The FA publish written reasons for Suarez's ban

[Major Tom]

 

Fact is, Evra lied in terms of the account he gave, and he lied with malice and intent to make Luis look like a serious racist.

 

 

Didn't you say just yesterday that you didn't like dressing up your opinions as fact?

 

How about a scenario where neither Evra or Suarez is deemed as the perpetrator/victim. Why, if Suarez is innocent, does that mean Evra is guilty?

[Guest San Don]

Apart from Bascombe, is this first report questioning that Evra isn't poor little victim that rest of media have played him out to be? I'm not clever enough to add to how it affects this case but hopefully a more balanced media reaction from now on

 

PS Obviously Luis used a completely different word....

 

Patrice Evra video using n-word on YoutTube | Mail Online

 

Well, well, well. Would you have believed it?

 

Just how 'credible' and reliable' is mr evra's' testimony now Mr Independent FA Commission?

 

What a bunch of absolute cunts they all are.

 

I really, really do hope there is a private prosecution brought about all this but think the moral indignation from the likes of roberts (he's not commented on this yet has he?) and his ilk probably means it wont.

 

And how cosy that at least one paper only found this out after the shit storm over Luis had been concluded.

[Peter_Crouch]

Luis Suarez case: Ouseley calls Liverpool 'hypocritical' (From BBC)

 

Kick It Out's Lord Ouseley has labelled Liverpool "hypocritical" over their handling of Luis Suarez's eight-match ban for racially abusing Patrice Evra.

 

Liverpool players wore T-shirts in support of Uruguayan Suarez - a move Ouseley has called "dreadful".

 

Lord Ouseley also said Reds striker Suarez's apology was "lamentable".

 

The anti-racism campaign's chairman said: "Liverpool need to take a hard look at themselves. Suarez's attempt at a belated apology is lamentable."

Continue reading the main story

 

Liverpool are not appealing against the Football Association suspension and £40,000 fine imposed on Suarez by an independent commission for his comments towards Manchester United defender Evra at Anfield on 15 October.

 

Suarez did not mention Evra by name in his apology and has also stated that he would carry out the suspension "with the resignation of someone who hasn't done anything wrong".

 

Kick It Out had previously commended Liverpool for choosing not to appeal against the ban.

 

A statement on its website on Wednesday said: "We commend Liverpool FC in bringing closure to this matter, reaffirming its commitment to an unequivocal, zero-tolerance approach towards discrimination in football."

 

However, Lord Ouseley, who was chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality from 1993 to 2000, wrote in the Guardian: "Liverpool need to take a hard look at themselves and how they have responded to the complaint and the investigations into the allegations of abuse in the Patrice Evra/Luis Suarez case.

 

"Throughout the entirety of the proceedings, over the past three months, all we have heard are denials and denigration of Evra.

 

"Since the publication of the 115-page report of the findings of the FA's independent commission, Liverpool's vitriol has increased.

 

"Suarez's attempt at a belated apology is nothing short of lamentable.

 

"I cannot believe that a club of Liverpool's stature, and with how it has previously led on matters of social injustice and inequality, can allow its integrity and credibility to be debased by such crass and ill-considered responses.

 

"Liverpool have been particularly hypocritical. You can't on the one hand wear a Kick It Out T-shirt in a week of campaigning against racism when this is also happening on the pitch: it's the height of hypocrisy.

 

"Liverpool players wore a T-shirt saying: 'We support Luis Suarez', seemingly whatever the outcome. This was a dreadful knee-jerk reaction because it stirs things up."

 

Piara Powar, executive director of Football Against Racism in Europe, believes the FA would be within its rights to charge Liverpool and its manager Kenny Dalglish over their handling of the situation.

 

"Liverpool have constantly undermined the investigation and its outcome," he told BBC Sport.

 

"They have been disrespectful to the FA and questioned its integrity and neutrality. "errrrr"

 

"If a manager had done that in a post-match interview the FA would have brought disrepute charges."

 

It is understood that the FA has no plans to charge either Liverpool or Dalglish. (I would love to see them try)

[Randy Marsh]

Been offered a week's holiday to return home but has apparently continued training with the club.

