Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[TheDrowningMan]

Luis Suarez race row, comment: Keith Curle: This must stick | Mail Online

 

Keith Curle now sticking his oar in...

 

...in the Daily Mail.

[fowler9]

why is it all these cunts think they have a right to comment with no proof what so ever?

[ngogswilly]

Well as far as Evra and the Stamford Bridge thing goes wouldn't it make sense that even if it was someone else who reported it, it must have come from Evra originally, because it was only him and 2 or 3 other United players involved in the brawl. No staff like Phelan etc...

 

So obviously he must have told them and they were the ones who broke the news.

[Guest San Don]

Vickery nails it.

 

BBC Sport - Luis Suarez ban for racist abuse of Patrice Evra leaves Uruguay bemused

 

When Luis Suarez joined Liverpool at the start of the year I wrote that he had the ability to shine in the Premier League but also that his fiery temperament would be put to the test.

 

He has given us more than I bargained for. An instant Anfield sensation, his exploits for Uruguay make Suarez beyond doubt the outstanding player in the world this year in terms of national team football.

 

In England, as expected, he has become the Liverpool player least likely to be popular with opposing fans but he has exceeded his own reputation for controversy with the flare-up with Patrice Evra and the charge of racism which has now brought him an eight-game ban and a £40,000 fine.

 

It is news which has not gone down well in Uruguay. When the verdict was announced and published on the website of El Pais, the country's leading newspaper, the comments section was full of remarks attacking the "hypocrisy" and "pseudo-moralism" of the English.

 

When Suarez pulls on the sky blue shirt of his country he is part of a national team which has an unrivalled record of giving opportunities to afro-descendants. In the face of protests from their opponents, Uruguay picked black players in the first Copa America in 1916.

 

Probably the most revered figure in the history of Uruguayan football is Obdulio Varela, captain of the side that won the World Cup in 1950. His nickname was "El Negro Jefe" - the black boss.

 

Among Suarez's team-mates these days is Maxi Pereira, who is known as "El Mono" - the monkey. It is a nickname which, apparently, is given and accepted with no offence meant or taken. It appears to be used in the same spirit that Alvaro Fernandez is called "El Flaco", which means skinny.

 

These words are not easy - perhaps almost impossible - to translate into a contemporary English context. How do you judge the weight of a word uttered in a foreign language from a different mindset?

 

When Mick Jagger wailed "Hey Negrita" on the Rolling Stones song, his words were surely intended in praise. If it is true that Suarez used a similar word to address Evra, this would not seem to be the case.

 

But how to know when this word ceases to be descriptive and becomes pejorative? And for the FA disciplinary committee, how to avoid kicking the case around like a political football?

 

Suarez provided them with a problem - but also with an opportunity.

 

Context is crucial, not just in what Suarez may have done, but also in how it is judged. When Sepp Blatter apologised for appearing to suggest racist remarks could be overcome with a handshake, it gave English football another chance to indulge in Fifa-bashing.

 

There must have been a temptation to throw the book at Suarez and send a strong anti-racist message to the world. The severity of the verdict would seem to indicate that this was a temptation the disciplinary board were not able to resist.

 

Suarez sent off for handling on the line

 

When moral panic is whipped up, coherence tends to fly out of the window. Some of those calling for Blatter's head on the racism issue are the very people who believed that everything was fine with Fifa while Sir Stanley Rous of England was in charge from 1961 to 1974.

 

Rous seriously damaged the development of African football with his defence of Apartheid in South Africa - a stance which looked awful at the time and was disastrous in hindsight.

 

In his campaign to unseat Rous in 1974, Brazilian Joao Havelange made a point of showing physical intimacy with the African delegates. An Englishman, he reasoned, would not do the same.

 

Thankfully England is much-changed since then.

 

English football can be proud of its anti-racism work but it should be remembered that what has happened in our country is a domestic dynamic. Mass immigration starting in the 1950s brought in hundreds of thousands of newcomers with full political rights - and so the discrimination they suffered could only be put down to racism.

