The FA publish written reasons for Suarez's ban

[Kopite]

The Red Socks Diaries: Suarez, Evra & Reliable Witnesses

[Creator Supreme]

What worries me is the two more strikes and its a permanent suspension. All we need are two more gobshites with an axe to grind, and its bye bye Luis. It's hardly likely he'll get a fair trial is it?

[Redexile]

If this doesn't bring into question the credibility of Evra to translate from Spanish (and the rest of his evidence also in Spanish) then I don't know what does.

There is a phrase here in SA "jou ma'se poess" which literally translated means " your mothers cunt" . I learnt very early on here that you can expect a shitstorm if you use it and no there is no way you could translate it into the English equivalent. I would therefore question the translation of the French cunt's insult directed at Louis . Perhaps somebody with a S. American origin or background could advise?

[dennis tooth]

I wholeheartedly support the panels findings in this but not the sentence.

[skend04]

Having read everything i think there will only be one way this goes in the end and that's Suarez launching a civil suit against Evra and possibly the FA but think also it will be with the backing of LFC. To basically deny someone full recourse is against their Human Rights so reckon them copd callers will have been leaving messages all weekend.

[stringvest]

Oh & BTW? I've said it before & Will say it again - One Last time. The FA's case is built on smoke, mirrors & supposition no? That's not to mention brown envelopes, phone calls from ahem 'Somewhere in Manchester or the Trafford area shall we say' & various private conversations with a rather tipsy individual whose probably drinking to his own B'day right about now but that's all besides the point.

 

Anyway in view of that? What is to stop Luis Just as convincingly humiliating the FA by having his Lawyers & indeed LFC's (since the Club can do this to if they infer insult in all that's been directed at them recently by the FA or as a result of their actions - & United do this All the time to other clubs/Bodies etc) draw up a case corralling All the evidence (and there's plenty) of hypocrisy, misguided thinking & that of a downright suspicious nature from the evidence backing said allegations against him together & presenting it to a Civil Court as part of a move intended to slander/defame/damage his good name, libel his character or just to cause him difficulties full stop? The same again for LFC. Something that would then Force the allegations to be considered in Open Civil Court.

 

Nothing is the answer - Nothing can stop either Liverpool or Luis doing that at Any time in A Private/Civil Capacity if A plausible case can be cooked up & even If the case were to be thrown out for lack of evidence & thus Luis or the club having No case to answer? Well, then The very act of that happening would speak volumes & utterly humiliate the FA beyond all measure leaving them No choice but to dismiss the ban against Luis forthwith as to Not do so after such an occurence? Would humiliate them still further. And to those who say such frivolous court suits as I am suggesting do not exist? All I'll say is remember Tom Hicks? Or more to the point Justice Floyd & The Texas Court House Right at the end of that pantomime? I rest my case. It seems that such suits are all well & good when others launch them against us or cause us trouble from them but for us to consider them? Is apparently beneath us for some unknown reason. Well here I think we could kill two birds with one stone - Forcing the case to be considered & humiliating the FA not just when it is inevitably dismissed for lack of evidence against Luis but also by doing what the FA Should of done in the First place & referring it on as something not in their petty little domain rather than something they can score points on the Whisky Drinkers behalf with. In effect we'd be doing their job for them (not for the first time) something that would probably embarrass them more than anything else.......................

 

What an idiotic post.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

The club really need to see this.It blows two of the points the FA made.

 

It shows Luis did not kick Evra in his right knee,infact he dosent touch him.

 

It also shows Kuyt saying something to Evra.

 

They claim it looks a deliberate foul on Evra.

 

The FA also claimed Kuyt didnt say something to Evra.

 

 

[YOUTUBE]LH50lwwBRms[/YOUTUBE]

[gumps]

I'd be interested to see the "unbroadcast" footage that the panel used to tie in with Evra's version.

 

Considering that the alleged exchange took place in the 6 yard box at a corner, I find it difficult to believe how any footage from that time would've been unbroadcast. I'm sure Sky had been analysing every second of their footage in the weeks following the match when it became clear that something had gone on. IIRC not even Sky could verify anything?

