The FA publish written reasons for Suarez's ban

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Now, i'm not sure if this is definite, but I rewound it on Sky+ and it sounded like it was what I thought it was.... just watching Sky Sports and Anichebe and Distin getting interviewed after the Everton v West Brom game.....Now, I had to do a double take, but I'm sure Anichebe just referred to Distin as "this gorilla at the back'...... 8 game ban?

[TheHowieLama]

Now, i'm not sure if this is definite, but I rewound it on Sky+ and it sounded like it was what I thought it was.... just watching Sky Sports and Anichebe and Distin getting interviewed after the Everton v West Brom game.....Now, I had to do a double take, but I'm sure Anichebe just referred to Distin as "this gorilla at the back'...... 8 game ban?

 

Black on black slime doesn't count fella.

[Newport]

Apparently the video posted above doesn't give the correct point of view as Suarez actually kicked out a little, but there is no way he was as hurt about it as his reaction indicates. But he's still a lying shithouse who's got a chip on his shoulder.

[JB2]

 

3 non native speakers misunderstanding a word with multiple meanings?

 

How does that explain what Suarez said to Kuyt in Dutch?

 

I am not a linguistic expert, but it seems strange that the incorrect Dutch translation also equates to the same as the Spanish mistranslation?

 

In addition Suarez and his QC also admit that he was not trying to defuse the situation when he pinched Evra's arm, which he alleged in his statement. Unfortunately this does not help his credibility either.

 

Like I said, we have made a rod for our own backs here.

[TheHowieLama]

How does that explain what Suarez said to Kuyt in Dutch?

 

I am not a linguistic expert, but it seems strange that the incorrect Dutch translation also equates to the same as the Spanish mistranslation?

 

In addition Suarez and his QC also admit that he was not trying to defuse the situation when he pinched Evra's arm, which he alleged in his statement. Unfortunately this does not help his credibility either.

 

Like I said, we have made a rod for our own backs here.

 

I don't think he was trying to do anything but wind him up from the very beginning but now we are into both of the fellas third language. In Spanish the statement and the question are only differentiated by inflection.

ATEOTD I am sure that Evra would have gone off - ie fists flying - if it was anything like what he is suggesting.

[Newport]

I still can't wrap my head around that they have banned Suarez for eight matches based on the probability of the accuser's story and the fact that we cannot do anything about it in the court system because The FA has the power to impose punishment on clubs or players who does so. What the hell were the clubs thinking when they agreed to that? Seems so medieval.

[kiwanis]

I loathe the Daily Mail but my God it did need saying by someone.

 

Patrick Collins: Kenny Dalglish needs a few home truths¿ not more flattery | Mail Online

 

When Chelsea have the moral high-ground over us (in the public mind) you know it's a fucking PR disaster but then KK's judgment isn't great: he is alleged to bring notorious drug-dealers and other seriously criminal types to important meetings to 'make a point'. And look up who he used for 'personal security' whilst at Celtic as director of football/manager.

[xerxes]

I've bolded one part of your statement because it proves you've changed your tune.etc.....

 

There is a distinction between being involved in dressing room translation, and becoming involved in a Tribunal adjudication. I haven’t changed my tune. You have now worked it out. Comolli should only have given a prepared and agreed statement- not undermined Luis’s case. I am sure he didn’t do it intentionally, which begs the question that I have consistently asked – who has been running this show?

Earlier you conceded that you are no lawyer. You are tangling yourself in knots on balance of probability. What Suarez said in his own statement, corroborated by Comolli was enough to prove the FA’s charge.Piscinin is spot on when he says:

“And you can poke all the holes in it you want, it doesn't change the fact Suarez was convicted by his and our own inconsistencies. They refused to believe his testimony because of two key items.

 

1. The "Drafting error", we made a claim that was clearly not true and said "oh, we put that in the wrong place of the report".

2. The fact his witnesses said different things to him.

 

Because of those two reasons they decided to take everything Evra said at face value. Everything else is a side-show and it all comes down to the fact we didn't get our shit together”

 

We both have the same objective at heart, the good name of LFC. Our difference is how that is best served in a very tricky situation. It’s a shame that the players have not learnt the art of friendly banter too.

 

I do think that you are underestimating how poorly this is playing to a wider audience, I think that matters.

 

I am in the fortunate position that if I am wrong, and we win an appeal, and I have to apologise to you for calling it wrong, I will be delighted for our Club.