Luis Suarez at Liverpool

Continue reading the main story

 

Age: 24

Place of birth: Salto, Uruguay

Fee: £22.8m from Ajax

Debut: 2 Feb 2011 v Stoke

Apps: 32

Goals: 12

 

Football made this sickeningly obvious. The Caribbean descendants who started to make an impact on the pitch from the late 1960s had to put up with all kinds of abuse. Over time a consensus formed around the belief that racist behaviour was unacceptable.

 

This dynamic does not necessarily apply elsewhere. In South America the legacy of centuries of slavery can make attitudes towards race more entrenched - but also more subtle. Elsewhere, to the east of Europe, for example, there has been very little exposure to the kind of multi-cultural existence that has become the norm in Britain.

 

This in no way invalidates the anti-racist position of English football. But it does mean that if the debate is to be won - and that surely must be the objective - then there are dangers in the moralistic holier-than-thou approach that the English can be prone to take.

 

This issue provides a real opportunity for English football to do some good - and also for the Football Association to improve its global profile. Much depends on how it is handled.

 

There is little to be gained in hectoring other nations and individuals with a moral high ground position of, "We're not racist, you are". Instead, there might be room for a position of leadership with a huge dose of humility.

 

"This is the problem of racism that we faced in our game," could be the line to football authorities around the world. "This is what we decided to do about it and, although we are nowhere near perfect, we feel we have made a lot of progress. Some of this may be useful to you".

 

My hope is that any punishment administered to Luis Suarez has been guided by this spirit. My fear is that this has not been the case.

 

A few weeks ago the penultimate set of games in the Brazilian championship was named the "Round against Racism". All over the country teams had their photo taken behind a banner saying "Say no to racism. Racism is a crime".

 

Suarez stunner ends South Korean hopes

 

The measure, though, was not accompanied by any attempt to stimulate a debate on the subject - on why there are so few black coaches, for example, or on taking legal action when members of the crowd make monkey noises, as occasionally happens in Brazilian stadiums.

 

The impression was that the Brazilian FA were playing politics. Its president Ricardo Teixeira had fallen out with Fifa boss Blatter. When Blatter put his foot in his mouth on the racism issue, Teixeira saw his opportunity.

 

"The Round against Racism" was nothing of the sort. In reality, cynically and opportunistically, it was the "Round against Blatter".

 

The English FA have now left themselves open to the same accusation of cynicism. What Suarez is alleged to have done is wrong. To draw attention to the colour of someone's skin in a manner that could be construed as pejorative is not acceptable in our reality.

 

There is a clear case for punishment as part of a process of education. But the eight-game ban would seem to go much further. It smacks of the FA seizing on a chance to score a political point. Were they really judging a case, or are they more interested in landing a glove on Sepp Blatter?

[JustTosh]

The saddest thing is I can’t see how Luis can stay in England after this. He’s got his football career to think of. This autumn he’s already lost the protection from refs being told he’s a cheat. He might end up crippled. First labeled a cheat, now a racist.

 

I won’t blame him if he takes an offer from another European club this January. Thank ypu for your brilliance, but above all thank you for your hard work, team spirit and your sportsmanship.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

The worst part of all this is the fact I really dont think Luis knows what he is going to wake up to in the morning.

 

He is going to be hounded and abused from all the media and from the fans of other clubs.

 

The same is going to happen to the club and to the king and this is exactly what i was worried about.

 

I said in a earlier post about how quick we were to backing Luis as it was certain it was done without looking into the matter first.

 

I dont mean tha t Luis is guilty I mean looking into a way of releasing a statement that at least looks like we looked into the accusation against him.

 

The problem now is with them properly charging him with it,the club and the king especially now appear in a bad light to all as well.

 

Kenny has always comeout and backed a player,but with the seriousness of this doing it 20 minutes after being told by the officals about the complaint dosent look to proffesional to the media now.

[stringvest]

I agree mate but didn't Ferdinand say he used a racist remark.

 

Apparently that's all the evidence you need nowadays.

 

Fucks sake this is some precedent they've set

 

Fucking floodgates to open

 

if that was the case it would be scandalous. I fear it isn't though. If Suarez has admitted using the language then they will have to do him. But we won't know what's been said or not until we see the evidence

[xerxes]

This will run and run, won’t it?

