Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

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


Neil G
 Share

Recommended Posts

Xerses, if our ultimate aim after all of this would be to simply change the rules for what happens after alledged racism incidents it'd be a bit pointless. Its unlikely to happen to us again. It may happen to someone else so us lobbying there might help them.

 

But at this point theres 2 more important issues at stake at the present moment.

 

The reputation of the club and the reputation of Luis Suarez. Maybe thats a bit selfish but thats the way I see it.

 

I agree with you.

 

I just happen to think that the moral victory of changing a process which caught us is worth doing - because it is the right thing to do. That in itself is a positive for the club.

 

As for the reputations of LFC/Luis, I think you are right, the damage should not be allowed to fester. It looks as though the Club's approach is now to keep its head down - I think we need to be slicker than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 277
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

MPs to hold inquiry into racism in sport following Luis Suárez case | Football | guardian.co.uk

 

A committee of MPs is to hold an inquiry into racism in sport following the Luis Suárez case and allegations against John Terry.

 

The culture, media and sport select committee has agreed to look into the issue, with an evidence session scheduled for 6 March, and representatives from Liverpool could be summoned.

 

The committee member Damian Collins said: "I think the events of the last two weeks have reignited concerns about racism in the game. Although this session will not necessarily be restricted to football it will be the principal area of inquiry following the Suárez case and the concerns that have arisen from that."

 

Collins said the committee had only decided on Tuesday to hold the session and the witnesses and terms of reference will be decided closer to the date of the inquiry.

 

Suárez's eight-match ban for racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra and a police charge against the England captain Terry, who denies any wrongdoing, for allegedly racially abusing Queens Park Rangers' Anton Ferdinand have thrust the issue back into the spotlight.

 

Liverpool have also apologised to Tom Adeyemi, the Oldham defender who was allegedly racially abused at Anfield on Friday night. A 20-year-old fan is on police bail.

 

The Liverpool Walton MP, Steve Rotheram, has been pushing for the committee to hold an inquiry. Rotheram said: "I continue to support the Show Racism the Red Card initiative and believe, given the nature of recent events, that it would be appropriate for this issue to be looked at by parliamentarians from all parties and from different football, sporting and non-sporting allegiances.

 

"Sport should be rightly proud that in many ways it has led the field in tackling social issues such as racism, homophobia and sectarianism and it will be interesting to see what conclusions the select committee draw from the evidence session."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. I think what FanchesterCity is saying there is reasonable and fair. Can't argue with most of it.

 

But like you say, anyone whos read that document biased or unbiased can see major holes in their logic. What makes it even more ridiculous is as the City fan says it was written to back up their judgement and you can see that clearly in the way its presented.

 

Essentially the argument seems to be from many people, "Well they were always going to do that etc..."

 

But thats just insane, utterly insane to think we should just accept a clearly biased document because they have to make it that way to suit their argument. I know its only the FA but if society in general starts to accept reasoning like that we may aswell all pack up and move to North Korea.

 

Alas, there are 101 morale codes that simply have more weight that others...

 

If you call a lad "fat git" you're ok

If you call a lad the N word it's a total morale outrage and you're your son of the devil.

If you download a few mucky pictures you're one of the lads

If you (truly) accidentally end up on an underage site, you're likely to end up getting a kicking from every pub you walk into

 

Had Suarez headbutted Evra, he'd get a 3 game ban (assuming it wasn't a mega head but), but because he used this SUPER DUPER taboo word, that's it... morale outrage.

 

Putting aside his 'intent' and the interpretation of the word etc, just THAT word alone made the whole case a nightmare. It's not treated in the same way as other crimes.

 

When you step back and REALLY think about the whole race relations issue, you have to question WHY is name calling any worse than calling a ginger manager? or giving an opponent a dangerous kick because he's United? An offence is an offence *sigh*

 

There is automatically a pressure to be 'seen' to do something in such race cases. Liverpool's counsel should have made this part of their case. An expectation from the public applying undue pressure on those making their verdict. Patrice Evra being an erudite young man shouldn't make him more credible (even if he was telling the truth).

 

There ARE a lot of issues in the document, enough to overturn it? not a chance.

 

It also has to be said, there ARE some aspects of the case which really don't help Suarez too.

 

My own view is that that there was enough reasonable probability to swing it 70/30 in Evra's favour, but was 70/30 enough? It doesn't PROVE his guilt, merely suggests it.

