Quantcast
Clearing Luis's name: time for the club and the fans to speak up - Page 10 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Neil G

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

Recommended Posts

It's not put well but reason for optimism? Maybe the lesson is if your do the journo's work for them maybe they'll do something.

 

Did Suarez really say 'negro' seven times? - Premier League - Football - The Independent

 

Well at least thats something. You're right it doesn't put it well but it gets the general point across and thats all anyone who wants to defend Luis can ask for. That the media at least acknowledge the things we've pointed out and why the club acted the way it did defending him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the FA clear Terry on the basis that he only uttered the phrase he used once rather than multiple times (which is my guess as to what they'll do), hopefully some "journalist" has the balls to point out the discrepancy discussed in that article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When the FA clear Terry on the basis that he only uttered the phrase he used once rather than multiple times (which is my guess as to what they'll do), hopefully some "journalist" has the balls to point out the discrepancy discussed in that article.

 

I can't see the FA clearing Terry. The CPS wouldn't have taken on such a high profile case if they thought it was shaky and might make them look bad. If convicted, there's no way the FA would undermine their own holier than thou stance on racism by clearing him. Powar and co would villify them for not banning someone actually convicted in a proper court of law for racial abuse.

 

I bet it'll only be a three or four game ban though, but the shit storm is heading thankfully away from us and towards Chelsea and the FA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ShoePiss

Just watched the bit of the match after Evra gets booked, Giggs looks like he says calm down and Evra says maybe two words along with an arm gesture as if to say "it's him" kind of thing.

 

Giggs is then out of shot and Evra looks like he's getting on with the game, you can't see what else is said after that as the game gets under way again.

 

Funnily enough at that moment the traveling kop are singing the Suarez song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't see the FA clearing Terry. The CPS wouldn't have taken on such a high profile case if they thought it was shaky and might make them look bad. If convicted' date=' there's no way the FA would undermine their own holier than thou stance on racism by clearing him. Powar and co would villify them for not banning someone actually convicted in a proper court of law for racial abuse.

 

I bet it'll only be a three or four game ban though, but the shit storm is heading thankfully away from us and towards Chelsea and the FA.[/quote']

If Terry is found guilty in a court of law he will face FA Charges.

 

His ban will be no less, and almost certainly longer, than Luis'.

 

The FA's stance is not "holier than thou" on racism, it is a stance supported by LFC, supporters group and all of football- racism has no place in the game.

 

If convicted, Terry will lose the England Captaincy and will not play for England again. The commercial consequences will cost him millions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If convicted, Terry will lose the England Captaincy and will not play for England again. The commercial consequences will cost him millions.

 

He won't be convicted though! Which, would give the FA the perfect excuse.

 

However, in a court of law would the prosecution be able to bring character witnesses to back up their claims? I was thinking of Ledley King!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just watched the bit of the match after Evra gets booked, Giggs looks like he says calm down and Evra says maybe two words along with an arm gesture as if to say "it's him" kind of thing.

 

Giggs is then out of shot and Evra looks like he's getting on with the game, you can't see what else is said after that as the game gets under way again.

 

The issue is this conversation

 

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"

 

Allegedly took place after Giggs spoke to the ref, the ref told Giggs to "calm Patrice down" and before Giggs says

 

"Calm down you're gonna get sent off"

 

This whole incident, charge and conviction is based on who says what and when they said it, the commission uses video footage to back up their conviction that Suarez racially abused Evra even though the video footage in the goalmouth does not conclusively prove Evras allegation.

 

It isn't just the fact that it didn't take place, but also Giggs evidence that he at this time indicated that to him it was obvious from looking at Evra that he was upset. Saying "Evra did not seem quite with it, you might call it red mist"

 

The commission uses this "conversation" to find because Evra spoke to Giggs about why he was upset, the rest of Evras story was more likely to be correct. If the Giggs "conversation" didn't take place, it means both Giggs and Evra have fabricated it to support Evras allegations.

 

This does need further investigation, I hope someone reads this who has better contacts than I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Terry is found guilty in a court of law he will face FA Charges.

 

His ban will be no less, and almost certainly longer, than Luis'.