 

What will the detailed judgement say? The Club statement suggests not much.

 

Will Evra now ask the police to make a criminal investigation? If not, why not? The Club is bound by FA rules, Luis is not. Will he sue the FA for defamation? If not ,why not?

 

What was the nature of the internal club investigation? Maddock in the Mirror suggests there was none, other than Luis saying “it wasn’t me guv”. Other papers are suggesting that we did not approach Man U to establish what Evra’s claims were. How good a job did we do in the first instance? Did we play a part in allowing this to career out of control?

 

It is also suggested that the rules did provide for us to challenge the nominations for the Tribunal, but we chose not to. Is the first claim true? On the second, if true, why not?

 

Some time has been devoted to Luis use of Suarez. Do the FA rules demand strict liability? In other words is the possibility that Luis didn’t understand the way his language might be interpreted irrelevant? Are the FA saying that if they were certain that he knew what he was saying that the punishment would have been even more severe?

 

Did we offer Man U/ the FA the device of an unreserved apology for causing any offence, which was not intended? If not, why not?

 

Furthermore the chasm between what could or should be dealt with at club level and what is dealt with by FA Tribunal and possibly criminal proceedings remains unresolved. This whole circus could come into town and play again.

 

The only person who can take any comfort from this is Andy Carroll.

Edited December 21, 2011 by xerxes

[MLB]

Absolutely every reactionary belled in the world is wading in now. The few voices of sanity and intelligence will be drowned out as the likes of Clark Carlisle, Keith Curle and Dave Maddock demand that he be strung up or thrown in the Tower of London.

 

Time to circle the wagons, folks. Fuck the lot of these clueless twats.

[Cij]

Apologies in advance for the length of this post but really want to get it off my chest...

 

 

I found the conclusion reached by the FA totally surreal and this feeling has been compounded by the statement released by LFC. The contents of both statements appear to be completely incompatible. If no corroborating evidence was adduced in support of Evra’s allegations, how could the Independent Regulatory Commission possibly make an adverse finding against Suarez? It is clear that both Suarez and the club have consistently denied any wrongdoing which begs the question; why did the Commission choose to favour Evra’s account of events?

 

The FA have handled this case extremely poorly and allowed it to drag on for a grossly excessive period of time. Leaving aside any misgivings about the composition of the Commission, there are two issues in particular that need to be addressed by the FA:-

 

1. If the FA / Commission are in possession of any evidence of racism (other than Evra’s account of what allegedly occurred), why was the investigation not immediately suspended and the matter turned over the police for criminal investigation? The FA held off charging John Terry for alleged racist abuse to avoid prejudicing a potential criminal prosecution but the same rationale has not been employed in the case at hand. If Evra truly was subjected to racial abuse, that is a criminal matter which should have been referred to the appropriate authorities for investigation.
   

 

1. Given that the Commission has reached a conclusion and imposed a sanction, why did it not contemporaneously release details of the “established facts” grounding its decision? The matter has been under investigation for approximately 2 months and the hearing took place almost a week ago. In light of the implications of this decision for Suarez, the “facts” should have been made publicly available so that everybody can consider the context in which the decision was made and the proportionality of the sanction handed down. Instead, Suarez has been almost universally branded a “racist” in the absence of any clarification of the language he was found to have used.
   

 

Personally I am inclined to reserve judgment pending publication of the full facts of the case by the FA. It is almost unthinkable that the Commission, who would have had the benefit of extensive legal advice throughout the course of the process, could possibly have reached its conclusion in the absence of compelling evidence in support of Evra’s position. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the appropriate standard of proof must surely have been “beyond all reasonable doubt” as anything else would represent the infliction of a gross injustice on Suarez. Even if the Commission was comprised of incompetents their legal advisers should have ensured that they were directed towards the correct outcome.