 

If I'm being 100% honest, 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.

 

I know that's not really what many fans want to hear, but I think it's a generally honest view of how reasonably minded neutrals saw it.

 

I DO think it's a sad state of affairs though when you can say to a player "your mother is a whore" and that's a warning if you're lucky, but if you dare mention their race, it's a 6 match ban.

 

How ironic that the pursuit of equality manifests itself in abject inequality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how i feel about this select commitee. It could be a blessing in disguise, highlighting all the issues surrounding racial incidents in the game, put the Suarez saga into context so that we're not seen as some kind of solitary offenders. Raise the small matter of the clubs done for abuse and those with cleaner sheets than others in recent years and why some offences end up at the CPS' door and others at the FA's.

 

The flip side, well if it gives an even more prominent platform for Ousely, Powar et al to call us a disgrace all over again then it'll just be a further kicking.

 

I suppose it all depends on the parameters of the inquiry, set wide enough it's good to investigate these issues rather than spouting hyperbole, but if it focusses just on high profile recent cases i.e. Suarez then it could make doubly sure this is a stink that follows us for some time yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how i feel about this select commitee. It could be a blessing in disguise' date=' highlighting all the issues surrounding racial incidents in the game, put the Suarez saga into context so that we're not seen as some kind of solitary offenders. Raise the small matter of the clubs done for abuse and those with cleaner sheets than others in recent years and why some offences end up at the CPS' door and others at the FA's.

 

The flip side, well if it gives an even more prominent platform for Ousely, Powar et al to call us a disgrace all over again then it'll just be a further kicking.

 

I suppose it all depends on the parameters of the inquiry, set wide enough it's good to investigate these issues rather than spouting hyperbole, but if it focusses just on high profile recent cases i.e. Suarez then it could make doubly sure this is a stink that follows us for some time yet.[/quote']

 

I agree that it will simply bring the Suarez case and possibly the Oldham case back into prominence, and it won't be a flattering example.

 

Whilst it might be good for the game in general, it won't be good for Liverpool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alas, there are 101 morale codes that simply have more weight that others...

 

If you call a lad "fat git" you're ok

If you call a lad the N word it's a total morale outrage and you're your son of the devil.

If you download a few mucky pictures you're one of the lads

If you (truly) accidentally end up on an underage site, you're likely to end up getting a kicking from every pub you walk into

 

Had Suarez headbutted Evra, he'd get a 3 game ban (assuming it wasn't a mega head but), but because he used this SUPER DUPER taboo word, that's it... morale outrage.

 

Putting aside his 'intent' and the interpretation of the word etc, just THAT word alone made the whole case a nightmare. It's not treated in the same way as other crimes.

 

When you step back and REALLY think about the whole race relations issue, you have to question WHY is name calling any worse than calling a ginger manager? or giving an opponent a dangerous kick because he's United? An offence is an offence *sigh*

 

There is automatically a pressure to be 'seen' to do something in such race cases. Liverpool's counsel should have made this part of their case. An expectation from the public applying undue pressure on those making their verdict. Patrice Evra being an erudite young man shouldn't make him more credible (even if he was telling the truth).

 

There ARE a lot of issues in the document, enough to overturn it? not a chance.

 

It also has to be said, there ARE some aspects of the case which really don't help Suarez too.

 

My own view is that that there was enough reasonable probability to swing it 70/30 in Evra's favour, but was 70/30 enough? It doesn't PROVE his guilt, merely suggests it.

 

If I'm being 100% honest, 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.

 

I know that's not really what many fans want to hear, but I think it's a generally honest view of how reasonably minded neutrals saw it.

 

I DO think it's a sad state of affairs though when you can say to a player "your mother is a whore" and that's a warning if you're lucky, but if you dare mention their race, it's a 6 match ban.

 

How ironic that the pursuit of equality manifests itself in abject inequality.

 

This is what I find to be ridiculous,even if the term 'nee-gro' was used I dont find that racist myself,I find it arrogant and condescending towards a black person more than racist and even if its taken in a racist context its hardly worth an 8 game ban in relation to breaking somebody's leg in a tackle and getting a 3 to 4 game ban.

 

And then finding Evra a 'reliable witness' is an absolute farce. The same Evra who falsely accused a Chelsea groundskeeper of racism only a year or two ago versus a Spanish speaking player who was the star of the Copa America only recently.

