Clearing Luis's name: time for the club and the fans to speak up

[dave u]

There is much in what you say there Dave.

 

The problem is that on the specific charge, Luis was guilty by his, and Comollis own testimony alone. The rest is just white noise.

 

White noise that the vast majority of people believe to be true thanks to the FA's verdict. That's the problem.

 

My issue isn't with people saying Suarez was guilty because he referred to Evra as 'negro'. That's a point that can be debated sensibly.

 

The problem is that people believe he said he kicked Evra because he was black, that he doesn't talk to blacks and then he said 'blackie blackie blackie' or some such shit.

 

I don't believe any of that, there is NO evidence at all to back any of that up. In fact the evidence suggests that Suarez's version of events is far more likely.

 

And yet he was somehow found guilty of saying all of that. That is why LFC were so adamant about his innocence and that's why people are so angry.

 

Why did that happen? Because Evra lied and the FA sided with him. Everything other than that is white noise to me.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

White noise that the vast majority of people believe to be true thanks to the FA's verdict. That's the problem.

 

My issue isn't with people saying Suarez was guilty because he referred to Evra as 'negro'. That's a point that can be debated sensibly.

 

The problem is that people believe he said he kicked Evra because he was black, that he doesn't talk to blacks and then he said 'blackie blackie blackie' or some such shit.

 

I don't believe any of that, there is NO evidence at all to back any of that up. In fact the evidence suggests that Suarez's version of events is far more likely.

 

And yet he was somehow found guilty of saying all of that. That is why LFC were so adamant about his innocence and that's why people are so angry.

 

Why did that happen? Because Evra lied and the FA sided with him. Everything other than that is white noise to me.

 

The injustice of this is really sickening. I've just had to ignore it since we decided not to appeal, otherwise I'd have ended up getting really worked up. Terrible shit, this stuff.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

We need to stop now.

 

We (including me) have made the same points again and again and again and again and again.

 

We are literally wasting our time and energy telling each other what we all already know, repeatedly.

 

I think a logical 'next step' is to bring out a professional fan-written dossier of information, collating all of the evidence we've drummed up to support our case. Written without prejudice and in good English (which the FA seem to have failed to do).

 

It would be a formal informal rebuttal, so to speak.

[beejay]

We need to stop now.

 

We (including me) have made the same points again and again and again and again and again.

 

We are literally wasting our time and energy telling each other what we all already know, repeatedly.

 

I think a logical 'next step' is to bring out a professional fan-written dossier of information, collating all of the evidence we've drummed up to support our case. Written without prejudice and in good English (which the FA seem to have failed to do).

 

It would be a formal informal rebuttal, so to speak.

 

That's what the OP and the entire thread is about

[Major Tom]

White noise that the vast majority of people believe to be true thanks to the FA's verdict. That's the problem.

 

My issue isn't with people saying Suarez was guilty because he referred to Evra as 'negro'. That's a point that can be debated sensibly.

 

The problem is that people believe he said he kicked Evra because he was black, that he doesn't talk to blacks and then he said 'blackie blackie blackie' or some such shit.

 

 

I think the majority of 'people' will not be aware of alleged 'kicking' or the 'blackie, blackie, blackie', they will just be aware of the word 'negro' was used.

 

And I actually think not that many people actually give a shit anyway. I asked two good friends, one a Spud, the other a City supporter and both of them said 'I don't know enough about it'. And they are both well read regarding news and sport.

 

I think we are all caught up in this while the rest of the country is counting down the days till Britain's Got Talent.

[beejay]

I think the majority of 'people' will not be aware of alleged 'kicking' or the 'blackie, blackie, blackie', they will just be aware of the word 'negro' was used.

 

And I actually think not that many people actually give a shit anyway. I asked two good friends, one a Spud, the other a City supporter and both of them said 'I don't know enough about it'. And they are both well read regarding news and sport.I think we are all caught up in this while the rest of the country is counting down the days till Britain's Got Talent.

 

The other possibility is they shut the fuck up so as not to get into an utterly pointless discussion with you

[Chairman Meow]

Don't know what it is like in the rest of the country but the locals all seem to have forgotten about it up here.

 

Also the stuff with the Oldham lad has also passed most of them by. Didn't get anything other than the usual "how did the game go" comments on Monday and no mention of it till I brought it up and they all looked fairly uninterested. I dare say that we are just all so more involved because it is our club that it seems so prevalent.

[LFC64]

[quote name=If I'm being 100% honest' date=' the whole incident (for me) rested on two things... 1) Did he use the term at all? - yes

2) and the CRITICAL element - what was the likely context of using that term?

