Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[Anubis]

I can't believe that arsehole Gordon Taylor is slagging Suarez off, first time ever I've not heard him stick up for a player. Should be interesting to hear what he says about Terry.

 

You should ask Fowler about that.

[razor]

 

 

Captions?

 

Nothing offensive, please, this is our national captain and a bally hero to boot.

 

(not once did he dive last night - unlike that dirty foreigner Suarez...)

[Anubis]

 

"Please don't eat me, please don't eat me, please don't eat me, please don't eat me...."

[MikeC]

<a href="http://s1138.photobucket.com/albums/n521/razorTLW/?action=view&current=Chelseas-John-Terry-gives-007.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n521/razorTLW/Chelseas-John-Terry-gives-007.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

 

MONGO STROKE LADY

[Anubis]

She looks scared shitless.

[ChrisM]

Can I just say that if anyone actually is thinking of publicly admonishing Carlisle for eating at a restaurant called 'The Black Cat' they have a serious, long hard look at themselves?

 

Ta.

[Major Tom]

<a href="http://s1138.photobucket.com/albums/n521/razorTLW/?action=view&current=Chelseas-John-Terry-gives-007.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n521/razorTLW/Chelseas-John-Terry-gives-007.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

 

You're fit. I've just got to see to a couple of the player's wives, only the white ones obviously, and then I'm good to go. My room is 313. See you around 8, yeah?

[RedEagle]

Never-say-die John Terry ignores brickbats and does what he does best | Football | The Guardian

 

 

That is a fucking joke. 'Heroic leader' Kim John Il

[xerxes]

OK, I'm adding this here and in the MF thread because it's too long to add to my blog. Here goes.....etc

 

I just wanted to say Trumo what a fair, balanced, post that was, asking questions, of wich there are many unanswered.

 

Like all I await the detail of this with interest. I can repeat, as of now, my unease with the way that the Club has handled this. The inexperience of FSG/Ayre has been exposed. Would Barwick, Dein or Kenyon have allowed events to unfold thus? I don't think so.

 

It appears that the detailed judgement will now not be published till mid January. That is totally unacceptable. Firstly the club should have made representations to ensure that the verdict and judgement were simultaneous (if there is enough to condemn there is enough to publish).

 

If they had tried and failed a bold statement to that effect was required when the FA released their verdict, which in itself would have been a useful PR victory. "Announcing a verdict without supporting evidence and allowing an individual to be pilloried by speculation and innuendo is not natural justice" would have played well, and rallied support. Instead we have had a statement which amounted to saying "we thought that he would be found innocent"- which tells you much about how behind the pace we have been.A professional organisation prepares for BOTH eventualities.

 

If I was Luis, I would be feeling pretty sore and let down at the moment- on several counts.

[Big Jan]

OK, I'm adding this here and in the MF thread because it's too long to add to my blog. Here goes.

 

---

 

 

 

Later on, the game’s main (subsequent) talking point arrived with Suarez and Evra clashing in the area as Liverpool prepared to take a corner. The referee halted play to speak to both of them. Suarez patted Evra on the head in a conciliatory gesture, angrily rebuffed by Evra. Again the referee had words. By this point, though it couldn’t be picked up with any degree of accuracy on the video footage, the pair clearly said something to each other. Evra did not at this point inform the referee that Suarez had said anything in a racial context to him, so play continued.

 

.

 

 

what really gets to me is that Evra started the conservation in Spanish, so it´s not like the "negrito" part came out of the blue (this assuming reports are correct) . So surely cultural context must be taken under consideration..??

 

The fact that the fa have chosen not to share their findings says all about the uncertainty regarding this case and if there are such doubts such an unpresedented ban should had not been enforced.

[ChrisM]

For fucks sake xerxes change the fucking record.

[Guest San Don]

I just wanted to say Trumo what a fair, balanced, post that was, asking questions, of wich there are many unanswered.