I'm pretty sure the FA shit themselves in that situation as I reckon the groundskeeper threatened them with an outside court case if found guilty.

Then this reliable witness say they were abused 'five times' and his manager 10 times,this would be enough to get a guilty criminal off a charge in a fair few cases let alone a quango led enquiry.

 

As for the enquiry into racism,I think its an excellent opportunity to air our grievances through a few well rehearsed questions and it may be screened live and unearth the evidence that wasnt released in the FA document that Dalglish said was selective and omitted vital evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I find to be ridiculous,even if the term 'nee-gro' was used I dont find that racist myself,I find it arrogant and condescending towards a black person more than racist and even if its taken in a racist context its hardly worth an 8 game ban in relation to breaking somebody's leg in a tackle and getting a 3 to 4 game ban.

 

And then finding Evra a 'reliable witness' is an absolute farce. The same Evra who falsely accused a Chelsea groundskeeper of racism only a year or two ago versus a Spanish speaking player who was the star of the Copa America only recently.

I'm pretty sure the FA shit themselves in that situation as I reckon the groundskeeper threatened them with an outside court case if found guilty.

Then this reliable witness say they were abused 'five times' and his manager 10 times,this would be enough to get a guilty criminal off a charge in a fair few cases let alone a quango led enquiry.

 

As for the enquiry into racism,I think its an excellent opportunity to air our grievances through a few well rehearsed questions and it may be screened live and unearth the evidence that wasnt released in the FA document that Dalglish said was selective and omitted vital evidence.

 

 

The dilemma you will have though is in airing your grievances, you COULD open yourself up to criminal proceedings if you make any unsubstantiated allegation, and you'll have to be certain their isn't more damning evidence on their side too.

 

You'll also face the prospect of fueling the 'whinging Liverpool' accusations. Rightly or wrongly, that WILL come. Doesn't mean you should necessarily duck out of any debate, but it will come at a price - and a price you don't yet know.

 

All I'm really trying to say is - the odds are stacked against you (in my opinion) and whilst it's to be applauded if a club stands by it's convictions, it might also be wiser to cut your loses.

 

And, if the will to convict Suarez was great enough for them make sure it happened, you can only imagine the will to make sure it stays that way. Otherwise all HELL would break lose if they were found to have... how shall we say... 'helped swing the balance against him'?

 

You're fighting a 'machine'.... are you up to it? is any single club up to it? I'm not sure. A group of clubs MIGHT manage it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dilemma you will have though is in airing your grievances, you COULD open yourself up to criminal proceedings if you make any unsubstantiated allegation, and you'll have to be certain their isn't more damning evidence on their side too.

 

You'll also face the prospect of fueling the 'whinging Liverpool' accusations. Rightly or wrongly, that WILL come. Doesn't mean you should necessarily duck out of any debate, but it will come at a price - and a price you don't yet know.

 

All I'm really trying to say is - the odds are stacked against you (in my opinion) and whilst it's to be applauded if a club stands by it's convictions, it might also be wiser to cut your loses.

 

And, if the will to convict Suarez was great enough for them make sure it happened, you can only imagine the will to make sure it stays that way. Otherwise all HELL would break lose if they were found to have... how shall we say... 'helped swing the balance against him'?

 

You're fighting a 'machine'.... are you up to it? is any single club up to it? I'm not sure. A group of clubs MIGHT manage it.

 

People keep mentioning criminal charges,particularly people outside the club but we as fans are absolutely confident there is no case to answer otherwise it would have already happened,like the Terry incident which has evidence supporting it.

The Suarez case has nothing supporting it meaning no case to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it will simply bring the Suarez case and possibly the Oldham case back into prominence, and it won't be a flattering example.

 

Whilst it might be good for the game in general, it won't be good for Liverpool.

 

Not so sure that it would be bad for Liverpool FC, as the context of racist incidents that happen across the league would be brought into focus. This would highlight that Liverpool have less incidents or are no different to any other club.

 

It would also examine at what stage should an incident in the work place be passed over to the judicial system to investigate. Thirdly what would be brought into focus, is the reason Liverpool wore the shirts, is they had no proper means of redress. This could highlight that the present procedures have no impartial forms of appeal.

 

I would assume any committee would not be interested in hearing from those such as Suarez, Evra and would be more focused at the management level at clubs and the FA and hearing from the kick it out campaigners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just lifted this from Twitter...

