The FA publish written reasons for Suarez's ban

[Steve]

Yes but racism is a hate crime and a criminal offence.

The FA should have abandoned all proceedings and handed all the evidence over to the police.

They didn't because their evidence doesn't bear scrutiny.

 

Trouble is first off it'd never even make it to court as the CPS would have fucked it off, and even if it did maximum sentence is a fine is £2500 to the treasury. Better to keep in house and fine £40,000 which goes to the FA for their Euro 2012 junkets. Cunts.

[ChicagoRed]

Unless there is incontravertible objective evidence such as audio or video that shows not only the verbage used, but the malicious intent, this verdict is unsafe. LFC and Suarez have to appeal this verdict. It is not about the ban. It is about a man's reputation and his and our club's image in the world of sport. Im disgusted, but not surprised that the FA would stick their neck out so far on such a flimsy premise.

[Redshadow]

Kiwanis? Who didn't make the end of the report? Don't know if you were talking to me mate but I can tell you one thing? The FA's case re Whether Luis said it at All - Never mind How he said it? Is based on hearsay; Not to mention their creative use of it to back what Luis is Alleged to have said against Evra & Deny what Evra is alleged to have said against Luis. There is the important word, the key one in fact - Alleged; Basically? It's Still a fucking allegation with not a Shred of Real evidence or Anything other than one man's word he said it to Prove it was said by Luis never mind in the manner alleged!!

 

And without Any evidence whatsoever that Luis Did say it? How can it thus be surmised that he then said it with a sneer or gloating look etc at Evra & thus then further surmised that he Clearly meant it as an insult? In short - It can't & never Will be possible to conclusively surmise that Luis Suarez did do precisely what the pathetic joke of an allegation currently levelled againt him alleges he did. It is impossible to tell one way or the other what he said & how he said it - Indeed If he said it at all. It can thus Never be completely proven beyond Any possible defence that Luis did use the insult & that he clearly meant to hurt with it by doing so in the manner he supposedly did. And thus the FA's case is built on smoke & mirrors, and all it needs is for someone to smash a mirror & down goes their case & likely the FA or at least the Current FA with it (they wouldn't survive That big a humiliation IMO). More to the point if the FA can build a case Against Luis with smoke & Mirrors? Why can't Luis or indeed LFC return the favour? Exactly - Of course they can & something tells me that's just what will happen - I think right now? We're just biding our time is all & we'll reveal our hand soon enough - Something else? Tells me the FA are Not going to like that hand when it appears - Not one bit...................

[TheResonator]

This is the bit I have a problem with:

 

302. The position, therefore, is as follows. Mr Suarez spoke in Spanish to Mr Comolli soon after the game about this serious allegation. Mr Suarez also spoke in Dutch to Mr Kuyt. Both Mr Comolli and Mr Kuyt understood Mr Suarez to have told them that when he spoke to Mr Evra he said words which translate into English as, "Because you are black". According to Mr Suarez, Mr Comolli misheard what Mr Suarez said in Spanish, and Mr Kuyt misheard what Mr Suarez said in Dutch.

 

If that's what two of our lot heard Suarez say, why have we been backing him?

If we are backing him, and we believe him when he says that that was not his meaning, why did Comolli and Kuyt give evidence?

 

The bullshit statements from United's players all stink of scripting, as does the way that the whole thing's been handled, but testimony above is what it hinges on.

 

One word against another is a ridiculous premise upon which to decide a case, but if the above is a true reflection of what's been put forward by the club in defence of Suarez, we've hung ourselves here.

 

I'm interested to see how we respond to the statement. I don't see how we can accept the judgement but continue to support the player, so surely we have to come out against it in some way but, with Comolli and Kuyt both essentially supporting Evra's testimony, how do we go about doing that?

[RoboRiise]

Mr Evra started the encounter in the goalmouth, albeit Mr Evra was in shock (as he put it) and responding to Mr Suarez having fouled him five minutes previously.

 

Laughing. My. Fucking. Ass. Off.

 

I'll read this properly when I'm less drunk.

[Redshadow]

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.......................

[ngogswilly]

But isn't there another excerpt from the report where they claim that suarez himself said 'why because you're black?' as in asking evra do you think its because you're black. But then they base it on what kuyt and comolli said. Surely they would have to have considered the possibility that that was lost in translation and it was a question rather than a statement but it doesn't appear they have

[razor]

is mick dennis black?

 

You must have missed the bit where the post says he writes for the Daily Express.

[razor]

red shadow?

 

Fixed.

 

I'm with The Resonator. I feel sick and I feel tired.

[N'Gog I Trust]

What happens on the pitch should stay on the pitch. I bet much worse is said in most other games, but no one gives a fuck. Evra is the biggest cunt in football. Kick this cunt out. He should be the one with the 8 game ban, not Suarez.

[TheDrowningMan]

This is the bit I have a problem with:

 

 

 

If that's what two of our lot heard Suarez say, why have we been backing him?