 

Like all I await the detail of this with interest. I can repeat, as of now, my unease with the way that the Club has handled this. The inexperience of FSG/Ayre has been exposed. Would Barwick, Dein or Kenyon have allowed events to unfold thus? I don't think so.

 

More bullshit from the dullard. 'Unease at the way the club have handle this.' Yet again, I ask you how could the club have handled it any different since the FA ordered LFC not to issue statements on the case? Come on, put up or shut up instead of repeating inane bollocks.

 

It appears that the detailed judgement will now not be published till mid January. That is totally unacceptable. Firstly the club should have made representations to ensure that the verdict and judgement were simultaneous (if there is enough to condemn there is enough to publish).

 

How do you know the club didnt make representations? Just because the FA have indicated it wont be? WTF? The club couldnt do anything to 'ensure' an independent body bowed to their wishes.

 

If they had tried and failed a bold statement to that effect was required when the FA released their verdict, which in itself would have been a useful PR victory. "Announcing a verdict without supporting evidence and allowing an individual to be pilloried by speculation and innuendo is not natural justice" would have played well, and rallied support. Instead we have had a statement which amounted to saying "we thought that he would be found innocent"- which tells you much about how behind the pace we have been.A professional organisation prepares for BOTH eventualities.

 

Just WTF do you think the club have been doing since the judgement was issued? What real difference would it make had the written reasons and judgement been issued at the same time except start the appeal clock ticking?

 

The medja would still be on Suarez's case. The anti racism people would still be in full swing. You seem to think things would be different when the reality is nothing would be different.

 

If I was Luis, I would be feeling pretty sore and let down at the moment- on several counts.

 

Incredible bullshit from an incredible dullard.

[Joe Le Taxi]

I'm convinced you're the same Xerxes as the on the offal forums. You're as wrong as he is on every subject.

[Gym Beglin]

Clarke Carlisle as well, ha ha, rent-a-black from the media at the moment. Go fuck yourselves, there's no cause to be fought here, you want to go ask Odemwingie what Russia is like.

 

I've got no time at all for Carlisle, or Collymore, or Roberts, or Blissett, or whichever other shite footballer with dark skin they dig up. So fucking what, stand up for yourself, it's called verbal abuse and we are all suceptible to receive it. "But, but, but...I'm black..." NOBODY gives a fuck, you're not stood at the back of the fucking bus anymore lads, grow up.

[Gym Beglin]

Chris M, fuck off.

 

So Negro has a DIFFERENT meaning when Carlisle wants to eat somewhere nice? I don't care how nice the food is, I don't like paedophiles so I won't eat at the Guilded Paedophile Curry House.

 

Carlisle has wore the club crest of one the most racist group of supporters known to man in Burnley FC. He can literally fuck off and die for all I, and humanity, care.

[sh#t waffle]

Grrrrr. So much anger, Funneeeee, it's almost like an incredibly poor parody of a really angry person.

[xerxes]

More bullshit from the dullard. 'Unease at the way the club have handle this.' Yet again, I ask you how could the club have handled it any different since the FA ordered LFC not to issue statements on the case? Come on, put up or shut up instead of repeating inane bollocks.

San Don. Your passion is without question. But you do not know what you are talking about.

 

I have made it quite clear how the Club should, and could, have handled things differently.

 

How do you know the club didnt make representations? Just because the FA have indicated it wont be? WTF? The club couldnt do anything to 'ensure' an independent body bowed to their wishes.

If we had, and they had been turned down, we were free to make that public, and we would have been well advised to do so. We have not.

 

 

Just WTF do you think the club have been doing since the judgement was issued? What real difference would it make had the written reasons and judgement been issued at the same time except start the appeal clock ticking?

 

The medja would still be on Suarez's case. The anti racism people would still be in full swing. You seem to think things would be different when the reality is nothing would be different.Incredible bullshit from an incredible dullard.

 

Proof positive that you simply do not understand this. Either the judgement is sound – in which case we take it on the chin. Or it is flawed, in which case we appeal. The whole point is that to confirm a verdict- and then announce why a month later is unjust, keep up!