 

We, as in club and supporters need to keep banging on about the holes in this judgement, because the pro-racist media are having a field day already with outrageous headlines and copy given out as "fact" which the mongs are lapping up.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

I'd be interested to see the "unbroadcast" footage that the panel used to tie in with Evra's version.

 

Considering that the alleged exchange took place in the 6 yard box at a corner, I find it difficult to believe how any footage from that time would've been unbroadcast. I'm sure Sky had been analysing every second of their footage in the weeks following the match when it became clear that something had gone on. IIRC not even Sky could verify anything?

 

We, as in club and supporters need to keep banging on about the holes in this judgement, because the pro-racist media are having a field day already with outrageous headlines and copy given out as "fact" which the mongs are lapping up.

 

Well that video shows Evra to be a liar and therefore a unreliable source to take the word of and also base this probability line they have used.

 

Evra says in the report that he was upset about the tackle as he had missed games because of a injury to that knee.

 

He was upset because Luis had kicked him in the knee,the FA in the report say that it looked liked a deliberate foul on him.

 

Then why does that Video of the tackle show no deliberate foul or being kicked in his right knee?

[Newport]

I've conducted my own investigation both from the actual evidence in the Commission report and from watching the videos again. I was also at the game and recall some of the incidents. My findings are as follows :

 

Evra was an angry guy from the start of the game, because of the mix-up over the coin toss. He was picking fights with different players including going spare at Downing on one occasion when Stuart took a dive. He was winding up the crowd and also had flare-ups with Kuyt & Agger where words were spoken and there was pushing & shoving. He was also playing sh*t and Suarez clearly had the beating of him.

 

Then comes the incident where Luis fouls him right in front of the Kop. It's not a bad foul in fact there is hardly any contact but Evra goes to ground and jars his knee. He makes a right meal of it, the crowd are giving him all sorts of abuse for time-wasting and Kuyt accuses him of diving, telling him to get the fuck up. He resumes play but his demeanor continues to suggest he is in a rage for reasons other than racism.

 

At the corner a few minutes later, he is marking Suarez and the body language strongly suggests that Suarez's version is more credible. Evra is clearly on the wind-up, he is the aggressor both in his actions chasing Suarez and his facial expressions. It's so obvious that Kuyt comes over to get between them because he thinks Evra is having a pop at Luis. Suarez is opening his arms in a "what's your problem" way and his actions are defensive. Words are spoken but neither player is overtly affected and none of the others in a crowded goalmouth show any reaction. The idea that Luis is calling him blackie blackie blackie at this point is risible to be honest, there would have been a much stronger reaction. The "pinching" episode is nothing, it's so slight and to infer that he is pointing out the colour of his skin is ludicrous. Again, it looks to be more of a "calm down" gesture rather than anything more insidious.

 

The play moves away from the area and they continue the argument until the ref calls them over. Evra is still in a fury while Suarez is trying to play it down. The patting of the head was somehow construed as hostile by the Commission but it is part wind-up part let's get on with the game and Luis tries to shake his hand to end the argument but Evra shoves him away. That's when Evra says "Don't touch me you South American" which doesn't ring true - it's probably an insulting remark which prompts Luis to say "why, black?" which to Suarez in his own language is pretty mild, inconsequential.

 

Evra interpretes this as being called a nigger and he kicks off again. The ref books him and he carries on the rest of the game in the way he started it, having a go at Kuyt and the crowd.

 

After the match someone asks him what he was so angry about and he rants on about being called a nigger, with degrees of exageration. This causes Ferguson to bring it to the ref's attention and Liverpool are asked for their version. Commoli & Kuyt both speak to Luis and say he has been accused of calling him a nigger, Suarez denies this and explains he called him "negro" not nigger. This is passed on to the ref and our people think that's the end of it, it's a misunderstanding.

 

Evra refuses to back down, the press get on their high horse and the FA intervene just at the point where Blatter makes his faux-pas and Terry is in the dock for a more blatant example of racism. The FA decide to make an example of Suarez for political reasons and carry out a stitch-up which is manna from heaven to the media pack.

 

That's it basically.