 

Item 2) was the nail in the coffin for him.... because the word was used in a relatively heated exchange, it's likely to have been meant in a provocative manner rather than conciliatory.

IQUOTE]

 

Just a point on item 2. As you pointed out in an earlier post this is where it was won or lost by the legal representatives.Suarez was advised to say it was meant in a conciliatory way which was a mistake. They didn't have to take that route. The important point here is the term does not have to be one or the other. It is generally used in a neutral, descriptive (if you like matter of fact) way. It doesn't have to be loaded with 'affectionate' or ' aggressive' significance either way. By going down the conciliatory route it was made easier for them.

 

By the way thanks for your contribution on this. It's good to know there is some sanity amid the hysteria.

[xerxes]

White noise that the vast majority of people believe to be true thanks to the FA's verdict. That's the problem.

 

My issue isn't with people saying Suarez was guilty because he referred to Evra as 'negro'. That's a point that can be debated sensibly.

 

The problem is that people believe he said he kicked Evra because he was black, that he doesn't talk to blacks and then he said 'blackie blackie blackie' or some such shit.

 

I don't believe any of that, there is NO evidence at all to back any of that up. In fact the evidence suggests that Suarez's version of events is far more likely.

 

And yet he was somehow found guilty of saying all of that. That is why LFC were so adamant about his innocence and that's why people are so angry.

 

Why did that happen? Because Evra lied and the FA sided with him. Everything other than that is white noise to me.

 

I agree with all of that, apart from where the last sentence heads.

 

Somehow, our legal team managed to allow us to convict ourselves, and all the evidence to which you refer to be sidelined - which is why all of us are so angry.

 

That it is the uncorroborated stuff which has stuck, and what he wasnt branded, a racist, has been missed, is a travesty.

 

Having put the ball in our own net firt time round, we have to do much better second time. This has to be put right.

[ngogswilly]

They'll all have forgotten about it until the next time we play them when opposition fans will be screaming racist at him.

But fans will give players abuse no matter what.

 

I want Luis's named cleared for his sake and I want people to at least know why we were so staunch in our defence of him even if they've forgotten. They've forgotten but still in the back of their heads they think we were bang out of order to defend Luis.

 

We weren't.

[Major Tom]

The other possibility is they shut the fuck up so as not to get into an utterly pointless discussion with you

 

Only cheerleaders need apply?

 

Other than that, you probably have a point.

[dave u]

I agree with all of that, apart from where the last sentence heads.

 

Somehow, our legal team managed to allow us to convict ourselves, and all the evidence to which you refer to be sidelined - which is why all of us are so angry.

 

That it is the uncorroborated stuff which has stuck, and what he wasnt branded, a racist, has been missed, is a travesty.

 

Having put the ball in our own net firt time round, we have to do much better second time. This has to be put right.

 

The last sentence wasn't heading anywhere.

 

For the record, I agree with pretty much everything I've read from you about how we handled the situation, especially the legal side of things. It's just that I'm more pissed off about the stitch up by the FA than how we handed it.

[aws]

His name will never be cleared. Mud sticks and he's been buried in tons of the stuff. Whatever anyone does or says, the verdict will be the same and the "judgement" of Suarez in the eyes of the public at large will always be the same unless some substantial new evidence emerges (which isn't really going to happen and anything which does crop up will almost certainly end up under the same carpet as that youtube clip showing Evra in a true light).

 

Fans should still do what they can but as for the club I think the only alternatives are

 

1. Shut up, re-double the efforts on the anti-racism front and wait for the fuss to die down; or

 

2. Issue a properly prepared statement saying we don't agree with the verdict but have accepted it because we don't want to undermine the anti-racism fight and explaining why,on a point-by-point basis, we think the tribunal's view on the balance of probability was wrong. We could include all the weaknesses and inconsistencies in the allegations in our own 115 or so pages. This wouldn't change anything but would put our position on the record and any time the case was brought up in the future (as it regularly will be) our PR dept (if we actually have one) would have a document to refer the media to. Some of them might even read it.

[xerxes]

It's just that I'm more pissed off about the stitch up by the FA than how we handed it.

Agreed, and accepted.

[FanchesterCity]

Whilst I agree his name will never be truly cleared, I do believe he can go a long way towards putting it behind him.

 

It will be an uphill battle, especially at first, but it can be done. All he needs to do (IMO) is play his game, and cut out the moaning (which I accept is possibly a part of his game too).

 

There are some players who, rightly or wrongly have this 'moaning' reputation. Barton, Bellamy, Suarez etc, and so the slightest display of petulance or grumbling will have folks on his back again. But a season of great football and just getting back on his feet after each and every foul against him (like Messi) and he WILL win folks over and help undo the damage.