 

If the verdict is sound, Suarez has to take it. If it were not, and we appeal, citing the specific reasons for the appeal, and briefing the media accordingly the PR wheel turns full circle.

 

I excuse your abuse on the grounds of ignorance- I hope the above helps.

[RedPaul]

---

 

 

I write this in the wake of the FA upholding their charges against Luis Suarez for the alleged use of racist language against Patrice Evra. I can’t help but be partisan in favour of Liverpool, but this is really not about trying to exonerate Suarez or portray Evra and ManU as liars (hopefully the facts and evidence will clear all that up) but to talk about how things started in the first place, after the exchange of verbals on the pitch, but before the case went to the FA’s independent panel.

 

The written evidence following the verdict has yet to materialise, which in itself is odd because it is this upon which the independent panel and the FA reached their guilty verdict. Because of that, I continue to back our player because so far he’s been found guilty without just cause. It might be paranoia clouded by anger but it really does look as if the FA need time to tailor the evidence to fit their verdict, giving the player and the club little room for manoeuvre in the hope of making the allegations stick. Worse still, the whole shambles has taken on an air of one-upmanship with FIFA and their president Sepp Blatter. The FA have had an axe to grind with FIFA ever since losing out to Russia in the 2018 World Cup bidding process, and probably long before that, when talking about corruption within FIFA and executives like Blatter and Jack Warner. This matter should be about dealing with the issue of racism properly, not political point scoring.

 

The FA should be brought to rights on how they’ve mismanaged the situation to such an appalling degree that we are now in the situation we are, because make no mistake; it is their handling of the situation that is the cause of the current media firestorm. How bad will it have to get? Because at the moment, there are a lot of people with itchy trigger fingers who are likely to say or do something irretrievably stupid and set back relations between clubs, players, fans and those involved in the game’s administration. Sure it all brings publicity, and it’s been claimed before that there is no such thing as bad publicity, but is that really true here? Any media organisations seeking to profit from this by deliberately fanning the flames need to take a long hard look at themselves because they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

Be that as it may, there is still something that nags me from when the allegations were first reported, and it concerns exactly how they were reported. But first, a quick look back at events on the field of play.

 

Watching the events of that day, Evra was visibly irritated by something before the match even kicked off. Why was he so wound up from the beginning? Evra was ManU captain that day and something happened during the coin toss that caused to further irritate him. This behaviour continued throughout the first half with him appealing for free-kicks and being ignored. Granted, there was a moment where he could claim to be justifiably irritated, and that was when Downing went past him and dived (more about diving later). There was no contact whatsoever and the ball went out of play. Only a throw-in was given to ManU, and the referee Andre Marriner actually halted play to ask Evra to calm down after the throw had been taken.

 

Later on, the game’s main (subsequent) talking point arrived with Suarez and Evra clashing in the area as Liverpool prepared to take a corner. The referee halted play to speak to both of them. Suarez patted Evra on the head in a conciliatory gesture, angrily rebuffed by Evra. Again the referee had words. By this point, though it couldn’t be picked up with any degree of accuracy on the video footage, the pair clearly said something to each other. Evra did not at this point inform the referee that Suarez had said anything in a racial context to him, so play continued.

 

Soon afterwards, Evra went down near the corner flag under a challenge from Suarez. Whether there was any contact - never mind intent – or not, Evra started writhing on the ground in apparent agony and got treatment from the physio. He had to leave the field of play, and decided to let the Liverpool fans in the Paddock know where his allegiances lay. You could argue this was deliberate incitement of the crowd, right beside the referee’s assistant. His protests to the referee were met with deaf ears, and play resumed. Not long after that, Evra committed a foul on Kuyt, and by protesting the decision, earned himself a yellow card for dissent. In recent days it has been claimed that Evra told the referee “you are only booking me because I am black!” If that were true (and I don’t know if it is as yet) then isn’t Evra accusing the referee of racial discrimination?