 

Having said all that, the robust defence which the club has published casts serious doubt upon the Commission’s findings. Whilst I consider some of the barbs rather injudicious (e.g. the reference to Evra’s alleged “prior form”), many elements are very illuminating and it is encouraging to see the club launch such an aggressive defence of our player. There is no way that Liverpool Football Club would adopt such a course of action in the absence of a genuine belief that Suarez has been unfairly treated. It is the polar opposite of “damage limitation” and is a clear indication that the club are intent on escalating matters with a view to fully vindicating Suarez. The club will have weighed up it options and formulated a strategy to challenge any adverse finding and it will be very interesting to see how our appeal develops.

 

My main concern is that the Commission has opted to interpret the relevant rules / charges in an extremely narrow fashion. There were two separate charges a) using offensive / insulting / abusive language and b) referring to Evra’s ethnic origin / colour / race. I sincerely hope that the Commission has not adopted a subjective test to the first charge in order to determine that Evra was insulted by the language that Suarez used therefore Suarez is found to have used insulting language before going on to determine that there was a reference to colour which thereby constitutes an aggravating factor. This limited interpretation of the relevant rules could give rise to an adverse finding against Suarez even in the absence of any genuine racial abuse. In the absence of the facts grounding the verdict it is impossible to establish whether this is the position - which is grossly unfair to Luis Suarez. If indeed this was the logic employed, the club should have absolutely no difficulty quashing this decision and should immediately seek injunctive relief against the decision reached by the FA.

 

Finally, there is no possibility of Suarez launching an action in defamation against the FA on foot of this decision as the Commission’s findings are protected by the doctrine of qualified privilege and he would need to establish that the Commission acted maliciously in the legal sense - please trust me when I say this is not a realistic possibility as the explanation is far too long and boring!!

[Guest San Don]

The saddest thing is I can’t see how Luis can stay in England after this. He’s got his football career to think of. This autumn he’s already lost the protection from refs being told he’s a cheat. He might end up crippled. First labeled a cheat, now a racist.

 

I won’t blame him if he takes an offer from another European club this January. Thank ypu for your brilliance, but above all thank you for your hard work, team spirit and your sportsmanship.

 

This is at the back of my mind now tbh.

 

He gets fuck all protection from refs, his fellow pros know they can kick fuck out of him with almost impunity. Even supposed Liverpool fans who write football columns have gone for his jugular.

 

Now, every oppo fan is going to be on his back. WTF would he put up with that?

 

I could see barca making a low bid for him in January or end of the season if this ban sticks.

[moof]

This is at the back of my mind now tbh.

 

He gets fuck all protection from refs, his fellow pros know they can kick fuck out of him with almost impunity. Even supposed Liverpool fans who write football columns have gone for his jugular.

 

Now, every oppo fan is going to be on his back. WTF would he put up with that?

 

I could see barca making a low bid for him in January or end of the season if this ban sticks.

 

I'm sure he'd leave with our blessing. Nobody should have to put up with what Luis is going through.

[Guest TK-421]

Apologies in advance for the length of this post but really want to get it off my chest...

 

 

Finally, there is no possibility of Suarez launching an action in defamation against the FA on foot of this decision as the Commission’s findings are protected by the doctrine of qualified privilege and he would need to establish that the Commission acted maliciously in the legal sense - please trust me when I say this is not a realistic possibility as the explanation is far too long and boring!!

 

Thanks for the informative post.

[skend04]

I can't believe LFC would release a statement worded as it has been without some knowledge of what has gone on in the hearing. So therefore as much as in a calmer moment id look at things rationally i still say fuck it, the FA are corrupt. To label him not racist and that he just used a racist term is spineless and gutless in the extreme when you slap someone with an 8 match ban. Fuck that, i hope that every avenue is explored and the FA made an example of.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Well as far as Evra and the Stamford Bridge thing goes wouldn't it make sense that even if it was someone else who reported it, it must have come from Evra originally, because it was only him and 2 or 3 other United players involved in the brawl. No staff like Phelan etc...

 

So obviously he must have told them and they were the ones who broke the news.

It was alleged to of taking place after the match and when players do the exercises on the pitch.

 

Phelan was there and so to most of the United players as well.It was on there warm down it all happend.

 

Also I think the ban he got might of been because of the near fight with him and the groundsman and not the racist part.

 

Not 100% certain though.

[Guest San Don]

This will run and run, won’t it?