If we are backing him, and we believe him when he says that that was not his meaning, why did Comolli and Kuyt give evidence?

 

The bullshit statements from United's players all stink of scripting, as does the way that the whole thing's been handled, but testimony above is what it hinges on.

 

One word against another is a ridiculous premise upon which to decide a case, but if the above is a true reflection of what's been put forward by the club in defence of Suarez, we've hung ourselves here.

 

I'm interested to see how we respond to the statement. I don't see how we can accept the judgement but continue to support the player, so surely we have to come out against it in some way but, with Comolli and Kuyt both essentially supporting Evra's testimony, how do we go about doing that?

 

How about the possibility that Suarez told them that he used the term negro because Evra was black? He / you, a subtle distinction which would make a huge difference.

[ngogswilly]

this report explains fuck all' date=' if suarez said to this cunt i dont talk to blacks then that is racist,if the fa have said he didnt say anything racist but theyr relying on the testimony of evra then suarez is racist, how the fuck can you ban someone for something that isnt racist i dont know fuck the fa fuck evra this is a big steaming pile of turd that these cunts dont know what the fuck they are talking about someone seriously needs to get a hold of this shit and show these fuckers up for what they are, CORRUPT BASTARDS.[/quote']

 

well that's just it. Putting everything aside. No matter what way anyone wants to spin this. That report is riddled with holes and the basis of their judgement totally contradicts the judgement they made.

 

simply put, theres a shitload of bollox in that report, alot of which just points towards many peoples original assumption that Luis was doomed from the outset because they wanted it so.

[Iceman]

The whole thing reads like Evra's lawyer wrote it. It is actually embarrassing.

[TheResonator]

How about the possibility that Suarez told them that he used the term negro because Evra was black? He / you, a subtle distinction which would make a huge difference.

 

There are loads of possibilities, it's the simple fact that the person the club is defending disagrees with two key pieces of witness testimony which ought to support him, on the basis that both people misheard him. It could be entirely true, it just looks fucking terrible.

[18-5]

Think we got into wet sand with Kuyt and Comolli's statements.

 

We will be portrayed as a racist club the longer we pursue with it. Looks like we knoced ourselves out with those statements.

[ngogswilly]

Whether it turns out to be a misunderstanding between Luis and kuyt and comolli or not it was fucking stupid to not have their stories straight between them the minute it was obvious this thing would blow up.

 

I think it was a misunderstanding which makes it even more galling that it wasn't all sorted out

[ChrisV]

How about the possibility that Suarez told them that he used the term negro because Evra was black? He / you, a subtle distinction which would make a huge difference.

 

That just isn't what they testified he said, though. Read the report.

 

Imagine this was a Manchester United player on trial and there was a basic discrepancy between what the player on trial claimed to have said and what two Manc employees testified he said. Imagine that the testimony of the two Manc employees was in agreement with Liverpool players' testimony on the same question. Now imagine the FA put out a report saying "Yes, but we find him not guilty on the grounds that maybe this is all a big misunderstanding". We would all go absolutely apeshit. It's hard for the FA to ignore such a basic inconsistency in testimony.

[ChrisV]

Oh fuck off. I'm not a manc, and I've read the report and would be willing to bet you haven't. Instead of abusing me because you don't want to face up to the possibility that one of our players did something indefensible, why don't you come up with a reason why Suarez would tell two people on two occasions in two different languages that he said one thing, then claim to have said something completely different in his statement to the FA.

[skend04]

Been a lot of posturing by the mongsville crew like Carlisle and Roberts and the SBL. Now they have the report why don't they take it to the police? After all racial abuse is a criminal offence...

[HolyHank]

Don't forget that Evra was "in a state of shock" because he was fouled in an already "damaged knee". And that Suarez' story is not reliable because he said he pinched Evra in the arm to calm the situation down. Yep, the rapport says so.

[Lario]

You didn't make it to the end of the report.

 

We received expert evidence as to the use of the word "negro" in Uruguay and other areas of Latin America. It is often used as a noun to address people, whether family, friends or passers-by, and is widely seen as inoffensive. However, its use can also be offensive. It depends on the context. It is inoffensive when its use implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such rapport.

 

However, if it were used, for example, with a sneer, then it might carry negative connotations. The Spanish language experts told us that if Mr Suarez said the things that Mr Evra alleged, they would be considered racially offensive in Uruguay and other regions of Latin America (paragraphs 162 to 202 above).

 

All of which is exactly what my other half, who is Latin American but doesn't give much of a shit about either Luis Suarez or Patrice Evra, told me some weeks ago when I asked her for the perspective of a native speaker.

 

This is Luis' defense though, isn't it?

He has said he didn't hear Evra's insult. Therefore when he mentioned negro, he was asking Evra what he'd just said ie. no racial context.

[xerxes]

I have had a chance to read the document, it helps`. The FA were right to publish earlier than they had said they might, but wrong not to release the verdict and adjudication simultaneously.