 

The FA's stance is not "holier than thou" on racism, it is a stance supported by LFC, supporters group and all of football- racism has no place in the game.

 

If convicted, Terry will lose the England Captaincy and will not play for England again. The commercial consequences will cost him millions.

 

1. Bearing in mind the amount of times the commission believe Suarez brought race into the context of what was viewed as an antagonistic spat and thus marking the term as perjorative, and their reasoning thus for giving an eight match ban, i can't see a single instance when viewed throught that rationale bringing the same sentence.

 

2. The FA's stance is "holier than thou" as it seeks to use it as a political tool with which to rank itself againsy FIFA. A point highlighted by many. We're all against racism, but the Suarez affair was seen as an opportunity to make an example and score points rather than look into the real issues and carefully and deliberately seek justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't see it, but I suspect RedHussar is onto something as there are similar discrepencies involving other parts of the incident. The part involving the pinch, and also when the ref calls them over doesn't tie in with Evra's account at all.

 

I'd love to sit down with all the video footage, including the hidden stuff that wasn't broadcast, as I reckon I could blow Evra's story apart. The question is how come LFC's lawyer wasn't capable of doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think if Terry is found guilty, Chelsea will go really hard on Terry to gain some good PR. This will then be used by those who feel we have handled it badly to try and make us eat more shit. Just imagine if Chelsea sacked Terry or suspended him for a long period of time say 9 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't see it, but I suspect RedHussar is onto something as there are similar discrepencies involving other parts of the incident. The part involving the pinch, and also when the ref calls them over doesn't tie in with Evra's account at all.

 

I'd love to sit down with all the video footage, including the hidden stuff that wasn't broadcast, as I reckon I could blow Evra's story apart. The question is how come LFC's lawyer wasn't capable of doing it.

 

There's a good article on The Thompkins Times pages written by a lawyer ( yes he is a red) where he gives plenty of strong arguments for the grounds of a successful appeal which really adds to that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He won't be convicted though! Which, would give the FA the perfect excuse.

 

However, in a court of law would the prosecution be able to bring character witnesses to back up their claims? I was thinking of Ledley King!

 

On the Terry Trial my opinion on what I have heard is that he is in big trouble, and will be convicted.

 

If he is not convicted the chances of an FA Charge relating to racist language are slight, although that would depend upon the grounds upon which he was cleared.

 

The answer to your second question/para, is yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the Terry Trial my opinion on what I have heard is that he is in big trouble, and will be convicted.

 

If he is not convicted the chances of an FA Charge relating to racist language are slight, although that would depend upon the grounds upon which he was cleared.

 

The answer to your second question/para, is yes.

 

That could be interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[/b]

 

There's a good article on The Thompkins Times pages written by a lawyer ( yes he is a red) where he gives plenty of strong arguments for the grounds of a successful appeal which really adds to that question.

 

Be slightly wary of this. There is a big difference between having grounds for an appeal (money for lawyers!) and firstly ,the appeal being successful ,and secondly the collateral damage from that appeal being worthwhile.

 

My view is that there is a lot of arse covering going on at the Club over this, with the detail of the case an embarrassment to some Club officials.But this is a case we should never have lost.

 

On the day, Evra made a complaint which could have resulted in a criminal charge. Our Club Solicitors were not retained for this job, why? All comment /interviews should have been shut down by a solicitor on the day. They were not. Were our solicitors involved, but didn’t do their job? Or was Ayre at fault for not involving them immediately? When were FSG consulted? What direction have they given? At what point did McCormick take responsibility for this?

 

Gordon Taylor offered PFA conciliation before this reached the FA. We turned that down. Who turned it down? And why? Was it our solicitors? Was it Ayre?

 

Kenny and Comolli have had a direct involvement in evidence that has been submitted, and post verdict comment, why? This is a Club not football matter. Were our Solicitors consulted? Was this Ayre authorised? Was this FSG authorised?

 

Why was an apology for unintended offence not offered early on? Who was consulted regarding its usefulness?

