Football
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Before anyone complains about it, do a little research into his 'not guilty' verdict and the charge by the FA.
No doubt we will get some people saying 'he's not guilty, why are the fa charging him'.
No doubt we will get some people saying 'he's not guilty, why are the fa charging him'.
Show More
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."
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."
"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".
"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".
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?
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?
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?
"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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We certainly agree on large parts, but I personally think the ban was fair and you're of the view it wasn't?
Negro then, whatever way you want it. So you dont think he was constantly using it as a insult? Typical Liverpool stance
"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.
That's an absurd conclusion if there's no evidence for Suarez using the term more than once apart from Evras word.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok. So remind me why Suarez is innocent and Terry should get a lengthly ban then sweetheart
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
hardly the same as the terry case
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.
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.
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
You'll be amazed what you say/do when the red mist descends.It's turned otherwise normal human beings into murderers etc
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
"Por que, negro?" ("Why, black?")
I don't get it though
Jul 28, 2012 -- 10:15AM, clarkey wrote:
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
That's my interpretation too.
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
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
Strange that only black players get insulted don't you think.
"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.
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.
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 ......
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 ......
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.
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.
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.
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
Xenophobia towards Spanish people isn't exactly rife? If it was you'd certainly be presenting a credible point, as it is, I fear you are not.
ben
its not the same because the defense is different , if we are to take them at their word
i dont like terry but hate the witchunt that is going on
suarez more or less confessed to being guilty by ignorance of the law, terry maintains his innocence
its not the same because the defense is different , if we are to take them at their word
i dont like terry but hate the witchunt that is going on
suarez more or less confessed to being guilty by ignorance of the law, terry maintains his innocence
Well English and Spanish aren't races, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Ben192 28 Jul 12 10:21
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.
Dont talk nonsense. There was no context removed in Suarez's case he knew he was insulting Evra. Are you really ntrying to tell me he wasnt using the term and pinching his skin not as a insult? If not then that s fine I wont bother anymore.
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.
Dont talk nonsense. There was no context removed in Suarez's case he knew he was insulting Evra. Are you really ntrying to tell me he wasnt using the term and pinching his skin not as a insult? If not then that s fine I wont bother anymore.
if it hadnt been windy in 1588 we would be arguing in spanish now !!!
Donny, they both claim that the context in which they said what they said makes them not-guilty. Suarez says he used the term, but used it in a way that isn't racist in his country. Terry says he used the term, but used it to repeat what Anton had said to him.
The FA stripped the context from the situation in Suarez's case, and said that using the words alone was enough to constitute a ban. If they follow precedent, they do the same again.
The FA stripped the context from the situation in Suarez's case, and said that using the words alone was enough to constitute a ban. If they follow precedent, they do the same again.
No sj, I'm not trying to say that. But as you continually prove to me that you are not capable of reading, I won't bother explaining again.
ben, the law of this country is that not knowing the law is not a valid defence
therein lies suarezs guilt
therein lies suarezs guilt
I agree Ben.The FA are an absolute shambolic,disgrace of an institution and if LFC had gone to a court of law,it would have been chucked out within 2 days due to lack of credible evidence.
However,if we're all being brutally honest,we've all said some pretty nasty stuff in the heat of the moments even to friends and families etc and im convinced JT and Suarez meant to "hurt" the guys in question.
However,if we're all being brutally honest,we've all said some pretty nasty stuff in the heat of the moments even to friends and families etc and im convinced JT and Suarez meant to "hurt" the guys in question.
RMB © 28 Jul 12 10:24
Xenophobia towards Spanish people isn't exactly rife? If it was you'd certainly be presenting a credible point, as it is, I fear you are not.
Ben192 28 Jul 12 10:24
Well English and Spanish aren't races, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
PMSL RMB. SO Xenophobia against black people is rife is it? Wow this gets better. Insulting black man= season ban. Insulting spainard= 2 game ban insulting english whitey=pat on the back. Tryely truely amazing
Ok Ben Hispanic then
Xenophobia towards Spanish people isn't exactly rife? If it was you'd certainly be presenting a credible point, as it is, I fear you are not.