 

What will the detailed judgement say? The Club statement suggests not much.

 

Will Evra now ask the police to make a criminal investigation? If not, why not?

 

Not bother what that cunt does.

 

The Club is bound by FA rules, Luis is not. Will he sue the FA for defamation? If not ,why not?

How can he sue for defamation when the FA's own investigation albeit via an 'independent' panel have found him guilty?

 

In any event, legal proceedings are very expensive. He'd have to prove he'd been defamed in a court. I'd like to see how you suggest he does that given the panel's decision!

 

What was the nature of the internal club investigation? Maddock in the Mirror suggests there was none, other than Luis saying “it wasn’t me guv”. Other papers are suggesting that we did not approach Man U to establish what Evra’s claims were. How good a job did we do in the first instance? Did we play a part in allowing this to career out of control?

 

Are you for fucking real!? So you're going to take the mirror's word? And do you seriously think united would have allowed their players to speak to us when one of their players had made the complaint? Have a fucking word with yourself.

 

It is also suggested that the rules did provide for us to challenge the nominations for the Tribunal, but we chose not to. Is the first claim true? On the second, if true, why not?

 

You're trying to make yourself sound like a barrister but it doesnt wash.

 

Some time has been devoted to Luis use of Suarez. Do the FA rules demand strict liability? In other words is the possibility that Luis didn’t understand the way his language might be interpreted irrelevant? Are the FA saying that if they were certain that he knew what he was saying that the punishment would have been even more severe?

 

Did we offer Man U/ the FA the device of an unreserved apology for causing any offence, which was not intended? If not, why not?

 

Furthermore the chasm between what could or should be dealt with at club level and what is dealt with by FA Tribunal and possibly criminal proceedings remains unresolved. This whole circus could come into town and play again.

 

The only person who can take any comfort from this is Andy Carroll.

 

You need to enrol in law school. On second thoughts......

[ngogswilly]

It was alleged to of taking place after the match and when players do the exercises on the pitch.

 

Phelan was there and so to most of the United players as well.It was on there warm down it all happend.

 

Also I think the ban he got might of been because of the near fight with him and the groundsman and not the racist part.

 

Not 100% certain though.

 

Are you sure all the United players were there?

 

Now my memory is foggy at the best of times, but I thought I remembered reading it was just him, Park and 1 or 2 others.

 

Basically it was a group of 3 or 4 of them and some groundstaff.

 

Could be completely wrong though.

[stringvest]

Excellent and objective post Cij. Appreciated.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

Excellent and objective post Cij. Appreciated.

 

Yep. Thanks Cij.

[Guest San Don]

I'm sure he'd leave with our blessing. Nobody should have to put up with what Luis is going through.

 

Indeed he would but we'd lose a massive player for us, would be unlikely to get market value for him but more importnatly, he'd have been driven out of english football in a far more racist manner than he has been alleged to have committed himself.

[Guest San Don]

Are you sure all the United players were there?

 

Now my memory is foggy at the best of times, but I thought I remembered reading it was just him, Park and 1 or 2 others.

 

Basically it was a group of 3 or 4 of them and some groundstaff.

 

Could be completely wrong though.

 

Correct. The groundsman is clearly photograpgh throwing a punch at evra and it is in and around this part that the cunt alleged he was racially abused.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Luis Suarez's club Liverpool angry that striker's evidence counted for so little

 

“You’ve got your black hat on ready to hang him already,” Kenny Dalglish had claimed when asked about his view on a potential Luis Suárez suspension.

 

 

 

By Chris Bascombe

 

9:06PM GMT 20 Dec 2011

20 Comments

 

 

The Liverpool manager thought he was being ironic. When the jaw-dropping eight-game ban was announced, Dalglish will have felt it was the most brutal character assassination of a player in the history of English football.

 

Suárez came to the Premier League to restore his name after a series of misdemeanours abroad. His hopes of rehabilitating an already battered image could not have been dealt a more shattering thump.

 

He will pay a heavy price for being found guilty of racially abusing Patrice Evra, far beyond the £40,000 fine by the Football Association.