 

Why was McCormick, a sports/football lawyer specialist retained for a case with a criminal dimension? Would a criminal lawyer have advised, “say nothing, challenge them to a criminal hearing which we can win”?

 

Who was driving the defence? Was it Luis, McCormick or Ayre? Who made the crucial strategic decision for us to offer any evidence at all ( on the grounds that it might prejudice a criminal trial)? Who made the fatal decision to go for the affectionate/unintended defence, rather than the more straight forwards, and credible, unintended offence defence? Who decided not to challenge the make up of the FA Committee?

 

Why was Luis defence presented in a way that the Tribunal found unbelievable? How can a man who Evra and the FA say is not racist, then be convicted of making what amounts to racist comments? Why were statements by Luis, and Comolli submitted which condemned us allowed to be offered by our team in our defence ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

McCormick has been reported as being critical of the Clubs strategy. Is that justified, or is it an excuse for his own failings?

 

Did we not appeal because we had no confidence in our own team to win? Did we feel that replacing them would have been a humiliation and asked questions about our own judgement in appointing them in the first place? Did we fear that by doing so shortcomings at the Club might be revealed by a scorned lawyer? Did McCormick feel that our failure to handle the post verdict PR disaster as a Club mean that neither he , nor anyone else, stood a chance at the appeal whatever the merits of our case?

 

In addition to all of these questions I offer one more which is probably the most important – who was in charge?

Edited by xerxes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't see it, but I suspect RedHussar is onto something as there are similar discrepencies involving other parts of the incident. The part involving the pinch, and also when the ref calls them over doesn't tie in with Evra's account at all.

 

I'd love to sit down with all the video footage, including the hidden stuff that wasn't broadcast, as I reckon I could blow Evra's story apart. The question is how come LFC's lawyer wasn't capable of doing it.

 

I've downloaded the game from 3 different broadcasters, it wasn't helpful at all in deciding who said what to who in the goalmouth. This is the espn recording

 

if you put the normal h t t p : / / before this

smg.photobucket.com/albums/v732/redhussar/?action=view&current=MyMovie-7.mp4

 

you can view it, as you are admin you can review it, ensure it is what i say it is, and then post it :yes:

 

I asked the lawyer question to myself, wondering why he was so poor, the report reads as though he was weak, ill prepared, failed preparing Suarez and flimsey in his aguements. There is a simple answer to that. We do not know if he was poor, we only have the commissions words making him look poor.

 

The written reasons is the commissions reason why they have already found Suarez guilty. It is not a transcript of all what happened or what was said. Our lawyer may well have ripped Giggs and Evra apart on this very point and others, the commission doesn't have to tell anyone that, and the Club is not allowed to discuss it, so you have what looks like a unfair onesided 115 page document and I don't understand why anyone thinks/thought we were going to get a fair or balanced report.

 

Because they found him guilty they do not have to release evidence that raises doubt about their conviction or evidence showing our lawyer, Suarez or club in a good light, they have to put out heavily biased reason why he's guilty, giving away nothing that could lead to Liverpool appealing.

 

It really is a waste of time and engery saying "but its unfair" "what about Terry" "what about cultural/language diff" or anything else because this whole case is one mans word against another, one of them is a liar and Suarez was found guilty of being the liar.

 

Now he's been found guilty, the only way of clearing Suarezs name is to prove Evra is the liar and that teammates lied to support his allegation. I think this evidence proves he is a liar, and at least one of his teammates did lie for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now he's been found guilty, the only way of clearing Suarezs name is to prove Evra is the liar and that teammates lied to support his allegation. I think this evidence proves he is a liar, and at least one of his teammates did lie for him.

 

I knew he was a liar the moment I read his account of things. I had strongly suspected beforehand he was obviously telling porkies after he ran to Canal+ to mouth off about Suarez saying nigger ten times.

 

But when I read his account of what happened I literally laughed my head off, it was so obviously contrived and bullshit. A 5 year old could have come up with a more plausible version of events. Its baffling how it was ever in a million years accepted as a truthful and reliable account of things. Baffling unless you consider the whole thing was an epic stitch up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baffling unless you consider the whole thing was an epic stitch up.