Agree with all of this. How on earth the 58th minute incident has gotten so much attention is beyond me as it, if I'm bein kind, maybe is a free kick and by no means this:

82. In the 58th minute of the game, Mr Suarez fouled Mr Evra between the edge of the

Manchester United penalty area and the corner flag at the Kop end. It seemed to us to be a

deliberate foul, and the referee awarded a free kick. The foul was committed by Mr Suarez

kicking Mr Evra on his right knee. Mr Evra explained that he had previously had a bad

problem in that knee. He remained on the ground receiving medical treatment for about

one minute after the tackle.

 

I see Scouse Tapas has already provided the video in post #464

 

Fucking hell, or "Concha de tu hermana" if you like.

[Newport]

Actually when I come to think about it also proves that Evra is lying as there was no kick from Suarez. The video clearly shows that they collide when Suarez tries to go past Evra and it shows that Evra is the instigator of the whole damn mess because he's feigning injury to get Suarez booked (I presume based on the evidence presented by YouTube).

 

Btw, someone should record that or get in touch with whoever made that footage as it can be used in the appeal and the Premier League may have it removed.

[Guest San Don]

One thing a lot of people are missing here is a criminal case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil case is proved on balance of probability which of course is a much lower standard. In this case all the commission would need to prove is that Evra's version is more likely to have happened than Suarez.

 

If we did give inconsistent evidence, it certainly would moved the balance of probabilities in Evra's favour.

 

You are right to a degree but overall are wrong. The commission states in its findings that balance of probability is only required when not a court case. The commission then goes on to say however, the more serious the charge, as this one is (their words, the more robust the evidence has to be.

 

Therefore, straightforward balance is not sufficent by the commissions own words to deliver a verdict on such a serious matter.

 

In any event, natural justice must come in to play in any such deliberations and that must mean there also be independent, corrobarated evidence. Yet the commission finds none.

 

Instead, the commissions finds on the basis of evra being more composed (he's older than suarez, he has previous form of being in front of a commission) despite evra changing his story several times (being called nigger, then saying it was black, saying he was called the word 10 times, then saying only 5, then saying 10 wasnt a literal figure of speech) while at the same time, dismissing as 'unreliable' testimony from Suarez.

 

I really wish people who want to comment on this actually stopped and read the commission's report rather than go off half cocked.

 

Anyone who reads through that report will see glaring inconsistencies and how underhandedness.

 

I mean, evra wouldnt report someing just to discredit a fellow professional!? Come on!

[TheHowieLama]

The club really need to see this.It blows two of the points the FA made.

 

It shows Luis did not kick Evra in his right knee,infact he dosent touch him.

 

It also shows Kuyt saying something to Evra.

 

They claim it looks a deliberate foul on Evra.

 

The FA also claimed Kuyt didnt say something to Evra.

 

 

[YOUTUBE]LH50lwwBRms[/YOUTUBE]

 

This is what the internet is for - some bloke on a cell phone has a better look at it than the "authorities".

[Steve]

This is what the internet is for - some bloke on a cell phone has a better look at it than the "authorities".

 

Rather than accept his clip as evidence, they'll probably do him for filming the game without permission and close the Kop for the rest of the season as the club allowed it to happen from there.

[dennis tooth]

Hardly the fucking zapruder film is it. This is all a bit silly now, even for me and for that reason, theo, Im out

[TheHowieLama]

Rather than accept his clip as evidence, they'll probably do him for filming the game without permission and close the Kop for the rest of the season as the club allowed it to happen from there.

Yeah, they will confiscate it and bar him entry.

 

 

Hardly the fucking zapruder film is it. This is all a bit silly now, even for me and for that reason, theo, Im out

 

Already used the JFK reference myself so thanks - and good.

[Jonas]

Sorry if already mentioned in an earlier post, haven read all, but have read all 115 pages. Its said in the document Evra was in a state of shock after beeing kicked to the knee.

Still he is concidered to be the most realiable of the two!

If I where to pick between the two as neutral, Id say the man not in a state of shock got my wote.

This cant possibly be over yet.

[Newport]

Hardly the fucking zapruder film is it.

 

Neither was the original Zapruder film. Plenty of questions were left unanswered only for conspiracy theorists to revel in it to this day.