 

The above is all known, but how did events unfold after the game? The chronology of events is important in this matter because it’s key to establishing whether or not there was a genuine grievance, or a deliberate attempt to cause problems for the opposing team and one of their players (for what reason I really don’t know), or if a genuine grievance was mishandled, deliberate or not.

 

Two things are known about the post-match events, but I’ve yet to see one of them, and that is Evra’s interview with French TV channel Canal+. The other is Evra and Ferguson going to see the referee to make the allegations, which the referee then included in his report.

 

Evra spoke to a French journalist about being racially abused by Suarez ‘at least 10 times’ during the game. Without going into what word or words were used, he also claimed that TV footage clearly shows it, and that the referee knew. First of all, so soon after the game, how would he have seen the footage in question? Secondly, why did none of the other players, including his teammates, pick up on it? Surely they would have been quick to jump to Evra’s defence if there had been anything untoward? Thirdly, if the referee knew of the allegations during the game, why did he not deal with it there and then?

 

Now the referee’s report. I would like to see a copy of this so that the contents are not subject to speculation. A manager accompanying his player to see the referee is not in itself strange so I’ve no issue with Ferguson in that respect. Evra would have told him in the dressing room about the supposed racial abuse so his natural reaction would have been to seek clarification. However, did the referee include anything in his report about what Evra supposedly said to him on the pitch, as Evra had told Canal+? Until the pair came to see him, did he have any idea about any of it?

 

What I’m about to say now is purely just me speculating and should be treated as such.

 

Did Evra speak to Canal+ immediately after the game had finished, or was it after the referee had been made aware of the allegations? Simply put, was he standing next to the reporter in his dirty kit, sweating and swigging an energy drink, or had he had time to get showered and changed (and presumably calm down too)? Excerpts we’ve read of the Canal+ interview suggests it was in the heat of the moment rather than calm and considered. If it was the case that it was immediately before entering the dressing room after the game, did his manager even know what he was about to allege?

 

If the sequence of events started with Evra speaking to Canal+ first, he would then have entered the dressing room still in an agitated state, and the coaching staff would certainly have picked up on it and asked him what was up. Maybe his teammates did. Perhaps it was here that Ferguson said they needed to inform the referee so that the allegations could be included in his report.

 

Was it a case of ManU’s coaching staff saying to Evra, “OK, this is a serious matter that we need to inform the referee of”? Or was it a case of them telling him, “You’ve made these claims to the media but the referee needs to know, so you’d better tell him what you told Canal+.”

 

As I said before, the above is speculation on my part and highly accusatory. It might well be inaccurate too. It could be that Evra informed Ferguson of his complaint, and together they went to see the referee and report it. After that, Evra went to speak to Canal+ and made the same claims.

 

However, why would ManU’s coaching staff then allow Evra to make the allegations through the media? Having gone through the proper channels, wouldn’t they have said the matter is in the hands of the FA via the referee so will be dealt with through the established channels? They knew what state he was in, so the club themselves could have put out a statement saying something vague about reporting allegations to the referee and the FA. That it came from Evra in the context it was put across seems to suggest that they didn’t know about it until after Evra had already spoken to Canal+.

 

Ferguson in his post-match conference made no mention of the allegations, and instead talked about Suarez’s reputation for diving. I can’t recall any instances of Suarez diving during the game, but there was the Downing incident mentioned above, the Adam incident which led to the opening goal, the Evra tackle described above, and worst of all, the Young incident where he dived into Lucas after overrunning the ball before any contact was even made, earning Lucas a booking. Going back to Ferguson talking about Suarez diving, apart from glossing over his own players’ diving antics, the insinuation was to portray Suarez as a cheat and of questionable character.

 

Planting the seeds in the media about questionable character makes it all the more plausible for people to accept Suarez capable of more serious offences such as racial discrimination. So when those accusations are made, people are more willing to believe guilt before innocence. An unearned reputation precedes him. Suarez’s image in the media in the weeks before the charge bears this out. How often have commentators talked about his tendency to dive when being challenged? Even when he has had a legitimate case and won a decision, there have been barbed comments attached to the call by commentators and media. Referees haven’t given him the benefit of the doubt in many 50/50 incidents, especially since Ferguson planted the seed. Is that just a coincidence?