 

@RedLFCBlood RT FA - Report regarding Kompany Another interesting twist in this story, Kompany's ban has been upheld by the FA, a four match ban for his challenge on Saturday, and I decided to read the FA Report. It seems that 8 of the 9-man panel thought it should be overturned, but they need a unanimous decision to overturn red cards. The one man who refused to overturn the red card? You've guessed it, none other than Denis Smith.

 

The same Denis Smith who judged on the Suarez case, the same Denis Smith who is a close friend of the Ferguson family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fanchester, a quick point here.

 

If Suarez had been found guilty based on his own statement that he used the word once and it was not intended to cause offence, that is one thing. I'd have been pissed off about it, but the damage would have been minimal in terms of his reputation. You put it down to cultural differences, apologise for any unintended offence and take the ban and move on.

 

That's not what happened though. He was found guilty of racially abusing Evra on seven occasions. This despite none of the video evidence backing it up (if anything it supported Suarez's version, despite how the FA tried to spin it in their report) and none of the players on the field having heard any of it.

 

Also, Evra initially claimed he was called 'n***er' and only changed his testimony way after the event. His explanation for that was he thought that's what 'negro' meant in Spanish. This despite him claiming to have understood everything else that Suarez said in Spanish. He also told the referee that Suarez called him 'black'. He never used the 'N' word at all until after the game when he was bitching to his team-mates and Ferguson.

 

When asked why he didn't tell the referee the word he claims was used, he said he isn't comfortable using that word. He was fine using it to Ferguson and his team-mates after the game. And he was fine using it on that youtube video too.

 

Not only that, but the words he claimed Suarez used in conversation were words that language experts have explained he would never use, as the version of Spanish Suarez uses is completely different to the one Evra claims he used.

 

There's nothing solid to back up Evra's version of events, there are holes in it all over the place. He says he didn't know what 'negro' meant, yet one of his team-mates apparently told an LFC player that their South American players regularly refer to him as 'negro'.

 

This is why LFC are standing by him and why they refuse to accept the verdict. If the FA had dismissed Evra's claims and found Suarez guilty based on what he actually admitted to himself, we wouldn't be in the middle of this shitstorm.

 

People seem to think LFC should just ignore what Suarez told them and also all the evidence that backs up his version of events, and hang him out to dry just because Patrice fucking Evra and the FA say so.

 

Well fuck that, we stand by our player and every other club would be doing likewise in the same circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People keep mentioning criminal charges,particularly people outside the club but we as fans are absolutely confident there is no case to answer otherwise it would have already happened,like the Terry incident which has evidence supporting it.

The Suarez case has nothing supporting it meaning no case to answer.

 

No!, the legal repercussions would be nothing to do with the Suarez 'incident' they would be to do with the allegations Liverpool (potentially) make thereafter regarding the conduct of the panel and the associated evidence.

 

When Liverpool 'suggest' issues... they tread a pretty fine line and have to be seriously careful with the words they use. IF they actually came out and said something concrete, then there's no turning back. They have to be sure of two things...

 

1) That the claims THEY make can be substantiated irrefutably and

2) That the other side doesn't have anything up their sleeves with which to counter you.

 

and of course IF you think the panel was 'dodgy' in the first place, why would you seek recourse through the same channels? You'd have to take it to a higher authority.

 

Messy, messy, messy and one hell of a gamble.

 

That's where it would turn legally nasty - not cos of Suarez, but the allegations being made against the FA and independent panel (already it's LFC vs TWO other bodies)....

 

You can't win this batter IMO, as justified as it may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just lifted this from Twitter...

 

@RedLFCBlood RT FA - Report regarding Kompany Another interesting twist in this story, Kompany's ban has been upheld by the FA, a four match ban for his challenge on Saturday, and I decided to read the FA Report. It seems that 8 of the 9-man panel thought it should be overturned, but they need a unanimous decision to overturn red cards. The one man who refused to overturn the red card? You've guessed it, none other than Denis Smith.

 

The same Denis Smith who judged on the Suarez case, the same Denis Smith who is a close friend of the Ferguson family.