 

The least it could do is reduce the ban as it could prove that Evra isn't being honest as there clearly was no kick. Luis has admitted to using the word negro, but not the amount of times and not in the context as presented by Evra. Which in turn makes Evra the unreliable part.

[piscinin]

Sorry if already mentioned in an earlier post, haven read all, but have read all 115 pages. Its said in the document Evra was in a state of shock after beeing kicked to the knee.

Still he is concidered to be the most realiable of the two!

If I where to pick between the two as neutral, Id say the man not in a state of shock got my wote.

This cant possibly be over yet.

 

Wait till you get to the part where Evra is not able to provide a reliable account of which side of the coin he called during the toss-up. That he was deemed reliable in spite of this will leave you in shock.

[LFC64]

Did the United players say anything other than "well he seemed upset"?

 

We could have told you that when he went off on one with the referee over the coin toss.

 

yes apparently they said they knew it must something bad because it's unlike Patrice to be angry!

Calm, dignified, reliable and honest - not the word association most would come up with for Evra

[LFC64]

Wait till you get to the part where Evra is not able to provide a reliable account of which side of the coin he called during the toss-up. That he was deemed reliable in spite of this will leave you in shock.

 

'Your sister's cunt...sorry...I mean 'fuckin' ell ' (not in an insulting way!) ! That was a beaut wasn't it?

Out of character for him to be outraged but argues the fuckin toss literally !

Wonder if he know the expresssion start a row in an empty house

[Paco]

'Composed' Patrice Evra taken at his word in race row with Luis Suárez | Football | The Observer

 

here's something I read in The Guardians summary of the report:

 

"Justification for length of ban

 

Had Mr Suárez been sent off for using insulting words (not including reference to a person's colour), he would have received an automatic two-match suspension. The guidance in the FA Rules suggested that our starting-point should be to double that sanction; ie a four-match suspension. However, we were entitled to increase or reduce the penalty further. We took account of various aggravating and mitigating factors."

 

 

1. when has a player ever been been suspended for sledging another player?

 

2. shouldn't evra be suspended for what he said about suarez's sister?

[JB2]

 

You are right to a degree but overall are wrong. The commission states in its findings that balance of probability is only required when not a court case. The commission then goes on to say however, the more serious the charge, as this one is (their words, the more robust the evidence has to be.

 

Therefore, straightforward balance is not sufficent by the commissions own words to deliver a verdict on such a serious matter.

 

In any event, natural justice must come in to play in any such deliberations and that must mean there also be independent, corrobarated evidence. Yet the commission finds none.

 

Instead, the commissions finds on the basis of evra being more composed (he's older than suarez, he has previous form of being in front of a commission) despite evra changing his story several times (being called nigger, then saying it was black, saying he was called the word 10 times, then saying only 5, then saying 10 wasnt a literal figure of speech) while at the same time, dismissing as 'unreliable' testimony from Suarez.

 

I really wish people who want to comment on this actually stopped and read the commission's report rather than go off half cocked.

 

Anyone who reads through that report will see glaring inconsistencies and how underhandedness.

 

I mean, evra wouldnt report someing just to discredit a fellow professional!? Come on!

 

I have read the full report.

 

3 people (Evra, Comolli & Kuyt) all said in their first statement that Suarez said "because you are black".

 

That is a massive inconsistency, and and even if everything else was a complete fabrication, on it's own it's enough on the balance of probability to prove that Suarez used insulting words which include a reference to Evra's ethnic origin and or race.

 

I don't believe for one minute Evra's full account of the event, but I find it hard to believe kuyt misunderstood what Suarez told him in Dutch, and Comoli misunderstood what Suarez said in Spanish, which by sheer chance agrees with some of what Evra alleges.

 

Unfortunately we have made the rod for our own back here.

[Iceman]

 

 

1. when has a player ever been been suspended for sledging another player?

 

2. shouldn't evra be suspended for what he said about suarez's sister?

 

Would be interested to know the answers to these points too Paco mate.

[TheHowieLama]

I have read the full report.

 

3 people (Evra, Comolli & Kuyt) all said in their first statement that Suarez said "because you are black".

 

 

3 non native speakers misunderstanding a word with multiple meanings?