 

Evra complained to the referee during and immediately after the game, a point not previously made public. The availability of video evidence for some of these incidents was also not previously made public. There were two charges, that Luis used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Evra contrary to Rule E3(1) and and that this breach of Rule E3(1) included a reference to Evra's ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race within the meaning of Rule E3(2).

 

The issue of abusive and/or insulting on its own is a bit of a red herring because it is linked with the race abuse allegation.

 

I have been a staunch advocate of the semantics card , having read the detail now, it seems less convincing. It also seems like the Club has handled this poorly. How Comolli became involved is a mystery, and his testimony will not have helped. Given that this blew up immediately, why this was not handled exclusively by our Club Solicitor (it had, and still, has the potential to be a criminal matter)is a question that JW will no doubt be asking Ayre.

 

The matter of Suraez’ inconsistent evidence is inexcusable. Given the potential for future criminal charges all answers should have been approved by our Solicitor. You decline to answer to avoid incriminating yourself in a future criminal investigation, you give a pre-prepared approved answer or you elect to defer answering until you have consulted your lawyer, and come back with an answer later. What happened appears to have been a balls-up, an own goal, which did Luis no favours.

It is true that some allegations are “one man’s word against the other”, but the confirmed words are enough.

 

138.is particularly baffling. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him "Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". Mr Suarez was emphatic that he had not said anything that could be classified as racial abuse. Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black”

 

This following perspective is relevant. Black people in Colombia, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile and Brasil are treated as the lowest of the low. In those countries they are entirely powerless and are considered beneath even the indigenous people . This powerlessness is a constant source of frustration for black people and discrimination and racism is overt and rarely hidden away. Preferential treatment for whites is typical and the norm and it would be social suicide for a black person who has made some way up the ladder to complain about the treatment of others in a similar position as him and it is in this context that Suarez' comments must be judged. It may not be deemed offensive for white people to say it but for the vast majority of black people the term 'negrito' is pejorative and highlights just how powerless they truly are to do anything against it.

 

According to the report, Evra asked Suárez why he had kicked him, to which the forward replied: "Because you are black." When Evra challenged him to repeat the answer and said he would "punch him", Suárez said: "I don't speak to blacks."

 

 

The report said Evra then told Suárez he was going to hit him, to which the Uruguay international replied in Spanish: "Dale, negro, negro, negro." That translates to: "Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". The video shows a heated exchange and the words exchanged. I think that in the circumstances most Reds would question whether Luis was engaged in fond affectionate badinage with the captain of Man U.

 

The border between an FA racist offence and a criminal one is unclear. The reason why the FA are being coy about the racist tag, is, I suspect to try to avoid precipitating Evra making a criminal complaint. Some are suggesting that a criminal complaint, if Evra was prepared to make one, might be a soft option. I am not so sure. At all of our places of work saying “ I don’t speak to blacks” would be instant dismissal for gross professional misconduct and bringing the company into disrepute. The rest that has been admitted by Suarez, Comolli and is on video is enough for a case. For Suarez (unlike Terry) the consequences of a criminal conviction would be modest, for LFC they would be serious.

 

I think that the chances of us now appealing the verdict are slim, of having the verdict overturned negligible. Appealing the sentence is a runner. The Club is going to have to be considerably slicker than it has been to date in how it handles this now. As I suspected might be the case, the key evidence against has come from our end. An early apology was not, and has not, been offered for “unintended offence”, a poor call. The executive control of this has been poor. Who was in control? Who is in control now? How this plays to a broader audience DOES matter. At a time when FSG are looking to monetise our international support the adverse affect this publicity has is obvious. Black supporters are also under-represented at Anfield, how this plays to the black community in Merseyside and the country also matters, nor should the impact on potential black player transfer targets be underestimated as well as on co-owner Lebron James.

 

This has not been our finest hour. Some evidently feel that the evidence is still in our favour – in which case the Club failed in successfully advocating the case. If Ayre can’t handle this maybe JW should put in a call to Broughton? It is the combination of diplomacy and skill in handling the big cases that Broughton so excelled at that is required now. Whichever way you cut this Ayre has presided over a PR disaster for the Club, which could get worse if it is not brought under control. I’ve watched us now for over thirty years, Peter Robinson would not have allowed us to get caught as flat footed as this.

[ChrisV]

evra didnt complain to the ref during the game you liar.

 

Jesus, you have some balls. You obviously have not read the report, claim you have and go on to call other people liars.

[Hades]

I'm only 30 pages into the report and the most striking thing is how non-independent the wording seems. They've made mention of Suarez not needing to prove his innocence, yet they seemed to have used that as a justification to throw both barrels at Suarez and dispute Evra's claims with the weight of a feather.

 

Suarez's lawyer, McCormick, also comes across like an unprepared doormat. I think I could do better with a mere 1 year of law school than this clown.

[xerxes]

Suarez's lawyer, McCormick, also comes across like an unprepared doormat. I think I could do better with a mere 1 year of law school than this clown.

 

We have played a significant part in our own downfall from the start, and its not over yet.