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

[FanchesterCity]

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

 

What you can say:

"how the FA make such ludicrous decisions is beyond me"

 

What is dodgy ground:

"you do wonder sometimes if the FA are entirely impartial"

or

"You have to question some of the evidence that was presented"

 

What is heading for court:

"The FA withheld evidence to ensure Suarez was found guilty"

 

 

In some cases, you can find yourself in court with just the 'dodgy' comments since there's an implication there, and if you repeatedly keep using such phrases, you're pushing your luck.

 

If LFC actually go so far as to make a definitive accusation (they won't), that's when they'd end up in court.

They've hovered around the 'dodgy ground' which is why Dalglish will have been told to be VERY careful. They'll get away with a little 'suggestion'... that leave most of the inference to your imagination. They'll leave it at that now (wisely).

[Byrnie]

A four match ban is pretty fucking harsh.

 

It's his 2nd red of the season, that's why he gets 4 matches.

[TheHitman]

What you can say:

"how the FA make such ludicrous decisions is beyond me"

 

What is dodgy ground:

"you do wonder sometimes if the FA are entirely impartial"

or

"You have to question some of the evidence that was presented"

 

What is heading for court:

"The FA withheld evidence to ensure Suarez was found guilty"

 

 

In some cases, you can find yourself in court with just the 'dodgy' comments since there's an implication there, and if you repeatedly keep using such phrases, you're pushing your luck.

 

If LFC actually go so far as to make a definitive accusation (they won't), that's when they'd end up in court.

They've hovered around the 'dodgy ground' which is why Dalglish will have been told to be VERY careful. They'll get away with a little 'suggestion'... that leave most of the inference to your imagination. They'll leave it at that now (wisely).

 

The FA bringing litigation against Liverpool seems extremely far fetched. The reason being football associations and Uefa have their own rules which they have in place to avoid litigation, in fact they deplore the use of the judicial system to remedy issues which they feel they have suitable legislation in place for.

 

If you said that we were worried about being charged for bringing the game into disrepute then maybe. Although I would say the main reason we have not pursued it further, is the club are worried about the adverse publicity that has been generated and how it impacts on the "brand".

 

See this for where the clubs priorities lie....

 

Liverpool backed by Standard Chartered despite Luis Suárez row - Telegraph

Edited January 11, 2012 by TheHitman

[Neil G]

You put your case as well as ever , Neil, but i disagree on a few fundamental points.

 

Firstly, i don't think the club is in a position to do as you suggest without damaging itself further . We've made a pretty definitive statement saying we won't take this further. To reverse our position again will make us look foolish, and all the headlines will fire up again. All this against the backdrop of the adeyemi case and two games against the mancs. nightmare. we simply can't inflame this anymore and then claim to be acting responsibly.

 

Secondly people just don't want to know. Suarez is guilty - that's it. Without a legal challenge to prove our case it's just posturing. I think you overplay the public thirst for natural justice. outside Liverpool nobody cares now. justice has been done and without an appeal that won't change, certainly not with a lawyer at a press conference with all due respect.

 

Third point is that i think it would be unwise to go over fsg's head on this. i think we must defer to them. with hicks and gillett it was entirely justified but not so here. we can't all take to the keyboards everytime they do something we don't like.

 

 

I know the statement seemed definitive, but I don't think the club's position is irreversible. The Adeyemi incident has given them scope to revisit it and go back onto the offensive. They can perfectly legitimately say that they wanted to move on from the Suarez affair, but since the club and the manager are now being blamed by certain sections of the media for encouraging racism with their defence of Suarez, the club has no option but to reopen the debate. As for inflaming the situation ahead of the Manc games, I've already said to Xerxes that the inevitable booing of Evra will inflame it anyway. So if we put our point across about why we're so angry, we might stand a chance of proving that the booing isn’t a case of us attacking someone who legitimately complained of being racially abused, or worse us being outright racist, but rather us voicing our anger at a player we believe has been dishonest and deceitful. If we allow the press to have complete control of the agenda over how the booing is portrayed after the match, our reputation will suffer further, and that's before Luis even comes back.