[Peter_Crouch]

I'm calm to this whole situation we will come out on top it's how we roll

[Whelan]

Is correct of course.

 

But I think there is a middle ground between the folk you have described and the view put forward by many folk on here.

 

I'm uncomfortable with the phrase 'middle ground' in all honesty Tom, I think you have to be honest and fair and wherever that leaves you is where you are.

 

I am (according to the media) unreasonable and unable to see the bigger picture, I don't think that is fair, and I don't think dismissing counter arguments is going to help the fight against Racism in future, the current argument like the tone taken by Herman Ousley is counter productive, moralistic, undemocrative and quite frankly arrogant.

 

As you say, there is always another argument. And I would argue the events yesterday in the Stephen Lawrence case exemplify what constitutes racism. Luise isn't even in the same postcode.

[Major Tom]

Well, well, well. Would you have believed it?

 

Just how 'credible' and reliable' is mr evra's' testimony now Mr Independent FA Commission?

 

 

Is Evra's testimony less credible and reliable because he has used the word 'nigger'? Is that what you are saying there, SD?

[Major Tom]

I'm uncomfortable with the phrase 'middle ground' in all honesty Tom, I think you have to be honest and fair and wherever that leaves you is where you are.

 

I am (according to the media) unreasonable and unable to see the bigger picture, I don't think that is fair, and I don't think dismissing counter arguments is going to help the fight against Racism in future, the current argument like the tone taken by Herman Ousley is counter productive, moralistic, undemocrative and quite frankly arrogant.

 

As you say, there is always another argument. And I would argue the events yesterday in the Stephen Lawrence case exemplify what constitutes racism. Luise isn't even in the same postcode.

 

Luis wasn't found to be racist and I am not sure anyone, media included, would bracket Suarez with Norris, Dobson et al.

 

Though, perhaps 'middle ground' was the wrong terminology but I was referring to a view where there is no agenda.

[ngogswilly]

Didn't you say just yesterday that you didn't like dressing up your opinions as fact?

 

How about a scenario where neither Evra or Suarez is deemed as the perpetrator/victim. Why, if Suarez is innocent, does that mean Evra is guilty?

 

Well I'd like that scenario Tom where neither is a perpetrator or victim. But unfortunately the scenario that transpired is one where essentially Luis was branded a racist in all but explicit terms.

 

But we all know the minute the FA took Evra's account at face value(the account where he claims Luis abused anywhere from 5-10 times depending on the confusing statements) Luis was essentially being accused of being racist.

 

Now, heres the kicker Tom, I don't think Luis is 100% innocent, I think he said Negro knowing full well it would wind Evra up but hes also right that in his language in which the conversation is taking place, its not offensive.

 

But... there is not a shred of fucking evidence to back Evra's claim up, no video, no audio, no witness testimony. Hes already a dubious witness, the report is filled with inconsistencies on his side conventiently glossed over and theres also the fact its quite clear Evra he changed key details in his story...first to Canal, then to the Referee then to the commision.

 

Thats why I'm fairly certain he lied and hes guilty of that, although you're quite correct I can't prove it as fact.

[piscinin]

Liverpool to complain to FA over handling of Luis Suarez case and demand reform of disciplinary process - Telegraph

 

Interesting article by Bascombe this.

 

Liverpool to complain to FA over handling of Luis Suarez case and demand reform of disciplinary process

Liverpool will seek urgent talks with the Football Association chairman, David Bernstein, to demand reform of the disciplinary procedures that led to the suspension of Luis Suárez.

 

...

 

Despite all these concerns, Liverpool still decided not to appeal against the suspension and fine because they felt it would have been an exercise in futility given that they would have been working within the same procedures. A new panel, appointed by the FA, could have reduced the ban but would have had no power to overturn the verdict.

 

Not sure I like the sound of this to be honest. The government has been trying to reform the FA for decades. Even going as far as putting one of their own in charge and they still couldn't achieve anything worthwhile.

 

I'd prefer they invested their time and money in hookers, drugs, hidden cameras etc.

[KMD7]

The point of agreement is our hunch that this is JW driven.

 

Evan’s point, which I agree with, is that an early apology for UNINTENDED offence may well have shut this down in days- game over. As it is, that same apology has very different ramifications now which are uncomfortable, and now cause more problems than it solves.