 

At Anfield, the findings of the independent disciplinary panel have been greeted with disdain. They will consider an appeal, but Dalglish’s problem is how to replace his star player during a pivotal period, should any appeal fail.

 

He will take his side to Wigan on Wednesday night still able to select the Uruguayan unless Liverpool decide to rule out an appeal, in which case the manager will also have to do without Suárez against Blackburn, Newcastle, Manchester City (twice), Oldham, Stoke and Bolton.

 

Related Articles

 

 

 

• Suarez never far from controversy
  06 Dec 2011
  
• Suárez was exceptional given his 'bad week'
  19 Dec 2011
  
• Right to delay Suarez verdict
  16 Dec 2011
  
• Luis Suárez-Patrice Evra decision on Tuesday
  16 Dec 2011
  
• 'Calling Evra negro is like calling Kuyt a blond'
  15 Dec 2011
  

 

Suárez will then return for the second leg of the Carling Cup semi-final on Jan 25, after a month without football.

It is the broader implication of being found guilty of an insidious charge which will cause the most distress. What Liverpool are asking today is how, after five days of deliberations, the disciplinary panel can sincerely argue they are 100 per cent certain of Suárez’s guilt?

The guidance usually given to jurors dealing with a particularly emotive case is to reach a conclusion ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

The argument at Anfield will be that so complex, so ambiguous and so lacking in clarity is the basis for stating that the use of the word ‘Negro’ in this context is racist, the result could never be absolutely sure.

Indeed, by delaying their ruling by five days, Liverpool will feel the disciplinary panel have proven the extent to which reasonable doubt does exist and have thus undermined their own findings.

A Liverpool statement last night pointed out that Suárez had referred to Evra as a ‘Negro’ in response to being identified and addressed by his own nationality, South American. The philosophical arguments about whether this constitutes racism could last for years.

Suárez is unlikely to accept being branded in such a way. There are some at Liverpool who believe a defamation suit wouldn’t be a disproportionate response to the judgment.

Suárez will feel aggrieved that the damage has been inflicted upon him by outside forces from a foreign land, with no understanding of his personality, his upbringing or his culture. There are some who fear he may decide to move elsewhere, so strong is his sense of persecution.

Liverpool also argued that the main source of evidence on Evra’s behalf was from Suárez himself. Had he pleaded the ‘Fifth Amendment’ and kept silent when asked for his initial observations, the FA would have faced a case of one player’s word against another. Very hard to investigate, let alone prove.

Instead, Suárez chose to be candid and thus became his own accuser as much as Evra, who had no witnesses and nothing to back up his claim of being abused 10 times.

The willingness to accept this verdict will be based on tribalism. Manchester United supporters will celebrate the validation of their defender’s claims, rival fans will feel they’ve been given an open goal to abuse Suárez wherever he plays in his Premier League career, and the Kop will refuse to recognise the moral authority of the panel.

Relations between Liverpool and Manchester United, already tense during times of truce, will now be at a point where all diplomatic relations are suspended.

Dalglish will feel the sleight of hand of Sir Alex Ferguson all over his striker’s problems. He’ll believe Ferguson’s withering remarks about Suárez’s on-field conduct are at the core of his striker’s blemished image.

Liverpool’s American owners, who have stood by Suárez throughout the saga, will also recognise that the desire to clear his name goes far beyond the jurisdiction of the FA.

For Suárez and Liverpool, it is inconceivable they can do anything but continue to defend their man.

Dalglish may have to cope over Christmas and New Year without him, but he won’t renounce the striker and nor will Liverpool’s supporters.

You can be sure it will be Suárez’s name that is chanted with most verve from the away end at the DW Stadium on Wednesday night.

[moof]

Indeed he would but we'd lose a massive player for us, would be unlikely to get market value for him but more importnatly, he'd have been driven out of english football in a far more racist manner than he has been alleged to have committed himself.

 

Yep, it's tragic. I reckon i'd probably jack in football if Luis was forced out of the country over this but as upsetting as it is, I can realistically see it happening.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

Bascombe gets a lot of stick on TLW but he's bang on there.

[stringvest]

Good for Bascombe. A lone objective voice in the press, it would appear.