Ben192 28 Jul 12 10:24
Well English and Spanish aren't races, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
PMSL RMB. SO Xenophobia against black people is rife is it? Wow this gets better. Insulting black man= season ban. Insulting spainard= 2 game ban insulting english whitey=pat on the back. Tryely truely amazing
Ok Ben Hispanic then
Xenophobia against black people? God good boy, what are you chatting.
The FA stripped the "context" in the Suarez case cos there was no context. Like I've said before he's not constantly using the word and pinching Evra's skin if he s not insulting him. One of the funniest defences I've heard
RMB © 28 Jul 12 10:31
Xenophobia against black people? God good boy, what are you chatting.
Racism then. OLD BOY. I like your arguement though you can only insult black people
Xenophobia against black people? God good boy, what are you chatting.
Racism then. OLD BOY. I like your arguement though you can only insult black people
No donny, because his defence wasn't that he didn't know the law, it's that what he said wasn't racially motivated at all.
I agree clarkey, so the only possible outcome is that Terry is banned for an equal length of time? All being just and fair, of course.
sj, there is no evidence that he constantly said the word, other than Evra's testimony. You can't believe the testimony of a man proven to be a liar if you are impartial. The context of what he said was deemed to be offensive, in accordance with Evra's testimony, and it was this that created the guilty verdict. None of that is based on fact, all on the testimony of a liar. That's not a defence, but an assessment of the facts. Now please stop being so - I can only hope purposely - stupid.
I agree clarkey, so the only possible outcome is that Terry is banned for an equal length of time? All being just and fair, of course.
sj, there is no evidence that he constantly said the word, other than Evra's testimony. You can't believe the testimony of a man proven to be a liar if you are impartial. The context of what he said was deemed to be offensive, in accordance with Evra's testimony, and it was this that created the guilty verdict. None of that is based on fact, all on the testimony of a liar. That's not a defence, but an assessment of the facts. Now please stop being so - I can only hope purposely - stupid.
It is quite embarrassing to have a defence of I was pinching Evra to diffuse the situation and let him know he wasn't infallible.
I'm not a fan of Evra Ben, he came out with this cr ap before about Chelsea ground staff.
No he didn't sj. See, you don't know what you're talking about.
Suarez was clearly lying throughout his statements, so I guess it came down to whether Evras case was credible enough for them to make a judgement based on all probabilities. The fact Suarez is lying and has no credible defence would suggest one of being guilty, surely.
Ben,i think JT will get a 6-8 game ban but Chelsea,unlike Liverpool,wont just accept it and will fight the FA back in court if needed.Quite rightly,imo.
The FA will making a big mistake if they think they can use their pathetic kangaroo court system against a club owned by someone like Abramovich.I hope he makes them out to be the hideous group of cretins that they are.
The FA will making a big mistake if they think they can use their pathetic kangaroo court system against a club owned by someone like Abramovich.I hope he makes them out to be the hideous group of cretins that they are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=kCGG2_hNB4A&NR=1
Surely with more video evidence like this they could have used lip readers to decipher what was said in the goalmouth.
Surely with more video evidence like this they could have used lip readers to decipher what was said in the goalmouth.
RMB, if they're both guilty of lying, they should both be told to stop behaving like kids, get out of court and sort themselves out. Not find a guilty verdict in favour of one liar over the other.
donny, you haven't. You've told me Suarez admitted he was being racist but that he didn't know he couldn't be because he was in this country. That's not what happened.
donny, you haven't. You've told me Suarez admitted he was being racist but that he didn't know he couldn't be because he was in this country. That's not what happened.
Equally as embarrassing as Terry's "I was only saying that I didn't call you a black c**t" nonsense. Anyone who isn't five years old or a deluded fan boy knows that both Suarez and Terry were making racist remarks. Both players subsequently tried to defend themselves by highlighting the context, which is the sort of rubbish that wouldn't get past a headmaster, but the law doesn't work that way.