 

Criticising the FA's verdict without going through any formal channels isn't posturing at all. It's us recognising that the system is stacked against us but still making our voice heard – the media aren't going to refrain from printing our words just because they're spoken in a press conference rather than a tribunal. And it's not about a public thirst for natural justice, it's about a public thirst for stories that make interesting reading, and our challenge to the FA would provide one. Re the press conference, I specifically stated in my first post that either Henry or Werner plus Kenny should speak at it to gain maximum coverage, with a lawyer present only to address points of finer legal detail if necessary.

 

As for deferring to FSG – no chance, not for me. If they want my trust they can't just take it for granted because they've done a good job overall so far. They have to earn it by clearly demonstrating they know what they're doing on this, and so far they haven't got close.

[Neil G]

The first thing that needs to happen is for the powderkeg of the Cup game to be successfully navigated.That will mean the players understanding that the result on the pitch is secondary to the impression they create.It will mean a joint statement by both clubs that racist and abusive language will not be tolerated from the crowd with a police, steward and camera presence that has never been witnessed at Anfield before, with all non club crest only banners banned.Draconian? Yes. But likely to be effective.With round 2 in the league to follow there is no room for error with the management of this game.

 

On the PR side we could do worse than to send a camera crew out to SA to show Luis following up the SA Childrens Football project he supported BEFORE this incident. Finding out how the money that was raised BEFORE has been spent would be useful, showing him coaching the kids during his enforced lay off (in the sun!) even better. A smiling young footballer, coaching kids with blue skies in the background and body copy which says: "I havent a racist bone in my body, I regret the misunderstanding, I am grateful to those who have supported me, I accept the big picture, and it is a pleasure to be giving something back- as i have always done" is a no-brainer.Rehabilitaion assured.

 

 

I've no problem whatsoever with a statement ahead of the Cup game (from us at least if the Mancs won't go in for a joint one) and heavy security and monitoring, that should be a given. But banning Suarez banners? You want the club to prevent the Kop from displaying its support for a player they love and who they believe has been grievously wronged, while the man who wronged him runs around in front of them for 90 minutes in the most charged fixture in English football? Really? If FSG want to alienate the hardcore matchday support and set off a fan backlash over their handling of this affair, I can't think of many more effective ways for them to do it.

 

Emphasising Suarez's work in South Africa is a good move in principle, but it's not going to have anywhere near the same media impact as a press conference to clear his name. Without that kind of statement to change the way the debate is framed, it would be viewed as a cheap PR stunt. I can already visualise the Father Ted pastiche "Luis Suarez: Not a Racist" on Youtube. Rehabilitation wouldn't be assured at all. However if we lay the groundwork for such a step from Luis by telling the world in full why we've stood by him, the media would be far more receptive and favourable towards covering his work in SA.

[Neil G]

I think a crucial mistake that's being made in this consideration of our responses is the idea that people are actually interested in the truth.

 

This smear campaign has never been about whether or not Suarez was guilty, or whether or not the club was right to support him, or even what the club's intentions were in doing so. It is simply about the club vs. the press; the club vs. the FA.

 

The press are not a body desperate for the truth. They print their stories and, if anybody fights against the image they put forward, they will attempt to crush them. They operate like a cartel. Suarez being found guilty was always what they would have wanted, because it is more scandalous, it sells more papers, and Suarez was already public enemy number one. The reason we're facing such an almighty shit-storm over it is because we refused to accept Luis' guilt, and we refused to offer the contrition that this kind of case (read: taboo) demands. In doing so, we essentially went to war with the tabloid press and we are, right now, in the midst of that war.

 

The idea that we can get the right statements or the right coverage out there misses the basic point that the people who we want to help us are the people we are at war with. They've already picked their sides in this battle. The theory of offering something that is 'good copy' exists, but my question would be: who is the market audience? Our club is despised all over the country and schadenfreude is the new opiate of the masses -- who is there out there who actually wants to believe there is any good in us?

 

Our best bet would be to take the FA to task over their disciplinary procedure and win. There is a scandal there. It is totally corrupt that the panel had Denis Smith, a close personal friend of Ferguson on it, and that they accepted all of Evra's inconsistencies unflinchingly whilst taking Suarez to task on his. That is the only way for us to fight our way out of it: offering a bigger sacrifice. Otherwise, it's just a case of taking it on the chin.

