Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 188 comments are related to the topic:
John Terry charged by the FA
John Terry charged by the FA
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 188
|
By:
You've cited you used to pinch the bums of young girls, so Suarezs pinch could be anything? Hmm. You've cited Evra fabricated evidence to make the case more condemning, common knowledge. You've cited you've no idea. Sounds awfully exhausting. You've no view on the skin pinching? On Evra being upset immediately and still after the match? You've no view on whether Evra may have been more likely to be telling the truth or lying? You collecting splinters?
|
|
By:
Evra was upset as he made up Suarez was racist, and Suarez pinched his skin to flirt or let Evra know he was infallible, all seems a bit far fetched. God these namby pamby fence sitting liberals are a complete bore.
|
|
By:
I've stated quite categorically that I don't know what happened because I wasn't party to the conversation and, even if I had been, as I don't speak Spanish, I couldn't possibly tell you what it meant. The same goes for the FA panel that were allowed to adjudicate on the case, yet they managed to reach a verdict. Every time a football player breathes on Neymar, he goes down like he's been shot, visibly upset at the treatment he has received. Do we take that as proof that he has been assaulted, or think to ourselves get up you silly fool.
My view on the chain of events, based entirely on the case brought against Suarez can be summarised as thus: A conversation took place between Evra and Suarez in Spanish, which included physical contact. Evra accused Suarez of calling him a 'n***er". Evra lied, according to his, and his team mate's, own testimony. The FA, in their own words, "preferred the account of Mr. Evra". The FA, and Evra, concluded that Mr Suarez was not a racist. Suarez was charged and found guilty of an offence that wasn't related to racism. Suarez was banned for 8 games. Now if the charge wasn't race related, I cannot understand why a) Suarez is being branded a racist, and b) why the ban was so lengthy. I also cannot understand why the account of a man who lied was preferred. I will continue to say, I am not saying Suarez was not racist, I am saying I do not know. What I do know is that Evra lied and the word of a liar cannot be preferred when the only evidence in the case is his word against another man's, one who didn't lie. Does that answer all of your questions? |
|
By:
Maybe the charge was race related.
|
|
By:
If, in summing up, they conclude that he is not racist, they cannot have found him guilty of a racism offence. On that note, I bid you goodnight.
|
|
By:
I'm not aware of the ins and outs of the inner workings of the FA. There are several scenarios which justify the 8 match ban and this course of action but it's chinese whispers and not for our discussions. Sweet dreams.
|
|
By:
Cream always rises to the top
|
|
By:
Sorry Benjamin you're right he wasnt used the term "negarito" as a insult was he? You could feel the love between them during the video, I'm sure they went out after the game as close chums. Absolutely unbelivable
|
|
By:
The Independent Commission found that Luis Suarez had given "unreliable" and "inconsistent" evidence and that his argument based around the friendly use of "negro" was "unsustainable." The report went further into this aspect by saying, "Given the number of times that Mr Suarez used the word 'negro', his conduct is significantly more serious than a one-off use of a racially offensive term and amounts to an aggravating factor."
|
|
By:
As to the pinching of Mr Evra's arm, Mr Suarez said this in paragraph 27 of his witness statement: "Evra did not back off and Dirk Kuyt was approaching us to stand between us. At this point I touched PE's left arm in a pinching type movement. This all happened very quickly. I was trying to defuse the situation and was trying to intimate to Evra that he was not untouchable by reference to his question about the foul."
|
|
By:
In giving the reasons for the length of the ban, the report said: "Given the number of times that Mr Suarez used the word 'negro', his conduct is significantly more serious than a one-off use of a racially offensive term and amounts to an aggravating factor."
|
|
By:
"Mr Suarez's evidence was unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance. It was, in part, inconsistent with the evidence, especially the video footage.
"For example, Mr Suarez said that he pinched Mr Evra's skin in an attempt to defuse the situation. He also said that his use of the word 'negro' to address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence. "To describe his own behaviour in that way was unsustainable and simply incredible given that the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument. "That this was put forward by Mr Suarez was surprising and seriously undermined the reliability of his evidence on other matters. "There were also inconsistencies between his accounts given at different times as to what happened." Suarez was found guilty on the "balance of probability" - a lower standard than the criminal standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt". |
|
By:
Yes sj, I am right, because the word 'negarito' wasn't used. Not least because, even if the word you are referring to had been used, it would be 'negrito'. You bizarre character.
I'm glad you have consulted the report RMB. The issue I have with the parts you have quoted is that Suarez is deemed to be unreliable because of inconsistencies in his evidence, and it is his unreliability that ultimately saw him found guilty. As has been shown above, there were inconsistencies in Evra's evidence too. Therefore, surely both are unreliable, and no verdict can be found in favour of either party? |
|
By:
The FA concluded that he used the term 'negro' 7 times, basing that solely on Evras statements certainly doesn't make sense to me. Did the FA ever pass comment on the video evidence i.e. how many times there is concrete evidence of Suarez using this word?
|
|
By:
"Given the number of times that Mr Suarez used the word 'negro', his conduct is significantly more serious than a one-off use of a racially offensive term and amounts to an aggravating factor."
Seems to be stated as a fact opposed to an allegation. Are they saying there is video evidence of him using the term 7 terms? |
|
By:
Not as far as I'm aware, I don't recall any video evidence being used as it was deemed inconclusive, despite lip-reading experts being asked to look at it.