 

I also believe your option 1) is the best for all concerned.

Option 2) would be intriguing to say the least, but likely to reignite the flames. I think the media WANT Liverpool to 'hit back' because they'd be more than happy to help fan the flames and sell news in the process.

[ngogswilly]

 

2. Issue a properly prepared statement saying we don't agree with the verdict but have accepted it because we don't want to undermine the anti-racism fight and explaining why,on a point-by-point basis, we think the tribunal's view on the balance of probability was wrong. We could include all the weaknesses and inconsistencies in the allegations in our own 115 or so pages. This wouldn't change anything but would put our position on the record and any time the case was brought up in the future (as it regularly will be) our PR dept (if we actually have one) would have a document to refer the media to. Some of them might even read it.

 

I'd be happy with that.

 

Drop the matter finally. But ensure we are on record as stating our side of things and the reasons we were so staunch in our defence of Luis. Put closure to it but at least try and explain the reasons behind our actions.

[dave u]

Whilst I agree his name will never be truly cleared, I do believe he can go a long way towards putting it behind him.

 

It will be an uphill battle, especially at first, but it can be done. All he needs to do (IMO) is play his game, and cut out the moaning (which I accept is possibly a part of his game too).

 

There are some players who, rightly or wrongly have this 'moaning' reputation. Barton, Bellamy, Suarez etc, and so the slightest display of petulance or grumbling will have folks on his back again. But a season of great football and just getting back on his feet after each and every foul against him (like Messi) and he WILL win folks over and help undo the damage.

 

I also believe your option 1) is the best for all concerned.

Option 2) would be intriguing to say the least, but likely to reignite the flames. I think the media WANT Liverpool to 'hit back' because they'd be more than happy to help fan the flames and sell news in the process.

 

All good points.

 

I have to admit if Suarez played for anybody else I'd probably think he was a twat just based on his moaning at refs.

[Guest TK-421]

I still think a Pizza Hut advert is the way to go.

[xerxes]

His name will never be cleared. Mud sticks and he's been buried in tons of the stuff. Whatever anyone does or says, the verdict will be the same and the "judgement" of Suarez in the eyes of the public at large will always be the same unless some substantial new evidence emerges (which isn't really going to happen and anything which does crop up will almost certainly end up under the same carpet as that youtube clip showing Evra in a true light).

 

Fans should still do what they can but as for the club I think the only alternatives are

 

1. Shut up, re-double the efforts on the anti-racism front and wait for the fuss to die down; or

 

2. Issue a properly prepared statement saying we don't agree with the verdict but have accepted it because we don't want to undermine the anti-racism fight and explaining why,on a point-by-point basis, we think the tribunal's view on the balance of probability was wrong. We could include all the weaknesses and inconsistencies in the allegations in our own 115 or so pages. This wouldn't change anything but would put our position on the record and any time the case was brought up in the future (as it regularly will be) our PR dept (if we actually have one) would have a document to refer the media to. Some of them might even read it.

 

All sensible stuff.

 

I also think that the Terry Case will overshadow Luis' case very quickly.

[Philbert]

 

I'm not sure how LFC could face criminal charges for challenging a system that most MPs are unhappy with themselves and whose set up is nothing more than an unelected quango.

Bring it on.

 

An intriguing point you make there, I seem to recall lots of calls for the FA to be totally revamped following the failed World Cup bid. UK Gov PLC may have as big a hard-on for the FA, as the FA appear to have for LFC?

[FrenchEyeGlass]

That's what the OP and the entire thread is about

 

I know. My point is that we should stick to that point.

 

Discussing the intricacies of the case and whether we've acted in the right way is exhaustive now.

[Philbert]

What role (if any), is there in all of this, for the recently formed LFC Fans Committee?

[Guest TK-421]

Um.

[redhussar]

Sorry my first post is on this subject. The thread is clearing Luis name and the only way of doing that is by proving Evra lied.

 

I've read every word of the written reasons and though I find most of it annoying because I don't agree with their findings, there is this part which raises major questions about the evidence given in written statements and the player’s testimony at the commission.

 

Read the written reasons para 111-114, it deals with the refs/Evra/Giggs/Kuyts accounts of the Evra yellow card.

 

111. The corner came to nothing and the ball went out of play with Manchester United being awarded a goal kick. As the players moved up field, there was an exchange between Mr Evra and Mr Kuyt. The referee called Mr Evra over and gave him a yellow card. Mr Giggs spoke to the referee about the caution and then spoke to Mr Evra.