 

The idea, however, of just sitting back, putting out a few platitudes and letting it blow over is quite sickening to me. As I said, this is not about fighting for the truth, it is about standing up for ourselves against an organisation that is determined to crush us simply for not meekly bowing down and accepting their judgement. That this organisation is supposedly charged with keeping the people informed of the truths in our society makes it, in my opinion, the worst kind of tyrant, and the last sort we ought to show contrition to. On a matter of principle, I would rather we told them all to go fuck themselves. Let them smear us and denigrate us as much as they want, damn a coward's logic, and we can hold our heads up whatever the outcome. Any concessions we make are not to the sensitivity of the subject matter or the parties who are wronged, they are being made to the media who are armed to the teeth with the greatest sort of hypocrisy. We shouldn't let them extort tribute from us.

 

The problem with this fight is that we can't win it. We can surrender or we can fight and take the damage, which will be considerable. The side you take depends on your mentality; but it's not a fight of virtue that is being waged through the press. It is a fight with the press, and a fight against everybody who wants their sacrificial scapegoat, who are people like Piara Powar, Oliver Holt, the FA, Ferguson, and of course the great British public. There is not a man within that crowd for whom I hold respect and I would rather we damn them all and say our piece. Those who decide to listen will do so and those who ignore us should be pitied for their smallness. We are a proud club and we should not have to abdicate our spirit for the sake of pragmatism.

 

 

People are not necessarily interested in the truth per se. But they are interested in news stories that get their attention, and if said stories happen to be the truth, then the people reading them will take the truth on board. The truth is on our side, so we just need to turn it into a good story, and there's a good story there to be told if we do it properly.

 

If we have a press conference where we set out once and for all, in a clear and convincing fashion, why we dispute the FA's verdict and why we stand by Luis, we then have a PR weapon that we can deploy again and again as and when necessary. Whenever someone accuses us of disrespecting the FA or condoning racism, we refer them back to the conference and repeat a few of the key points. Keep doing this every time and the narrative will start to change.

 

We need to enlist the likes of John Barnes as de facto club spokesmen. I'd love to see Piara Power go toe-to-toe with Barnes on this. He's getting a free ride at the moment and his quotes are being used as headlines, but let's see if he has the balls to accuse Digger of condoning racism when he backs Liverpool FC and questions the FA verdict. If Powar was put straight by a household name who understands like few others what it's like to be on the receiving end of racism in football, he'd be completely shown up as the sly agenda-driven prick he is and lower his profile sharpish.

 

Once people without a direct connection to LFC see that we're on the offensive they'll have more confidence in siding with us and will start to speak up in support of us. It's completely understandable that they're not doing so at the moment - why should they stick their necks out to defend us when we can't even be bothered to defend ourselves properly?

 

You may be right that the whole of the press are ranged against us with the exception of a few sympathetic journalists, but remember the press doesn't constitute the whole of the media and isn't the only driving force behind the media agenda. We have a lot more leverage with TV and radio than with the press, as we're one of the biggest guarantors of their viewing and listening figures and we also have a number of high-profile ex-players working in both. We should use it. Do the press conference, make it memorable and convincing, and have Kenny and another big-hitter deliver it, and the likes of Sky and Talksport will be all over it as it'll be perfect for their medium. Then once the papers see that the audio-visual media are broadcasting our message in a way that will resonate with fans (ours and rivals) far more than the club's statements have, they’ll see a different angle for selling papers and generating web hits.

 

The press's stance won't change overnight, and in some cases it won’t change at all, but if we keep the momentum up by responding to each criticism with a reference to what we've said in the press conference, some of the "swing vote" papers will start to give us more favourable coverage. The Mirror in particular, despite its ongoing hatchet job, has thrown a few bones into its coverage which suggest that it might be worried about a backlash from Reds fans if it goes too far. I imagine there have been some pretty intense discussions in their editorial meetings, with tension between going to town on us and avoiding burning their bridges completely.

 

It'll be a tough job to turn this around in the media, no doubt about it, but it's not as futile an effort as you seem to think.

[Neil G]

Such an ignorant post.

 

Neil, it was an excellent post, and hopefully you are back for good.

 

I would agree with most of it, but would strongly disagree about one thing. I know you are clearly stating that this is nowhere near as bad as Hillsborough but that you can see some similar traits in the way both incidents have been handled.