In Terry's case, nobody could prove what that his bullsh1t story wasn't true. The FA seem to think that him using the words "black c**t" towards Ferdinand is enough to warrant a charge of some kind. They can't come out and say "we don't believe your bullsh1t story JT" but it's pretty obvious that is the case.
Spare me the "court of law" boll*cks. It's as clear as day what has gone on.
Not that it was an "offence" ever worthy of a court-case, a complete waste of time and money.
In Terry's case, nobody could prove what that his bullsh1t story wasn't true. The FA seem to think that him using the words "black c**t" towards Ferdinand is enough to warrant a charge of some kind. They can't come out and say "we don't believe your bullsh1t story JT" but it's pretty obvious that is the case.
Spare me the "court of law" boll*cks. It's as clear as day what has gone on.
Not that it was an "offence" ever worthy of a court-case, a complete waste of time and money.
Correct clarkey. As I have maintained, my issue is not with the ban, but how it was reached. And my fury lies equally with the legal team of LFC who could not fight their way out of a paper bag.
Whilst I think the only thing the FA can do is ban Terry for an equal period of time, I hope Chelsea challenge it and I hope they win. The FA can't just go handing out bans like this without any real evidence, and they need to be shown that.
Whilst I think the only thing the FA can do is ban Terry for an equal period of time, I hope Chelsea challenge it and I hope they win. The FA can't just go handing out bans like this without any real evidence, and they need to be shown that.
RMB, 90+% of people in this country hate Suarez. The FA used his case to make an example of him. If they could have found any tiny shred of evidence in lip-reading what he said, don't think for one second that they wouldn't have done so and used it to further lengthen his ban.
A court of law,which is infinitely more powerful and accountable than the FA,found JT not guilty(or not enough evidence to be guilty).The same would have happened in the Suarez case.
To think that a bunch of gin soaked old t0ssers at the FA can then just rule above them......well it's just mind boggling isn't it?
To think that a bunch of gin soaked old t0ssers at the FA can then just rule above them......well it's just mind boggling isn't it?
the dza 28 Jul 12 10:44
Equally as embarrassing as Terry's "I was only saying that I didn't call you a black c**t" nonsense. Anyone who isn't five years old or a deluded fan boy knows that both Suarez and Terry were making racist remarks. Both players subsequently tried to defend themselves by highlighting the context, which is the sort of rubbish that wouldn't get past a headmaster, but the law doesn't work that way.
In Terry's case, nobody could prove what that his bullsh1t story wasn't true. The FA seem to think that him using the words "black c**t" towards Ferdinand is enough to warrant a charge of some kind. They can't come out and say "we don't believe your bullsh1t story JT" but it's pretty obvious that is the case.
Spare me the "court of law" boll*cks. It's as clear as day what has gone on.
Not that it was an "offence" ever worthy of a court-case, a complete waste of time and money.
To be fair your lot accused Terry of being racist towards King when he got sent off years ago and nothing has ever said or proven, so your "agenda" clouds your judgement
Equally as embarrassing as Terry's "I was only saying that I didn't call you a black c**t" nonsense. Anyone who isn't five years old or a deluded fan boy knows that both Suarez and Terry were making racist remarks. Both players subsequently tried to defend themselves by highlighting the context, which is the sort of rubbish that wouldn't get past a headmaster, but the law doesn't work that way.
In Terry's case, nobody could prove what that his bullsh1t story wasn't true. The FA seem to think that him using the words "black c**t" towards Ferdinand is enough to warrant a charge of some kind. They can't come out and say "we don't believe your bullsh1t story JT" but it's pretty obvious that is the case.
Spare me the "court of law" boll*cks. It's as clear as day what has gone on.
Not that it was an "offence" ever worthy of a court-case, a complete waste of time and money.
To be fair your lot accused Terry of being racist towards King when he got sent off years ago and nothing has ever said or proven, so your "agenda" clouds your judgement
RMB © 28 Jul 12 10:48
LS and JT are both clearly guilty, spot on dza.