 

112. The evidence of Mr Marriner about this incident was as follows. In the 65th minute of the game, he had to issue a caution to Mr Evra after he saw him push Mr Kuyt in the chest following a coming together. Mr Evra was clearly upset and mentioned that he was being called "black". Mr Marriner did not hear whether Mr Evra said who was calling him "black" and he did not understand what Mr Evra was referring to at the time. Mr Evra made no other comment to the referee.

 

113. Mr Evra described the booking in the following way. Mr Kuyt told him to stop diving so Mr Evra pushed him away. The referee called Mr Evra over to book him. Mr Evra asked the referee why he was booking him and the referee said it was because he had pushed Mr Kuyt. When he was being booked, Mr Evra told the referee again that he had been called black. Mr Evra added that after booking him, the referee spoke to Ryan Giggs. Mr Giggs then asked Mr Evra what was wrong and Mr Evra told him that he had been called black.

Mr Giggs told Mr Evra to calm down and not get sent off.

 

114. Mr Giggs gave evidence before us. He said that he was reasonably close to the referee and after he had shown Mr Evra the yellow card, Mr Giggs approached the referee and asked him why he had booked Mr Evra. The referee said to Mr Giggs "just calm Patrice down". Mr Giggs then moved away from the referee and towards Mr Evra. It was obvious to Mr Giggs from looking at Mr Evra that he was upset. He said that Mr Evra did not seem quite

with it, you might call it red mist. Mr Giggs said to Mr Evra "what's happened?". Mr Evra replied "he called me black". Mr Giggs assumed that Mr Evra was speaking about Mr Kuyt since he had just been booked for some kind of tussle with Mr Kuyt. Mr Giggs said to Mr Evra "did the ref hear it?", to which Mr Evra replied "I don't think so". Mr Giggs then told Mr Evra to calm down and not get himself sent off.

 

 

That’s what was said at the commission, this is their report, their words I am using. So we (the general public) are led to believe that Giggs was told by the ref to calm Patrice down and he went directly to Evra and had this conversation with:

 

Giggs: "whats up"

Evra: "he called me black"

Giggs: "did you tell the ref"

Evra: "yes"

Giggs: "did he hear it"

Evra: "No I don't think so"

Giggs: "Calm down you're gonna get sent off"

 

This is later used as proof by the commission to find Suarez guilty of racial abuse. Saying at one point

 

268. In contrast, Mr Evra’s evidence was not shown to be inconsistent with the facts established by other evidence, such as the video footage, in any material respect.

 

 

All well and good, until you actually watch the video footage from this particular incident.

 

I've got a clip on my photobucket account but newbies cannot post URL's, game time 64:15, anyone with a game vid can watch it

 

You can clearly see Evra getting booked, clearly Giggs spoke to the ref and clearly Giggs says something to Evra, I am no lip reader but I'd suggest it is "Calm down you're gonna get sent off", there is no "what’s up" "did you tell the ref" "did he hear it", and Evra responds to Giggs just once, so he could not have said "he called me black "yes" and "No I don't think so" and rather than noting Evra looked like he lost it, red mist blah blah, Giggs looks pretty peeved with Evra himself.

 

This "conversation" never took place, Giggs has lied in his witness statement and no one seems to have picked up on it or questioned the inconsistency at this point of the written reasons.

 

As both Evra and Giggs say it took place it means they have colluded to fabricate a story to fit Evras allegations. This casts a HUGE doubt over Evras "credibility" to tell the truth and shows his ability to coerce others to lie for and with him.

 

I've sent emails to the Echo with this evidence which I believe shows that Evra and Giggs lied, asking them to investigate further and print it, to date I've been ignored so I've decided to come on here and see if this particular incident has been brought up before and if it hasn't then please give this info to someone with a bit of clout to bring it to a wider audience, if not then just add it to the ever growing list of inconsistency. :wallbutt:

 

Apologies for the length of the post.

[ngogswilly]

Sorry my first post is on this subject. The thread is clearing Luis name and the only way of doing that is by proving Evra lied.

 

I've read every word of the written reasons and though I find most of it annoying because I don't agree with their findings, there is this part which raises major questions about the evidence given in written statements and the player’s testimony at the commission.

 

Read the written reasons para 111-114, it deals with the refs/Evra/Giggs/Kuyts accounts of the Evra yellow card.

 

111. The corner came to nothing and the ball went out of play with Manchester United being awarded a goal kick. As the players moved up field, there was an exchange between Mr Evra and Mr Kuyt. The referee called Mr Evra over and gave him a yellow card. Mr Giggs spoke to the referee about the caution and then spoke to Mr Evra.