 

The FA gathered the evidence, the FA charged Suarez, the FA set the commission and its boundrys, the FA had to prove Suarez guilty, the FA procecuted him using their own lawyers, the FA prepared Evra, the FA convicted Suarez, the FA doled out the punishment, the FA put together and released the written reasons.

 

I really can't think how you can consider the whole thing a stitch up :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Irish Times - Thursday, January 12, 2012

When is a remark racist? When spoken by a foreigner

The fight against racism in football has not been helped by the savaging of Suarez, Dalglish and Liverpool, writes DAVID ADAMS

‘IS CALLING someone a ‘black c***’ racist? Spoke to a black player today who said racism is words like c**n, n-word, w**, etc. Don’t know.” This crass query was posted on Twitter less than two months ago. It refers to what the England and Chelsea football captain, John Terry, has admitted calling QPR’s Anton Ferdinand during a premiership game last October.

Terry will appear in court next month, charged with a racially motivated public order offence. He insists that his remarks were taken out of context, and must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The tweeter, however, appears to suggest that Terry’s outburst might not be racist at all, regardless of context.

Worryingly, the tweet was posted by the chief sports writer of the Daily Mirror, Oliver Holt (who has authored two books on Terry, under the pen names, Ollie and Oliver Derbyshire). Strange that a journalist, of all people, is not entirely clear on what constitutes racism. Stranger still that Holt and his newspaper, along with most of the rest of the British media, have of late been adopting what they imagine to be a high-minded, zero-tolerance approach to this issue.

They have been relentless in condemning Liverpool’s Uruguayan player, Luis Suarez, after he was found guilty by the English FA of “racially abusing” the Manchester United footballer Patrice Evra, by referring to him as “negro”. Aside from the fact that Evra’s South American team mates at Manchester United also call him Negro, I would have thought this word to be far less offensive than what Terry has admitted shouting at Ferdinand.

Increasingly, the media has also been savaging Liverpool and its manager, Kenny Dalglish, for continuing to insist that Suarez is innocent. Oliver Holt went so far as to suggest in a column last Saturday that their support for Suarez makes Dalglish and Liverpool partially culpable for a racist insult directed at a young Oldham player at Anfield the previous night.

Self-evidently, Holt et al believe that Suarez and Liverpool have no right to question an FA ruling. This is another strange position for journalists to adopt. They, of all people, should realise that even a proper court can get it wrong, never mind the FA’s “kangaroo court”, as Everton manager David Moyes recently described it. The FA secures a conviction rate of 99.5 per cent, as Irish sports lawyer (and Liverpool fan) Stuart Gilhooley has pointed out.

An unnamed sports lawyer has told the BBC that the FA acts as “police, judge and jury all rolled into one”. No wonder Suarez, his club and its supporters are up in arms.

Undeterred, the British media is presenting the FA’s handling of the Suarez affair as a shining example of best practice, while doing all it can to shift attention away from the finer details and on to the broader issue of racism. This involves making pantomime villains of Suarez, Dalglish and Liverpool.

In truth, even before the case was heard, the bulk of the media had made plain its position. Suarez was never afforded the same innocent-until-proven-guilty treatment that John Terry has (rightly) enjoyed.

From the moment Evra’s complaint emerged, hardly a day passed without it being highlighted. Yet within days of John Terry being charged, sportswriters and football commentators were commending the Chelsea captain for a “courageous performance”, “despite the pressures he is playing under”.

Suarez was fined €48,500 and banned for eight games by the FA. Somewhat conveniently, Terry was reported to the police by “a member of the public” and shuffled off to a criminal court where the evidential threshold for conviction is massively higher than that of the FA, and the maximum possible penalty decidedly lower (€2,500).

I am not a disinterested observer, having supported Liverpool for more than 40 years. But then, who is? (Lord) Herman Ouseley and Piara Powar, two of the most vocal and widely quoted critics of Suarez, Dalglish and Liverpool, and strident supporters of the FA’s ruling, are both invariably described by the media only as anti-racism campaigners. That the first is also a member of the FA and on the board of the Manchester United Foundation (Evra’s club), and the second is a director of the Chelsea Foundation (Terry’s club), is never mentioned.