 

I personally think that Hillsborough shouldn't even be mentioned in this whole discussion. It just doesn't fit right with me.

 

 

Cheers Cain.

 

I appreciate some people will be uncomfortable with Hillsborough parallels, which was why I made it clear that I don't see the two things as being on a par. However I think it would be a mistake not to make the connection where appropriate.

 

I'm not suggesting it be done in public, but behind the scenes I think it's legitimate. Many people in positions of influence have a clearer picture, thanks to what McKenzie did, of how these shitbags in the press think and work and how their smear campaigns can hinder the fight for justice. If it's necessary to draw parallels between this and Hillsborough in order to enlist their support, I don't think we should shy away from doing it.

 

I don't want this to get sidetracked into a debate on Hillsborough, but I think we need to keep in mind that with the club's reputation at stake over the race issue, there could potentially be implications for the campaign for justice over Hillsborough. If it hits an obstacle, for example if the government tries to weasel out of releasing all the papers, it will be much harder to gain public support for the campaign if Liverpool FC is seen as an unapologetic racist club. So we need to fight to clear Luis's and the club's name by any means necessary.

[Neil G]

See this is the crux of the issue for me. Given all we know now, I think it's clear to see that the report should have been 2 pages long and said. All hearsay except an admittance of using negro. Therefore he's guilty. x game ban. If that had happened there would be I think a grudging acceptance. Our game vs. Manure would not be a powder-keg, we would not be sporting quite so large a chip.

 

But no, the FA in it's infinite incompetence, had to be so daft as to stack the deck so heavily in it's own favour that it's completely obvious and contributed to making a mountain out of this molehill as much as if not more than the guys who embellished the accusation, or the incompetents we employed to defend them.

 

 

Spot on, and it ties in with what I posted earlier about the two different levels of "guilty". In the court of public opinion Luis has been found guilty of a far more serious offence than the one the Commission found him guilty of, and that's entirely down to the Commission's irrelevant, inconclusive and completely unnecessary inclusion of the uncorroborated claims ("7 times" / "kicked you because you're black" / "I don't talk to blacks") in its report.

[Neil G]

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."

 

 

Right – this is our chance. Not on its own, as it won't command as much media attention as a press conference. But if we hold a press conference and set out our case and our grievances, this inquiry can be the second part of a double whammy for us. If the media is abuzz with the story that we're fucked off with the FA for the hearing and the verdict, then it becomes a matter of public interest and will move onto the Select Committee's agenda. If the reasons for our stance aren't clear and getting exposure after the press conference, they will be once the Select Committee examines them properly.

 

Our case is full of red meat that the MPs can get their teeth into. An unfair and ineffective quasi-judicial process led by an unaccountable national organisation, an ill-informed and vindictive media campaign that has tarnished one of the nation's most famous sporting institutions… they'll have a field day. If we can prime them by making our case a topic for discussion, which it certainly deserves to be, then they can really help our cause.

 

Clearing our name shouldn't be the aim of this inquiry, of course – it should be to examine how we can stamp out racism in sport in this country. But we're talking here about the mechanisms that the governing body of our national game uses to tackle racism, and they're patently unfit for purpose. Therefore highlighting our case is in the national interest as well as in ours. The fight against racism isn't helped one bit by a system that can find a person guilty and have them condemned by the whole country purely on someone else's say-so.

[Neil G]

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.

 

 

That right there is the basis for a statement in a press conference.

 

Loads of people have admitted defeat and said that everyone else has made their mind up and nothing can change it, but the FA's case is so laughably weak and biased that if you line up the objections and deliver them in a punchy way, there is no way that any halfway intelligent and open-minded person can fail to reexamine it. And contrary to the pessimists' view, there are a lot of people in the media and amongst their various audiences who can be swayed by the truth even after they've been willfully ignorant. We have a really, really strong factual and moral case here, and we should push it as hard as we can.

 

Superb post Dave.

[Neil G]

Right folks, that's more than enough from me for now – I'm taking a break from posting for a few days as I need to spend some time organising with this. I'll respond to any further replies I get as soon as I have time, but it might not be until next week.

 

I'm going to try and contact Henry and Werner with my thoughts and try to get some kind of response from them. At the end of the day it's obviously their call what they do, but I want to let them know how I feel and I'm confident that a lot of our fanbase shares my concerns about their silence over this.