 

112. The evidence of Mr Marriner about this incident was as follows. In the 65th minute of the game, he had to issue a caution to Mr Evra after he saw him push Mr Kuyt in the chest following a coming together. Mr Evra was clearly upset and mentioned that he was being called "black". Mr Marriner did not hear whether Mr Evra said who was calling him "black" and he did not understand what Mr Evra was referring to at the time. Mr Evra made no other comment to the referee.

 

113. Mr Evra described the booking in the following way. Mr Kuyt told him to stop diving so Mr Evra pushed him away. The referee called Mr Evra over to book him. Mr Evra asked the referee why he was booking him and the referee said it was because he had pushed Mr Kuyt. When he was being booked, Mr Evra told the referee again that he had been called black. Mr Evra added that after booking him, the referee spoke to Ryan Giggs. Mr Giggs then asked Mr Evra what was wrong and Mr Evra told him that he had been called black.

Mr Giggs told Mr Evra to calm down and not get sent off.

 

114. Mr Giggs gave evidence before us. He said that he was reasonably close to the referee and after he had shown Mr Evra the yellow card, Mr Giggs approached the referee and asked him why he had booked Mr Evra. The referee said to Mr Giggs "just calm Patrice down". Mr Giggs then moved away from the referee and towards Mr Evra. It was obvious to Mr Giggs from looking at Mr Evra that he was upset. He said that Mr Evra did not seem quite

with it, you might call it red mist. Mr Giggs said to Mr Evra "what's happened?". Mr Evra replied "he called me black". Mr Giggs assumed that Mr Evra was speaking about Mr Kuyt since he had just been booked for some kind of tussle with Mr Kuyt. Mr Giggs said to Mr Evra "did the ref hear it?", to which Mr Evra replied "I don't think so". Mr Giggs then told Mr Evra to calm down and not get himself sent off.

 

 

That’s what was said at the commission, this is their report, their words I am using. So we (the general public) are led to believe that Giggs was told by the ref to calm Patrice down and he went directly to Evra and had this conversation with:

 

Giggs: "whats up"

Evra: "he called me black"

Giggs: "did you tell the ref"

Evra: "yes"

Giggs: "did he hear it"

Evra: "No I don't think so"

Giggs: "Calm down you're gonna get sent off"

 

This is later used as proof by the commission to find Suarez guilty of racial abuse. Saying at one point

 

268. In contrast, Mr Evra’s evidence was not shown to be inconsistent with the facts established by other evidence, such as the video footage, in any material respect.

 

 

All well and good, until you actually watch the video footage from this particular incident.

 

I've got a clip on my photobucket account but newbies cannot post URL's, game time 64:15, anyone with a game vid can watch it

 

You can clearly see Evra getting booked, clearly Giggs spoke to the ref and clearly Giggs says something to Evra, I am no lip reader but I'd suggest it is "Calm down you're gonna get sent off", there is no "what’s up" "did you tell the ref" "did he hear it", and Evra responds to Giggs just once, so he could not have said "he called me black "yes" and "No I don't think so" and rather than noting Evra looked like he lost it, red mist blah blah, Giggs looks pretty peeved with Evra himself.

 

This "conversation" never took place, Giggs has lied in his witness statement and no one seems to have picked up on it or questioned the inconsistency at this point of the written reasons.

 

As both Evra and Giggs say it took place it means they have colluded to fabricate a story to fit Evras allegations. This casts a HUGE doubt over Evras "credibility" to tell the truth and shows his ability to coerce others to lie for and with him.

 

I've sent emails to the Echo with this evidence which I believe shows that Evra and Giggs lied, asking them to investigate further and print it, to date I've been ignored so I've decided to come on here and see if this particular incident has been brought up before and if it hasn't then please give this info to someone with a bit of clout to bring it to a wider audience, if not then just add it to the ever growing list of inconsistency. :wallbutt:

 

Apologies for the length of the post.

 

I can't watch the video here at the moment but I'll take your word for it.

 

If thats the case its just another one of the huge gaping holes in the FA's case built upon Evra's lies. And is yet another piece of evidence showing the clear intent to stitch Luis up and show clear blind bias towards Evra.

Theres more than a few as I'm sure you're aware.

 

The Echo at this point should really have done a piece detailing our grievances with the report...but in fairness thats not their job.

 

Its really the prerogative of the club or someone acting on Luis's behalf to make all this more widely know. Unfortunately no one has thus far and with each passing day it seems more and more like the order of the day is "Shut up and keep the peace". Which probably is a good idea for the good of the club.

 

But it leaves Luis hanging. Which is a crying fucking shame.