 

The reason why FSG appear to have become involved is because this case had been allowed to career out of control – we were asleep at the wheel.

 

Liverpool are a Club known across the world. Our fine reputation has been built up over decades, that was being damaged. It is the Directors job to deal with that. Racism is toxic above virtually everything else. Our failure to successfully make our case left FSG with little option.

 

Kenny’s comments were the reverse of illuminating. If there is something to say – say it. If we should appeal -appeal.

 

The FA has not branded Luis a racist. Evra has not branded Luis a racist. The evidence is of an unremarkable on field spat, with both parties culpable, in an on field battle played out many Saturday afternoons, which has been allowed to spiral out of control. I predicted that JW would be unimpressed – I think I have been vindicated.

 

Luis has every right to be feeling pretty sore about this- he has every right to have expected better from those who should have known better.

 

The fans? We get behind the players- not the suits.

 

You're annoying me now Xerxes. How the fuck were we going to ever say we were sorry for any unintended insult caused when the original accusation after the match was of calling someone a highly derogatory name 10 times. This has been changed not once but twice and even the word he stated which was n****er was then changed to another word? It's blatant lies. Are you stupid? You're letting your ego run out of control on this thread.

[Whelan]

Luis wasn't found to be racist and I am not sure anyone, media included, would bracket Suarez with Norris, Dobson et al.

 

Though, perhaps 'middle ground' was the wrong terminology but I was referring to a view where there is no agenda.

 

'In any other sector, if someone makes a claim of racially motivated or abusive behaviour, an employer has to investigate if they are competent because this may be damaging to the business. Clubs in these cases don't seem to be. And when it's a high-profile incident involving a big-name player, they want to say, unequivocally, we defend our player 100%. Why are people not showing leadership and apologising, saying that we won't do it again, and ask that they can move on'

 

Is this not a contradictory statement?

 

His moral arrogance is really starting to piss me off, he was chairmain of the Commission for Race and Equality under Blair, one which was criticise for its failure to understand the complexities involved in bringing a number of difference cultures and ideologies together, yet he is moralising upon from a simplistic platform!

 

Does his, and the rest of the Guardian article not read to you that 'A claim of racism has been made, apologise and move on for the greater good'.

 

I am, and lot of other liberal minded posters on here, now essentially being classed as racists because we don't agree. It is a ludicrous situation and one which I won't forget.

[Guest San Don]

Is Evra's testimony less credible and reliable because he has used the word 'nigger'? Is that what you are saying there, SD?

 

It goes to the basis of the commission's findings on evra's reliability.

 

Im not really certain what you are trying to get at. If a person at trial says he wasnt in a particular area but was then shown to be so, that suggests their testimony is unreliable.

 

Likewise, if someone complains that a particular word was used toward them or 'thinks' the word was used towards them and feels abused, is then shown to be using far more abusive language with clear racially intent, then yes, their testimony must be deemed less credible andd less reliable.

[Major Tom]

But... there is not a shred of fucking evidence to back Evra's claim up, no video, no audio, no witness testimony. Hes already a dubious witness, the report is filled with inconsistencies on his side conventiently glossed over and theres also the fact its quite clear Evra he changed key details in his story...first to Canal, then to the Referee then to the commision.

 

Thats why I'm fairly certain he lied and hes guilty of that, although you're quite correct I can't prove it as fact.

 

Just one question for you, nw, why, given there is no evidence, witness testimony etc etc, was Suarez found guilty on the basis of probability by an independent tribunal?

 

You have probably answered this before but I haven't come across it!

[Guest San Don]

Not sure I like the sound of this to be honest. The government has been trying to reform the FA for decades. Even going as far as putting one of their own in charge and they still couldn't achieve anything worthwhile.

 

I'd prefer they invested their time and money in hookers, drugs, hidden cameras etc.

 

The government didnt put one of their own in charge of the FA. That would have lead to an almost immediate FIFA suspension of the FA.

 

I think you are confusing a government committee investigating whether the FA was fit for purpose.

[Guest TK-421]

xerxes is spot on and has been throughout this affair.

[piscinin]

It goes to the basis of the commission's findings on evra's reliability.