 

Thanks very much to everyone who's supported my ideas on this thread and via rep and PM. If anyone wants to join me in lobbying FSG please PM me if you haven't already done so. Cheers.

[Guest TK-421]

I think it will come across as arrogant ( not that there will be a conference). To claim that our side of the story represents the "truth " smacks of arrogance and a lack of understanding on our part. We would be subject to all the same accusations of lack of impartiality as the fa .

[ngogswilly]

That right there is the basis for a statement in a press conference.

 

Loads of people have admitted defeat and said that everyone else has made their mind up and nothing can change it, but the FA's case is so laughably weak and biased that if you line up the objections and deliver them in a punchy way, there is no way that any halfway intelligent and open-minded person can fail to reexamine it. And contrary to the pessimists' view, there are a lot of people in the media and amongst their various audiences who can be swayed by the truth even after they've been willfully ignorant. We have a really, really strong factual and moral case here, and we should push it as hard as we can.

 

Superb post Dave.

 

Thats my line of thinking.

 

Unfortunately the majority of the public need things fed to them in nice, clear concise bullet point format so they don't have to think too hard about what you're telling them.

Its basically how the rags work, quick to the point stories.

 

Thats basically what hasn't happened. We haven't fed them the evidence of the bias, incosistency and contradictory nature of the report in a nice easy to digest format.

 

I mean fuck me, it hasn't even been made clear by barely anyone about the gross incosistencies in Evra's own evidence.

[Major Tom]

I mean fuck me, it hasn't even been made clear by barely anyone about the gross incosistencies in Evra's own evidence.

 

The inconsistencies don't matter to the press or public. All they see is Suarez admitting to have made reference to Evra's colour. Whether it's one time, nine times or ninety times, it doesn't matter, it will be seen as racist abuse.

 

But just what do you want the public to know anyway? Simply that Evra's testimony had inconsistencies? Sure, let them know, but you'll be busting your balls to change their view when Suarez has admitted to using the word 'negro'. You are better off taking the 'cultural nuances' line.

[xerxes]

A good sequence of posts there Neil which acknowledge the complexity of this situation. Drawing them all together, I offer these comments, working backwards on your recent posts.

 

I think that you are right to try to get a response from FSG. Are they out of touch? Have they misread this? Have they trusted the wrong people to deal with this on their behalf? Have they had a strategy which has failed? Why has Werner’s experience in the media/pr field been so apparently missing? Is their silence distancing itself from “damaged goods”? is it now a matter of hunkering down until the storm passes? Is a fight-back planned?

 

The linguistic ambiguity defence is a blind alley. What Luis and Comolli admitted to was enough. By pursuing this we are, in the public’s mind, just trying to argue the degree of racist invective. Whether it was once, seven or ten times, in the public perception is not a big deal. The fundamental problem was that our own defence (he was being affectionate) was ill-judged.

 

I wholly agree with you that a PR campaign, including a press conference, sensitively making our case about processes, not about racism, is called for. I think that you totally misread the Select Committee situation. When you say, ” Our case is full of red meat that the MPs can get their teeth into,” you miss the irony. It’s us for dinner.

 

I agree that a report which explicitly does not label Luis as racist, nor does his accuser, has bizarrely found itself the basis for smearing him as just that. However the responsibility for that is largely down to our abject failure to strongly, and clearly make our points – Cotton/Ayre/Werner are in the frame. The Mirror headline should have been vigorously and publicly contested- the Club did nothing.

 

I think that you are right to say that the adverse publicity associated with this case taints the good name that the Hillsborough Campaign has worked decades to build up. I think that you are wrong to try to draw any further linkage or mileage out of it. It can only damage us.

 

“People are not necessarily interested in the truth per se. But they are interested in news stories that get their attention, and if said stories happen to be the truth, then the people reading them will take the truth on board. The truth is on our side, so we just need to turn it into a good story, and there's a good story there to be told if we do it properly.”

 

The detail of this story has failed to do LFC or Suarez justice. We have made two key mistakes. The first was in failing to present our case well to either the FA, or the press. The second was to fail to realise that the story had become the story, and respond accordingly.

