson when he called Fernando Torres, who had clearly been fouled, a ācheatā.)
The same Ferguson who stood by Peter Schmeichel over claims of racial abuse aimed at Ian Wright (basically saying that Schmeichel couldnāt be racist, as heād visited South Africa with United two years earlier). He stood by Roy Keane, who admitted purposely injuring Alfe Inge Haaland, with a horrific career-ending tackle. He stood by players who refused to shake Patrick Vieiraās hand. The same Ferguson who stuck by Rio Ferdinand after he failed to turn up for a drugās test, which therefore meant he could have been hiding something (not that I necessarily think he was). The same Ferguson who took on Eric Cantona, whoād already attacked a referee in France, and then happily welcomed him back after a kung-fu kick on some idiot in the crowd.
āIndefensible!ā, is what I keep getting told by random Tweeps. Yet Suarez was found guilty on the balance of probabilities, without evidence or corroboration, by process that finds 0.5% of people innocent. Following it up by not shaking hands is āindefensibleā?
āIndefensibleā suggests a very serious crime, committed by someone caught in the act, with no doubt whatsoever about their guilt. Banged to rights. Fingerprints all over the scene. Gun still smoking. Someone like Edmund Kemper, perhaps, who admitted to engaging in oral sex ā or at least trying to ā with the decapitated heads of his defenceless female victims, including that of his mother. He led the police to their bodies (and heads).
By contrast, Luis Suarez was found guilty of possibly saying something racially inappropriate (due to cultural differences) in a conversation that had many opportunities for misunderstanding. (The conversation was started by a black Frenchman, in Spanish, on English soil, with a Dutchman called as a witness on behalf of the accused, who was a Uruguayan with a black grandparent. Straightforward, huh?)
āHe was found guilty!ā people scream at me, when I question anything to do with the case. But shouldnāt āguiltā, as a concept, relate to a court of law? ā hard evidence, judge, jury of 12 of your peers, etc, especially when itās an offence where ābalance of probabilitiesā is not sufficient for the condemnation a guilty verdict will produce?
Last week, Robert Huth was found guilty of serious foul play when he slid into Sunderlandās David Meyler, despite the fact that it was as clear as day that he was trying to pull out of the tackle.
āAn independent regulatory commission has today dismissed the claim of wrongful dismissal of Stoke Cityās Robert Huth. The defender will serve a three-match suspension with immediate effect following his red card for serious foul play in the game with Sunderland on February 4.ā
Of course, being found guilty in such situations doesnāt lead to vilification. Players get ādoneā for violent conduct all the time, yet donāt necessarily get labelled as violent people. Suarez is now labelled āracistā for life.
āHe admitted it!ā others scream of Suarez. Some even say that he admitted to calling Evra āa negroā. (If you are in this latter category, why should I even bother trying to put you right?)
But the linguistics experts in the FA report essentially agree with both men. Basically, they say that if what Suarez claims to have said was true, its intent would not have been racist; but that if what Evra alleged was true, it would have been racist. So, who decides? Should one of the three chosen be accepted when he boasts on his own autobiography that he saved Alex Fergusonās job?
I recently wrote the following in an email interview for The Trawler (to appear later this week): āLiverpool fans, including at least two fairly prominent lawyers, pored over the report because they felt it seriously flawed. If a decision goes your way, you say āthatās it, case closedā. You donāt want to look any deeper; you want to move on. If it doesnāt, you want to find the faults. Itās like when you get too much change from the supermarket ā you just carry on. But if you get overcharged, you go through the receipt, item by item.ā
Iāve probably lost the respect of loads of neutral supporters and writers over the issue, and to a degree that upsets me. Iāve certainly lost respect for those who simply follow the narrative, and who refuse to even consider an alternate reality. (And yes, I have considered the version where Suarez is guilty; I canāt prove that he isnāt guilty, of course ā just as, based on the evidence, no-one could prove in a court of law that he is.)
Spiral of Silence
The only neutral source to have analysed the case with a critical eye rather than moral indignation is News Frames. The author of the blog does not support any football club, and until this issue, had dealt mostly with political and social reporting.
I asked News Frames why the story was playing out this way. The author believed it to be related to the sociological phenomenon called āspiral of silenceā.
People dare not go against the grain. Iāve certainly wished Iād kept quiet at times, as it seems the aggro just isnāt worth it. To even dare suggest that an alternative to the media narrative may exist is worthy of a truckload of abuse. Suggest someone may be innocent of racism, and you get labelled a racist.