 

I think that we will agree that this was a not untypical on field spat, which has been allowed to get way out of hand. We differ in that you seem to want to keep on going, oblivious to the damage that is being caused to our Club, and the greater damage that will be caused if we continue like this.

 

The silence from FSG is deafening, racism plays very badly stateside. The silence from Ayre is also deafening- when everyone is looking for some leadership. Incredibly, Suraez, and the Club have still failed to issue a statement apologising unreservedly for any UNINTENTIONAL offence Suarez’ comments may have given. Had we done so early enough, this may have been headed off post complaint but pre-charge, with a warning, which is how it should have been dealt with in my view.

 

Much of what you say questioning the basis of the FA adjudication is fair comment, what you miss is that the Club has been asleep at the wheel in dealing with this, and if we don’t wake up, it’s going to get worse.

[kiwanis]

Seriously do the one-eyed mob here think it is some sort of 'ontological impossibility' that Liverpool players can behave badly?

 

Is there anything that Suarez could do that would be dubbed unacceptable? Do you really buy into the notion that he was just having some 'jolly' banter? If anyone at work said to a black person "go away I don't talk to blacks" they would, in all probability, be fired.

[Guest ShoePiss]

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]

 

He did kick him mate, it was a tap.

 

[YOUTUBE]KJrrj7XbXzA[/YOUTUBE]

[Guest ShoePiss]

Seriously do the one-eyed mob here think it is some sort of 'ontological impossibility' that Liverpool players can behave badly?

 

Is there anything that Suarez could do that would be dubbed unacceptable? Do you really buy into the notion that he was just having some 'jolly' banter? If anyone at work said to a black person "go away I don't talk to blacks" they would, in all probability, be fired.

 

You're trying very hard to get a reaction.

[JB2]

 

I don't think he was trying to do anything but wind him up from the very beginning but now we are into both of the fellas third language. In Spanish the statement and the question are only differentiated by inflection.

ATEOTD I am sure that Evra would have gone off - ie fists flying - if it was anything like what he is suggesting.

 

I agree with you. My personal view is that both sides have embellished the facts to fit their case, however given what was said by Comoli and Kuyt in their first statements, it unfortunately gives more credence to Evra's claims.

 

Unfortunately it appears that since in the commissions view Suarez has not told the truth on his agreed use of the word Negro, they have taken the (imho) false opinion that Suarez lied ni the other instances where he disputes he used the word, as in their view his recollection of events does not coincide with the video evidence (In terms of facial expressions and reactions of both parties)

Even if we can prove the other instances were not true on appeal, I cannot see how we can disprove the agreed use of the I the word given the Kuyt and Comoli evidence, and the definition of the charge in question.

 

I would expect the best we an hope for is a reduction of the sentence, and even that may be difficult given the severe negative reaction this case as produced in the non-LFC supporting public.

[TheHowieLama]

the one-eyed mob

 

[YOUTUBE]rOxlFJbyl94[/YOUTUBE]

[Guest ShoePiss]

I've never uploaded a video to youtube before, how the hell do they know the video may be under license of the premier league? I purposely didn't name it anything footy related and classified it as comedy.

 

Do they have an army of trained monkeys reviewing every file that gets uploaded? Bizarre.

[TheHowieLama]

I've never uploaded a video to youtube before, how the hell do they know the video may be under license of the premier league? I purposely didn't name it anything footy related and classified it as comedy.

 

Do they have an army of trained monkeys reviewing every file that gets uploaded? Bizarre.

 

Read lawyers. In all honesty it is probably not that hard.

[Guest ShoePiss]

I've learned that they do actually compare the audio and video to a database of copyrighted material. Impressive.

[TheHowieLama]

one and zero -- over and over and over

[Newport]

Found this reading a Daily Mail article (I know, sorry to those offended). Actually quite balanced. What seems more credible coming from a footballer on the pitch in the heat of the moment?

 

[xerxes]

I've never uploaded a video to youtube before, how the hell do they know the video may be under license of the premier league? I purposely didn't name it anything footy related and classified it as comedy.

 

Do they have an army of trained monkeys reviewing every file that gets uploaded? Bizarre.

 

Yes, the PL have a dedicated team who scour the internet for breaches of copywright whether it is video footage, or fixture listings.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Yes, the PL have a dedicated team who scour the internet for breaches of copywright whether it is video footage, or fixture listings.

 

Nah it's youtube, each video file has a digital signature that they compare to copyrighted material.

[dennis tooth]

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.

 

A weak case for appeal if I ever saw one.