 

Talking about the actual verdict is for another time, ideally when the evidence is produced by the FA’s independent panel. Talk of the FA and the questionable make up of the panel is for another time. Talk of the media reaction to the verdict is for another time. Talk about how the public have reacted to the verdict is for another time. For all these, the FA have a lot to answer for.

 

Once the evidence is produced, it could well be that Suarez doesn’t have a leg to stand on. However, the strong statements made by the club and players suggest that a massive injustice has been carried out here. The backing for Suarez goes far beyond the standard “we are behind our player” routine that is common with disciplinary cases, and the club evidently feel that nothing warranting a fine and ban was committed, and also that the handling of the matter was far from fair or satisfactory, and designed to suit an ulterior motive.

 

Has the chain of events been designed, or has it escalated into something it wasn’t intended to become? I hope we get to learn all this and all the above questions get answered.

 

This is very good. I also like the fact you basically reserve the right to comment on the report itself, the panel, etc... once the full facts eventually come to light.

 

I still can't fathom why the fa needs so much time to put its case together in writing. It stinks.

[Trumo]

Just looking at the Suarez thread on RAWK, and it appears a poster called Bouncer has read my earlier post because the whole Canal+ stuff has now been raised over there.

[xerxes]

Just looking at the Suarez thread on RAWK, and it appears a poster called Bouncer has read my earlier post because the whole Canal+ stuff has now been raised over there.

 

The Canal + points were well made, Trumo.

 

Like you, I reserve judgement until the facts are made public.

 

My guess? That Suarez has been found guilty by his own statement on the grounds of strict liability.

[navbasi]

Have a look at Stan Collymore's favourites section on Twitter... These sort of LFC "Fans" really aren't helping our cause the fucking stupid cunts.

 

https://twitter.com/#!/StanCollymore/favorites

[xerxes]

Have a look at Stan Collymore's favourites section on Twitter... These sort of LFC "Fans" really aren't helping our cause the fucking stupid cunts.

 

https://twitter.com/#!/StanCollymore/favorites

 

I hope and pray that they were imposters and wind up merchants. The Telegraph also printed a very unhelpful article yesterday;

 

We either adopt zero tolerance towards racism in football or we don't. It's as simple as that – Telegraph Blogs

 

We are taking much damage at the moment.

[navbasi]

I hope and pray that they were imposters and wind up merchants. The Telegraph also printed a very unhelpful article yesterday;

 

We either adopt zero tolerance towards racism in football or we don't. It's as simple as that – Telegraph Blogs

 

We are taking much damage at the moment.

 

The sad thing is that they're not wind ups, some of them have been on Twitter a while so haven't just set up a profile to send that shite.

[TheDrowningMan]

Can I just say that if anyone actually is thinking of publicly admonishing Carlisle for eating at a restaurant called 'The Black Cat' they have a serious, long hard look at themselves?

 

Ta.

 

If you contemplate the nuance, it's perfectly reasonable. If Suarez said negrito, it cannot be argued that he delivered a racist expression. Adjective needn't automatically become perjorative, however it sounds if given a literal translation into the British zeitgeist that it cannot reasonably be given. The word has been taken and misunderstood, so given that Carlisle is an Englishman well versed in the cultural nuance of the land, eating at a restaurant with "negro" in the title appears to be an act with considerably more racist intent.

 

After all, it's just the word that we're taking into consideration here, not context.

[piscinin]

I hope and pray that they were imposters and wind up merchants. The Telegraph also printed a very unhelpful article yesterday;

 

We either adopt zero tolerance towards racism in football or we don't. It's as simple as that – Telegraph Blogs

 

We are taking much damage at the moment.

 

Just what you need. The "quality" press in high dudgeon mode pointing out how Uruguayans speak Portuguese. I mean how can you take these clowns seriously. In the rush to condemn anyone and everyone, damn editorial ethics, damn facts, ...