What has happened, as you alluded to, is they've taken Evra's version of events and used that as fact. That would be fair enough if there was no reason to doubt the word of Evra, but given the proof that he lied about what he was called (presumably to esculate the seriousness of the allegation) that is not the case. I feel I need to reiterate that I am NOT saying Suarez wasn't racist. I'm just saying that I don't know, and nor do the FA. Therefore, the way they reached their verdict and the punishment that they handed out doesn't sit right with me. |
|
By:
I get you're not saying Suarez wasn't racist.
The facts we have are, the term 'negro' was used towards Evra by Suarez in the heat of battle. Suarez pinched Evras skin. It's a shame that in a 115 page report the specific concrete evidence as provided by video footage and all the extra angles they're afforded wasn't used. Surely if they conclude that Suarez used the term 7 times they've at least evidence of it being used more than once. |
|
By:
If there only evidence of Suarez using the word more than once is Evras statements, then that does seem ludicrous given Evras propensity to exaggerate events.
|
|
By:
I'm glad we have reached an agreement.
 |
|
By:
We certainly agree on large parts, but I personally think the ban was fair and you're of the view it wasn't?
|
|
By:
Negro then, whatever way you want it. So you dont think he was constantly using it as a insult? Typical Liverpool stance
|
|
By:
"Given the number of times that Mr Suarez used the word 'negro', his conduct is significantly more serious than a one-off use of a racially offensive term and amounts to an aggravating factor."
That's an absurd conclusion if there's no evidence for Suarez using the term more than once apart from Evras word. |
|
By:
I think if they find him guilty of racially motivated abuse/misconduct then yes, 8 games is fair. However, having said that they concluded he is not racist, they can't find that he was using racially motivated abuse - given that's what racism is.
sj, if you're not prepared to read, don't expect me to bother trying to explain. My position on all of this has been made perfectly clear. |
|
By:
Lack of transparency is always somewhat annoying. Suarez admitted to using the term 'negro' once. Please tell me I've missed it and in a 115 page report, they do at least tell us what context the term was used in. I find it mind boggling if there isn't.
|
|
By:
They don't, because they can't. They do not know, only two people do, and the stories from those two people are contrasting. They "preferred Mr Evra's account" and found Suarez guilty on that basis alone. That isn't right.
|
|
By:
To clear his case surely Suarez has stated when he used the term though? If he is innocent it seems nonsensical to not say, I used the term just once, and this is what I said. Makes him come across as guilty.
|
|
By:
Ok. So remind me why Suarez is innocent and Terry should get a lengthly ban then sweetheart
|
|
By:
suarez said he used the term and his defence was basically that it was acceptable to do so in south america
hardly the same as the terry case |
|
By:
So let me try and understand this. A court of law finds someone not guilty, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to prove him guilty.
The FA then charge the same person. Have they got the evidence then? Did they withhold the evidence? The matter has been dealt with in court, now move on, it's a new season, fresh start, let's go. |
|
By:
I think JT meant what he said,he wasn't "repeating" anything.I also think Suarez meant to racially insult Evra.Both incidents were in the heat of the moment and i dont for one second think either players are racist.
You'll be amazed what you say/do when the red mist descends.It's turned otherwise normal human beings into murderers etc |
|
By:
The sentence he used it in is there. Suarez statement says he used it in this sentence:
"Por que, negro?" ("Why, black?") I don't get it though  |
|
By:
|
|
By:
donny osmond 28 Jul 12 10:14
suarez said he used the term and his defence was basically that it was acceptable to do so in south america hardly the same as the terry case What are you saying? It s alright to racially abuse someone as long as you're not english? The question what people keep avoiding is why did Suarez use the term? It was meant as a insult simple as that |
|
By:
Strange that only black players get insulted don't you think.
|
|
By:
"Por que, negro?" ("Why, black?")
That's what Suarez said he said. If JT wasn't responding to a question then he called Anton 'a ****ing black c***' which is obviously beyond the pale and worthy of a season ban, if not more. |
|
By:
i dont think terry is clever enough to come up with his defence so quickly so i dont
agree, i think he miss heard ferdinand, and thought him to be accusing him of racism whatever made him think that could take several years of arguments ...... |
|
By:
Court of law and the FA have different systems. Obviously to find someone guilty in the court of law you need to be beyond any doubt, where as the FA are on the balance of probabilities.
|
|
By:
sj - I have never said he is innocent. For the love of God learn to read. Terry should get a ban of equal length because, removing context as was done in the case of Suarez, means it doesn't matter in what way the words are said. Saying words that are insulting and refer to race carry a ban of 8 games. That's the precedent they set, and they should follow it.
donny - Why is it not the same? Suarez said he used a term that is acceptable in his country - he told the truth. This wasn't a conversation that took place in English, it took place in Spanish. Therefore, Spanish interpretation of the word is to be used, not whatever vague translation it has in English. efsio - The burden of proof required is different. It is possible to have enough evidence to find guilty in a civil case without having enough proof to find guilty in a criminal case. clarkey - That is your interpretation and your opinion, which is fine. That, however, should not be enough to find a man guilty (as the FA have done) as they should deal solely in facts, not who they prefer. |
|
By:
PMSL, just received Jury Service papers.
|
|
By:
Season ban leave it out. Jesus christ, other bloke's insulting him all game long. What happens if you call someone a english cu nt? Spanish cu nt etc. Seen some things in my time but calling someone a name deserving a season plus ban is one of the funniest
|