Whats your views on Rio' choc Ice agreeing with Choc Ice comments about Ashley Cole. That alright?
LS and JT are both clearly guilty, spot on dza.
Whats your views on Rio' choc Ice agreeing with Choc Ice comments about Ashley Cole. That alright?
donny osmond 28 Jul 12 10:51
suarez admitted he said it
Exactly. You cant have a defence of "Oh well it s alright in our country"
suarez admitted he said it
Exactly. You cant have a defence of "Oh well it s alright in our country"
Jul 28, 2012 -- 10:51AM, donny osmond wrote:
suarez admitted he said it
Exactly, I'm not sure why Ben has ignored this obvious fact.
About the same as your's claiming racism against blacks is rife mate.
The trouble with "debating" this issue on a football forum is that tribalism takes over quite quicky.My personal feelings in the Suarez case is that Evra is a horrible little sh1te and could wind up mother theresa.He's been a nasty piece of work throughout his career and i'd love the opportunity to play aginst him......but courts,fortunately,dont think like that.
I think the FA do.
I think the FA do.
From the stands, players get dogs abuse and swore at etc. But then, perhaps try calling a black player a "black c**t" at a football match and then use Terry's defence and see what happens. That defence might get you off in court, but it wouldn't stop a club from barring you entry to any of their matches.
This is the scenario set for the FA.
This is the scenario set for the FA.
yes sj, there is still a major problem in this country with racism
Racism towards blacks is nowhere near rife.
I think whites are equally,maybe more,insulted by blacks......they just tend not to report it,imo
I think whites are equally,maybe more,insulted by blacks......they just tend not to report it,imo
It is for the FA to satisfy us on the balance of probability that Mr Suarez
breached the Rules.
Suarez pinched his skin.
Suarezs defence made no sense.
Suarez admitted to using the word 'negro'.
On the balance of probabilities it seems obvious that Suarez more likely than not breached the rules. I'm interested in the counter case Ben has.
breached the Rules.
Suarez pinched his skin.
Suarezs defence made no sense.
Suarez admitted to using the word 'negro'.
On the balance of probabilities it seems obvious that Suarez more likely than not breached the rules. I'm interested in the counter case Ben has.
Jul 28, 2012 -- 11:01AM, clarkey wrote:
Racism towards blacks is nowhere near rife.I think whites are equally,maybe more,insulted by blacks......they just tend not to report it,imo
RMB © 28 Jul 12 10:57
Racism isn't rife still? Mind boggling.
Watch the Clarke Carlise programme mate. It will help you. No racism is not rife in this country's football much like BBC dont try and make something otu of nothing which isnt there. All of the players on them said they had never experienced it in this country.
Must try harder
Racism isn't rife still? Mind boggling.
Watch the Clarke Carlise programme mate. It will help you. No racism is not rife in this country's football much like BBC dont try and make something otu of nothing which isnt there. All of the players on them said they had never experienced it in this country.
Must try harder
^^ key in RMB's post there "balance of probabilitiy". That's how the FA go about their charges, not "beyond reasonable doubt" as is the requirement in a criminal case.
Jul 28, 2012 -- 11:04AM, the dza wrote:
^^ key in RMB's post there "balance of probabilitiy". That's how the FA go about their charges, not "beyond reasonable doubt" as is the requirement in a criminal case.
Exactly. I'm not sure what peoples case for Suarez is.
I never said racism was rife in UK football. Desperate stuff I'm afraid
donny, Suarez admitted to saying something that translates in English as "Why, black?". That is not racially motivated abuse. Therefore, he has not admitted to using racially motivated abuse.
RMB, pinching skin is not racially motivated abuse. He also put his hand on the back of Evra's head in the video you posted - was that racially motivated abuse too? Suarez's defence may have made no sense, but neither did Evra's accusation, in which he lied. Yes, Suarez admitted to using a word, a word that has no meaning in the English language (note pronunciation of 'neg-gro', not 'knee-grow'), a word that is used in the Spanish language (the one in which it was spoken) as a term to address friends and family (this is an example, I'm not saying Evra is either to Suarez).