 

I don't believe that, and if its true then Smith is the only one with any clue as there's no way they could overturn that. By the letter of the law it was a red (even though it seems harsh) and given the appeals that were thrown out recently (The Wolves lad and Barton) there's no way they could overturn that without causing murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No!, the legal repercussions would be nothing to do with the Suarez 'incident' they would be to do with the allegations Liverpool (potentially) make thereafter regarding the conduct of the panel and the associated evidence.

 

When Liverpool 'suggest' issues... they tread a pretty fine line and have to be seriously careful with the words they use. IF they actually came out and said something concrete, then there's no turning back. They have to be sure of two things...

 

1) That the claims THEY make can be substantiated irrefutably and

2) That the other side doesn't have anything up their sleeves with which to counter you.

 

and of course IF you think the panel was 'dodgy' in the first place, why would you seek recourse through the same channels? You'd have to take it to a higher authority.

 

Messy, messy, messy and one hell of a gamble.

 

That's where it would turn legally nasty - not cos of Suarez, but the allegations being made against the FA and independent panel (already it's LFC vs TWO other bodies)....

 

You can't win this batter IMO, as justified as it may be.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Because you can't just go around saying stuff unless you can prove it.

I'm not saying they can or can't, but the moment you start hinting at thing it's dangerous, but if LFC actually came out and said "evidence was deliberately withheld" there would be no going back.

 

The clear implication would be that some form of corruption existed.

 

That's why all the radio stations and Mr Dalglish himself is mindful of just how much he can say.

It's not a dig as LFC, but they have to put up or shut up ultimately. If they have additional evidence, reveal it. If they can prove some evidence was ignored, with the purpose of making matters worse for Suarez, they have to substantiate it.

 

If they genuinely DO have it, I hope they go all the way with it. I genuinely do.

I suspect they won't. Because it's not quite as concrete as they think, and their counsel will have advised not to pursuit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you can't just go around saying stuff unless you can prove it.

I'm not saying they can or can't, but the moment you start hinting at thing it's dangerous, but if LFC actually came out and said "evidence was deliberately withheld" there would be no going back.

 

The clear implication would be that some form of corruption existed.

 

That's why all the radio stations and Mr Dalglish himself is mindful of just how much he can say.

It's not a dig as LFC, but they have to put up or shut up ultimately. If they have additional evidence, reveal it. If they can prove some evidence was ignored, with the purpose of making matters worse for Suarez, they have to substantiate it.

 

If they genuinely DO have it, I hope they go all the way with it. I genuinely do.

I suspect they won't. Because it's not quite as concrete as they think, and their counsel will have advised not to pursuit it.

 

Can you see the irony of your first line?

 

Liverpool would not challenge the Luis Suarez decision IMO, but the actual way the panel is set up and reaches their decision, they have hinted at this without talking about Suarez particularly.

 

Its quite a breath of fresh air in the way the Adeyemi incident is being handled by the Merseyside Police in comparison to the FA commision.

There seems to be a strong element of innocent until proven guilty and its showing the idiots at the FA how an investigation should be conducted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No criminal charges for Mr Ferguson when he was aggrieved with the decision back in 07.

 

"Can you believe we are still waiting for the official confirmation of it? They have been doing that report to make sure it is 100% watertight," said Ferguson. "We have asked for the transcript. That is important because we are not happy."

Evra has plenty of support too, judging by the telephone calls Ferguson has received this week expressing amazement at the verdict into a clash between the full-back and Chelsea groundsman Sam Bethell immediately after the controversial Premier League game at Stamford Bridge last April.

 

United will only be in a position to decide their next course of action once they hear from the FA. But Ferguson, and his club, are distinctly unimpressed.

"What can anyone say? It is a terrible black mark against the FA," Ferguson told MUTV.

"A lot of people have been ringing about it because it is the most incredible decision in my time at this club.

 

"The FA have done many things but this is absolutely beyond me."

Read more: Stunned United demand Evra transcript | Metro.co.uk

 

 

You could never tell what these people are doing. Even if I was sitting having breakfast with them I would not know what they were thinking.

 

Read more: Ferguson 'stunned' by Evra ban | Metro.co.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Vlad, I am as unhappy as anyone about this - but the above does not stack.

 

Most MP's are not interested in football.LFC can change the sytem, MP's cannot.

 

The FA has elected officers and rules which are approved by the membership.

 

The criminal dimension to us particpating (very unwisely) in such an irrelevant circus would be if further information came to light which might result in a criminal prosecution for Suarez (not the Club).

 

Full swerve required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...