Why has a basic tenet of good journalistic practice, highlighting possible conflicts of interest, been dispensed with? Ultimately, the FA has scored some imaginary political point against Fifa’s Sepp Blatter; anti-racism campaigners have had their (extremely important) issue raised to stratospheric heights; and the British media has been able to flaunt its supposed anti-racist credentials. That the reputation of a “Johnny Foreigner” has been destroyed in the process, and a great football club and its manager tarnished, is unfortunate. But at least it wasn’t an England captain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem...well this was the jist anyway...

 

This is, of course, from the paper that during the same three month period bought us such enlightened front page stories as "Now Britain pays £2.5bn benefits to foreigners", "Muslims tell us how to run our schools", "Let illegal migrants roam our streets - Has Britain gone mad?" and "You couldn't make it up...British road signs in Polish. No, we're not joking"

 

 

And, lest we forget, the Labour party donating owner of the Daily Express used to publish that well known monthly tribute to both racial and sexual equality - "Asian Babes"

 

Only thought it relevant as I had just read Dennis' article and spotted tuesday's headlines ;

 

IMMIGRANTS DO TAKE BRITISH JOBS - AND WE'VE BEEN SAYING AT THE EXPRESS ALL ALONG!

 

And these patronising pontificating ill-informed lazy gobshites like Dennis expect you and me to pay them for their 'services' !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest San Don
I've downloaded the game from 3 different broadcasters, it wasn't helpful at all in deciding who said what to who in the goalmouth. This is the espn recording

 

if you put the normal h t t p : / / before this

smg.photobucket.com/albums/v732/redhussar/?action=view&current=MyMovie-7.mp4

 

you can view it, as you are admin you can review it, ensure it is what i say it is, and then post it :yes:

 

I asked the lawyer question to myself, wondering why he was so poor, the report reads as though he was weak, ill prepared, failed preparing Suarez and flimsey in his aguements. There is a simple answer to that. We do not know if he was poor, we only have the commissions words making him look poor.

 

The written reasons is the commissions reason why they have already found Suarez guilty. It is not a transcript of all what happened or what was said. Our lawyer may well have ripped Giggs and Evra apart on this very point and others, the commission doesn't have to tell anyone that, and the Club is not allowed to discuss it, so you have what looks like a unfair onesided 115 page document and I don't understand why anyone thinks/thought we were going to get a fair or balanced report.

 

Because they found him guilty they do not have to release evidence that raises doubt about their conviction or evidence showing our lawyer, Suarez or club in a good light, they have to put out heavily biased reason why he's guilty, giving away nothing that could lead to Liverpool appealing.

 

It really is a waste of time and engery saying "but its unfair" "what about Terry" "what about cultural/language diff" or anything else because this whole case is one mans word against another, one of them is a liar and Suarez was found guilty of being the liar.

 

Now he's been found guilty, the only way of clearing Suarezs name is to prove Evra is the liar and that teammates lied to support his allegation. I think this evidence proves he is a liar, and at least one of his teammates did lie for him.

 

Some very good points. As we all know (and even the fa know) the commission's findings is full of holes. You dont have to be a lawyer to see this.

 

If is clear, as you say, that the report isnt a word by word account of what went on at the hearing. This is probably what the King refers to when he says about stuff not being in the report?

 

We have been stitched up. One would like to think on another day with a different brief, we would have won but, Im not so sure. What I do know is if the commission had of had to judge on anything other than 'balance' which they then went on to say had to be supported by robust evidence but then ignored that, the case would have been thrown out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The FA gathered the evidence, the FA charged Suarez, the FA set the commission and its boundrys, the FA had to prove Suarez guilty, the FA procecuted him using their own lawyers, the FA prepared Evra, the FA convicted Suarez, the FA doled out the punishment, the FA put together and released the written reasons.

 

I really can't think how you can consider the whole thing a stitch up :whistle:

 

No. After all, as we are constantly reminded by the Press, the ruling was the conclusion of an exhaustively detailed investigation by an 'independant'

regulatory commission. One of the panel was a Q.C doncha know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×