The facts are that there is no evidence that Suarez was racist, yet he was punished as though he was. He was found guilty based on the balance of probability, when taking the word of a liar in to account. In reaching a fair and just verdict, the word of a liar cannot be taken as truth.
RMB, pinching skin is not racially motivated abuse. He also put his hand on the back of Evra's head in the video you posted - was that racially motivated abuse too? Suarez's defence may have made no sense, but neither did Evra's accusation, in which he lied. Yes, Suarez admitted to using a word, a word that has no meaning in the English language (note pronunciation of 'neg-gro', not 'knee-grow'), a word that is used in the Spanish language (the one in which it was spoken) as a term to address friends and family (this is an example, I'm not saying Evra is either to Suarez).
The facts are that there is no evidence that Suarez was racist, yet he was punished as though he was. He was found guilty based on the balance of probability, when taking the word of a liar in to account. In reaching a fair and just verdict, the word of a liar cannot be taken as truth.
RMB, how have you gone from calling me deluded, to agreeing with me, to calling me deluded again? Peculiar behaviour to say the least.
You make a coherent case, then make a nonsensical one. I reply in kind, surely not to hard to grasp?
Which bit was nonsensical? My case has remained the same throughout!
Suarez putting his arm around Evras head was clearly a conciliatory move. The pinching of the skin backs up Evras claim that his skin colour was being referred to. On the balance of probabilities it appears Suarez was more likely to be doing this and being conciliatory or perhaps flirting with him (your technique I believe).
Ok RMB. I'm glad you havent been blinkered with your Manchester United links whilst it a amusing when Rio agrre and laughs with racial insults regarding Ashley Cole, but wants a year's banfor Terry. LOL. Isa y good day to you sir.
Did Rio call Cole a black c***? Or did he laugh at an amusing joke?
You keep missing the key point RMB. You refer to 'Evra's claim'. Exactly. This is all based on Evra's claims. This all comes after Evra had lied in his initial accusation. Therefore, anything that comes after cannot be trusted, because he had lied initially.
Lying and interpreting something incorrectly are wholly different. He accused Suarez of calling him a 'n***er' based on the incorrect interpretation of 'negros'. His initial accusation was in essence that he was referred to and insulted by remarks to do with his skin colour. The FA found this to be more likely true than not. You seem to think that this isn't the case, and I am wondering how you come to that conclusion.
I don't think you will get through to him RMB. Enjoy your Saturday!
Yes they are RMB, and Evra knew at the time that he accused Suarez of calling him a 'n***er' that that was not the case. Ergo, he lied.
dza, the bitter front wheeler on here 24/7 spouting his nonsense ,one can understand his frustrations though being a Spurs loser.
It doesnt matter what the FA do now in their kangaroo courts ,a higher court has delivered it's verdict on the Terry case ,had Suarez gone to a higher court, he may well have been found guilty there as well.
The Terry court case worked very well for JT and Chelsea FC in the end
. 
Not so well for Tottenham .
It doesnt matter what the FA do now in their kangaroo courts ,a higher court has delivered it's verdict on the Terry case ,had Suarez gone to a higher court, he may well have been found guilty there as well.
The Terry court case worked very well for JT and Chelsea FC in the end
. Not so well for Tottenham .
http://newsframes.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/tale-of-two-racisms/
I'm really looking forward to seeing how the press react to this one.
I'm really looking forward to seeing how the press react to this one.
People like Evra and Ferdinand will only assist in increasing racism. People have made far worse remarks to me than insulting the colour of my skin, I don't go whingin' to authorities. I sort it in a manly way.
RMB © 28 Jul 12 11:15
Did Rio call Cole a black c***? Or did he laugh at an amusing joke?
Oh a joke?
Did Rio call Cole a black c***? Or did he laugh at an amusing joke?
Oh a joke?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539