[xerxes]

I still can't wrap my head around that they have banned Suarez for eight matches based on the probability of the accuser's story and the fact that we cannot do anything about it in the court system because The FA has the power to impose punishment on clubs or players who does so. What the hell were the clubs thinking when they agreed to that? Seems so medieval.

What was admitted to was enough, I'm afraid.

 

The FA rules are standard sporting association rules that make sense. Everybody knows what they are beforehand, everybody agrees to be bound by them.

 

Where we go from here is key.The FA have applied strict liability to the use of racist language. The problem for Suarez is that if his argument is that in fact he is bezzie mates with Evra the question of why Evra is making the allegations against him becomes more difficult to answer- which did for him at the hearing. The words which have been admitted are enough for a conviction on a strict liability basis so an Appeal is unlikely to succeed.

 

Clearly our approach has failed, he was convicted, QED.So blundering on as we were will only damage our image further, increase the risk of Luis ban being increased and increase the chances, through increased exposure, of a criminal charge following ( there are plenty out there who would love to have a pop).

 

So if we do appeal, it will need a new lead lawyer to do it.No point in banging your head against a brick wall. It would also have the advantage of distancing the case from the shambles that we presented.

 

This historic quote from JW about racism at Boston Red Sox is telling - Ayre should read it:

 

John Henry, now the principal owner of the Red Sox, says the team has to demonstrate that its attitude on race has changed. "I think we have to make a statement not just in baseball but in our community that diversity is an issue that hasn't been fully addressed in the past and certainly has to be fully addressed," he says. "I think it's important what your actions are. That will really define the franchise going forward."

 

NPR : The Boston Red Sox and Racism

[ngogswilly]

There is not a fucking hope Luis would face criminal charges that would stick.

 

Too many people on here are buying into Evra's version of events which is bollox and the report basically admits cannot prove but simply finds more plausible.

 

Evra's version of events is laughable and simply never in a million years would hold up because theres no evidence to back his version up...the version where he says Luis basically went KKK on his ass. That simply did not happen.

 

Thats a huge thing to consider and plenty on here thinking we're fucked would do well to remember that. If the club is proactive enough we can tear that report apart.

 

At the end of the day Luis has admitted saying Negro once in a questioning manner and I don't think we're getting away from that so as someone put it earlier we may have to retreat and lick our wounds.

 

But that fucking report can be blown out of the water and at least salvage some of our reputation if the club is smart enough. But judging by how much of a mess we made of the original proceedings I'm not confident anyone will even bother.

 

We might not be able to appeal but we can at least help Luis, call a press conference, highlight the numerous ridiculous problems with the report and at least salvage the man's and clubs reputation.

[Newport]

There is not a fucking hope Luis would face criminal charges that would stick.

 

Too many people on here are buying into Evra's version of events which is bollox and the report basically admits cannot prove but simply finds more plausible.

 

Evra's version of events is laughable and simply never in a million years would hold up because theres no evidence.

 

Thats a huge thing to consider and plenty on here thinking we're fucked would do well to remember that. If the club is proactive enough we can tear that report apart.

 

At the end of the day Luis has admitted saying Negro and I don't think we're getting away from that so as someone put it earlier we may have to retreat and lick our wounds.

 

But that fucking report can be blown out of the water and at least salvage some of our reputation if the club is smart enough. But judging by how much of a mess we made of the original proceedings I'm not confident anyone will even bother.

 

What bothers me most is that even though Suarez has only admitted saying negro once is that the panel and more or less every media outlet has been worded this as if Evra's account of the incident is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Which is also the reason for the ban being so long even though they don't have any valid proof of what Suarez said.

 

Suarez may have lied about saying it once, but they haven't proved that he said it seven times and that's become the "official" version of it despite there being no evidence of it other than Evra's words. Still they say they don't think he's a racist. It doesn't make any sense at all that he should be banned for eight games if they can't prove it that he undoubtedly used racist language more than one time.

[ngogswilly]

What bothers me most is that even though Suarez has only admitted saying negro once is that the panel and more or less every media outlet has been worded this as if Evra's account of the incident is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Which is also the reason for the ban being so long even though they don't have any valid proof of what Suarez said.

 

Suarez may have lied about saying it once, but they haven't proved that he said it seven times and that's become the "official" version of it despite there being no evidence of it other than Evra's words. Still they say they don't think he's a racist. It doesn't make any sense at all that he should be banned for eight games if they can't prove it that he undoubtedly used racist language more than one time.

 

Bingo.

 

A lot of people are losing sight of this which is incredibly frustrating.

 

I really really hope the club draw attention to this.