 

Be very wary about invoking “the truth”. Evra might have been telling the truth. Luis might have meant what he said. Proving that Luis was telling the truth is as difficult as proving that Evra didn’t. Your objective makes our original points of ambiguity and lack of proof, which we failed in, look simple.

 

As the above demonstrates, this affair is neither simple, nor comfortable, it is also constantly on the move. Eliciting some clear response from FSG is a good aim. Good luck.

[ngogswilly]

The inconsistencies don't matter to the press or public. All they see is Suarez admitting to have made reference to Evra's colour. Whether it's one time, nine times or ninety times, it doesn't matter, it will be seen as racist abuse.

 

But just what do you want the public to know anyway? Simply that Evra's testimony had inconsistencies? Sure, let them know, but you'll be busting your balls to change their view when Suarez has admitted to using the word 'negro'. You are better off taking the 'cultural nuances' line.

 

Yeah Suarez admitted saying "Negro" once, but 3/4s of the country reckons he said much worse many more times.

 

Thats the point of pointing out the blatant problems in Evra's testimony.

 

We can't go down the cultural nuances line without establishing that it only happened once and the word used was "Negro". We can't claim cultural misunderstanding if everyone thinks he screamed "Ni**er" ten times.

[ngogswilly]

Xerses you say

 

Whether it was once, seven or ten times, in the public perception is not a big deal.

 

But nobody can know that unless we try and get the information out there. Right now. Thats the whole point. People don't care because they don't have a clue about the problems with Evra's account of things and the problems with the report.

 

And yes the public see our staunch defence of Suarez as a big problem, but again they don't have a fucking clue why we've been so staunch.

 

They would know though if we call a press conference, print up a nice 2/3 page bullet point list of the problems with the report and Evra's testimony, and tell the world.

 

In fairness you're right, they probably won't care. But we can't know that unless we try and educate them.

[Major Tom]

Yeah Suarez admitted saying "Negro" once, but 3/4s of the country reckons he said much worse many more times.

 

Thats the point of pointing out the blatant problems in Evra's testimony.

 

We can't go down the cultural nuances line without establishing that it only happened once and the word used was "Negro". We can't claim cultural misunderstanding if everyone thinks he screamed "Ni**er" ten times.

 

How many times did Suarez actually actually make reference to Evra's colour? He says once and does Evra say something contrary to that? If so, it's one man's word against the other and who's to say the public will side with Suarez?

 

I'll say it again, this issue is best left to fade out. I really don't see any advantage in us dragging it on.

[dave u]

The video evidence supports Suarez's story though.

 

The FA Report: "We examined closely the video footage of this moment which took place in the 64th minute. When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez were standing close to each other, having just run and challenged for the corner. The referee called them over to him. Mr Suarez said something to Mr Evra, then started to walk away. There is a clear reaction by Mr Evra to Mr Suarez's comment. This is apparent in two ways. First, there is a facial reaction by Mr Evra, akin to a look of surprise. Secondly, whilst looking at the referee, Mr Evra points to Mr Suarez, first with his forefinger then with his thumb. Mr Evra walks towards the referee and says something while pointing back at Mr Suarez."

 

This was the one occasion when Suarez admits he called Evra "negro". According to Evra, at this point Suarez had already called him "negro" five times. If that were true, why the shocked reaction now? Strange, unless Suarez said something even more shocking than 'negro' of course, but then Evra doesn't even mention in his testimony what Suarez said at this point. I wonder why?

 

This is the one and only time the FA refer to Evra as looking shocked at any point. We are expected to believe that he remembers everything that took place previously but can't remember what was said on the one occasion when he looked visibly shocked? Given that he has not made reference to any other racial insult, it's fair to assume that he was reacting to Suarez saying 'negro'. So, he took it all in his stride on the other five occasions then suddenly reacted on the 6th? Yeah, coz that makes more sense then Suarez's version doesn't it?

 

There are numerous other parts of the video that contradict Evra but back up Suarez, yet the FA spun it the other way. The pinch being another example. Who pinches somebody to say 'look your skin is black'. Fuck off with that shit, it's ridiculous.

[ngogswilly]

How many times did Suarez actually actually make reference to Evra's colour? He says once and does Evra say something contrary to that? If so, it's one man's word against the other and who's to say the public will side with Suarez?