As the News Frames blog noted several weeks ago:
āIām reminded of another T-shirt gesture to protest a manās innocence. Itās a different type of case, but the underlying logic (of protest) is exactly the same. Amnesty International published a statement about the flawed evidence against a man (Troy Davis) convicted of murder. There was a campaign (āToo Much Doubtā) to raise awareness of problems with the evidence and the legal process.
The Guardian supported the campaign (T-shirts and all). Nobody, to my knowledge, argued that, in so doing, they were supporting the crime (rather than the man and his claims of innocence). The logic of protesting wasnāt drowned out with cries of āshamefulā or ābeyond the paleā ā at least not in the UKās āliberalā media.
Appeal
The point that a lot of neutrals seem to be missing is that both player and manager can believe in Suarezās innocence.
I donāt know why Liverpool did not launch an appeal. Perhaps they hoped to move on from a situation that was causing a lot of PR damage, with the media already outraged that they might have the temerity to dare consider such a move. (People like the Mailās Martin Samuel had already said, many months before the verdict, that Suarez was likely to be guilty as racists are sly, and do things unseen, but that John Terry was likely to be innocent, as people donāt do that kind of thing publicly. So much for a fair press!)
Perhaps Liverpool didnāt trust the system; after all, the FA finds people guilty 99.5% of the time. Why repeat a trial in a kangaroo court?
Perhaps they donāt trust the FA, with Manchester Unitedās David Gill a key part of their decision-making process.
Perhaps they knew that, in the admirable drive to rid the game of racism, a scapegoat had to be found.
Perhaps, from a purely footballing point of view, they wanted to get the suspension out of the way to have the player back for more important games.
Or perhaps they suspected that Suarez was guilty. This is a possibility, obviously; just not, as many have you believe, the only logical explanation.
The Future?
A lot of fans are fearing that Suarez may have to be sold. I started resigning myself to this a few months back; a move to Spain, for a large transfer fee, might do everyone the world of good. Heās become the boogeyman, responsible for all the ills of the English game, it seems. A lovely bloke off the pitch, by all accounts, heās certainly controversial on it.
Iām not sure how the circus that surrounds him goes away, unless he himself does. Time will lessen the hatred, and dull the hysteria, but the stain on his character remains.
Heās the clubās best player, so that makes it tough. Ferguson sticks by his players when they overstep the mark. All clubs work this way; itās easy to offload a troublemaker if heās not a key player.
If he stays, then he certainly has my support. Heās served his punishment, even though the evidence of his guilt was so flimsy. But if he goes, we move on. If, by staying, it adversely affects the club, and results on the pitch suffer, then as much as I love his skill and ceaseless desire to win, we look for a new star man.
From the Tomkins Times. http://tomkinstimes.com/When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use.
Comment
-
You know what I was in a almost down mood, which for me is really going some, this weekend and it had nothing to do with the result, that I can take, we were ****, they were less ****, fine I can process that. But regardless of who you think is right or wrong in all of this, in the court of public opinion we have been made to look like ****ing fools.
Its indicitve of whats ****ing wrong with this world, when people like Patrice Evra can be applauded, and indivudals like Him with his track record can take a high moral position.
Seriously Ian Ayre needs to take a very ****ing close look at himself. A great Commercial Director no doubt, but he has dropped the ball on this if you ask me, we have been caught with our pants down and taken a royal shafting. Seeing Kenny after that game was almost reminisce of Keegan losing his **** when that cunt got into his head, but not quite. Thank God.
We still have everything to play for, we are in a good position to take 4th if we turn up in this last proportion of the season. We are in a Cup final against a team we should be beating every Sunday cup tie or no cup tie, we have a favorable tie in the FA Cup, we have superb owners, we are managed my a Legand and one day very soon this will all be a distant memory and a lesson on what not to do. I respect the clubs stance and support of Luie as do I, I just think we could have done it better.
Its a tough world sometimes. The longer I watch that team managed by that man, you really understand why they are so succesful, he will do anything to win, ironically much like Suarez. He has been doing his best to keep us down season in season out, its time we rise above it and above themLast edited by Nicey; 13-02-12, 03:06 AM.Anybody who criticizes Klopp ever is a James Blunt. Nov 2015
#****CITY
Comment


Comment