 

Im not really certain what you are trying to get at. If a person at trial says he wasnt in a particular area but was then shown to be so, that suggests their testimony is unreliable.

 

Likewise, if someone complains that a particular word was used toward them or 'thinks' the word was used towards them and feels abused, is then shown to be using far more abusive language with clear racially intent, then yes, their testimony must be deemed less credible andd less reliable.

 

The irony is of course that they've cut Evra slack, because it is a difficult word to translate across multiple languages...

 

Suarez, however, no dice....

[Major Tom]

It goes to the basis of the commission's findings on evra's reliability.

 

Im not really certain what you are trying to get at. If a person at trial says he wasnt in a particular area but was then shown to be so, that suggests their testimony is unreliable.

 

Likewise, if someone complains that a particular word was used toward them or 'thinks' the word was used towards them and feels abused, is then shown to be using far more abusive language with clear racially intent, then yes, their testimony must be deemed less credible andd less reliable.

 

I am not getting at anything, I was trying to establish your view.

 

But, for me, there is a big difference between referring to someone's colour (in whatever sense) in an altercation and the word 'nigger' used among a few profanities - and aimed at no-one in particular - which is often used in a non defamatory sense, particularly by black people themselves.

[Whelan]

This is funny!

 

BBC News - MP Diane Abbott 'sorry' over Twitter race comments

 

Straight forward isn't it this racism?

[piscinin]

The government didnt put one of their own in charge of the FA. That would have lead to an almost immediate FIFA suspension of the FA.

 

I think you are confusing a government committee investigating whether the FA was fit for purpose.

 

I was referring to Triesman who wasn't in the government at the time but was most definitely a member of the political establishment.

[Lario]

Just one question for you, nw, why, given there is no evidence, witness testimony etc etc, was Suarez found guilty on the basis of probability by an independent tribunal?

 

You have probably answered this before but I haven't come across it!

 

Because Evra was shown the video of the incident 3 times, and his testimony changed to suit the video.

The first time Luis saw the video was the day he was being questioned, so he was a bit unsure as to the sequence of events.

So the commission decided that Evra's version was probably the truth, as he didn't make as many mistakes in questioning as what Luis did.

 

Suonds ridiculous doesn't it? But that's exactky what happened.

 

Hate to say it again, but if you'd read the report, you'd know all this.

[fowler9]

completely headfucked by all this now

 

is there any evidence Suarez even said "I kicked you because your black" "I don't speak to blacks" etc or is the only conclusive evidence that he made reference to his colour (in a non racist way)

[Guest San Don]

Just one question for you, nw, why, given there is no evidence, witness testimony etc etc, was Suarez found guilty on the basis of probability by an independent tribunal?

 

You have probably answered this before but I haven't come across it!

 

Blimey, I could take more space than tomkins to explain that one (but I wont!).

 

Its clear to me there was an agenda here by the FA to 'show' blatter \ FIFA \ UEFA they will take a far tougher line than those bodies.

 

This is supported by the virtual all encompassing charge with its 'and \ or' used in several places. Im mean, an independent FA Commission to determine if one player had used insulting language to another (ignoring the racial element)? Really?

 

The commission stated as it was not a court of law, balance of probability could be used. However, it went on to say given the serious nature of the charge, the more robust the evidence must be.

 

Yet they found no independent corrobarative evidence to support their decision so completely ignore their own statement of robust evidence.

 

In short, it was a stitch up to show blatter et al how 'strong' the fa were.

[skend04]

Is Evra's testimony less credible and reliable because he has used the word 'nigger'? Is that what you are saying there, SD?

 

You're being ironic right? If he can make a statement that he can't bring himself to say the 'N' word and there's video evidence to the contrary then he has lied. So what else in his statement is a lie?

[skend04]

I am not getting at anything, I was trying to establish your view.

 

But, for me, there is a big difference between referring to someone's colour (in whatever sense) in an altercation and the word 'nigger' used among a few profanities - and aimed at no-one in particular - which is often used in a non defamatory sense, particularly by black people themselves.

 

Can someone please please please bar Major Tom for being a complete shitbird? It was aimed at Lampard and Hasselbaink.