 

Its one mans word against another, but again the report is full of inconsistencies as is Evra's ever changing story...and how come he got to give us testimony with the aid of video evidence in front of the committee and Suarez didn't etc... etc... the list goes on and on. Point being even if its one mans word against another, the public has been led to believe one mans word is gospel because they don't know any better nor do they know about bias being shown in Evra's favour e.g. the Video Evidence walkthrough.

 

I'll say it again, this issue is best left to fade out. I really don't see any advantage in us dragging it on.

 

I don't disagree with you there Tom.

[ngogswilly]

The video evidence supports Suarez's story though.

 

The FA Report: "We examined closely the video footage of this moment which took place in the 64th minute. When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez were standing close to each other, having just run and challenged for the corner. The referee called them over to him. Mr Suarez said something to Mr Evra, then started to walk away. There is a clear reaction by Mr Evra to Mr Suarez's comment. This is apparent in two ways. First, there is a facial reaction by Mr Evra, akin to a look of surprise. Secondly, whilst looking at the referee, Mr Evra points to Mr Suarez, first with his forefinger then with his thumb. Mr Evra walks towards the referee and says something while pointing back at Mr Suarez."

 

This was the one occasion when Suarez admits he called Evra "negro". According to Evra, at this point Suarez had already called him "negro" five times. If that were true, why the shocked reaction now? Strange, unless Suarez said something even more shocking than 'negro' of course, but then Evra doesn't even mention in his testimony what Suarez said at this point. I wonder why?

 

This is the one and only time the FA refer to Evra as looking shocked at any point. We are expected to believe that he remembers everything that took place previously but can't remember what was said on the one occasion when he looked visibly shocked? Given that he has not made reference to any other racial insult, it's fair to assume that he was reacting to Suarez saying 'negro'. So, he took it all in his stride on the other five occasions then suddenly reacted on the 6th? Yeah, coz that makes more sense then Suarez's version doesn't it?

 

There are numerous other parts of the video that contradict Evra but back up Suarez, yet the FA spun it the other way. The pinch being another example. Who pinches somebody to say 'look your skin is black'. Fuck off with that shit, it's ridiculous.

 

Yeah I mean thats another huge problem right there.

 

The FAs description of the Video Evidence clearly does not stack up with what happened.

 

Another example is they accuse Suarez of kicking Evra and you can clearly see in the Video he does not kick him. The FA's account of the Video is quite clearly bollox and it forms a huge part in the overall decision they made. But again the public don't know this.

[xerxes]

Xerses you say

 

Whether it was once, seven or ten times, in the public perception is not a big deal.

 

But nobody can know that unless we try and get the information out there. Right now. Thats the whole point. People don't care because they don't have a clue about the problems with Evra's account of things and the problems with the report.

 

And yes the public see our staunch defence of Suarez as a big problem, but again they don't have a fucking clue why we've been so staunch.

 

They would know though if we call a press conference, print up a nice 2/3 page bullet point list of the problems with the report and Evra's testimony, and tell the world.

 

In fairness you're right, they probably won't care. But we can't know that unless we try and educate them.

 

Ngogswilly, I agree 100% with your sentiment, I just disagree slightly on tactics.

 

The report does lay out the pros and cons and inconsistencies and doubts. The problem with labouring the points in our favour is that there was also testimony to the contrary, and we lost, that train has left the station.

 

I totally agree that the fact that both the report, and Evra, explicitly cleared Luis of being a racist was lost, needs emphasising, and the Mirror chased for a retraction ( although the damage has been done).

 

I also agree that “giving up” on this should not be an option, even if our tactics and objectives need to be reviewed now that the story has moved on.

[xerxes]

The video evidence supports Suarez's story though.

 

The FA Report: "We examined closely the video footage of this moment which took place in the 64th minute. When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez were standing close to each other, having just run and challenged for the corner. The referee called them over to him. Mr Suarez said something to Mr Evra, then started to walk away. There is a clear reaction by Mr Evra to Mr Suarez's comment. This is apparent in two ways. First, there is a facial reaction by Mr Evra, akin to a look of surprise. Secondly, whilst looking at the referee, Mr Evra points to Mr Suarez, first with his forefinger then with his thumb. Mr Evra walks towards the referee and says something while pointing back at Mr Suarez."

 

This was the one occasion when Suarez admits he called Evra "negro". According to Evra, at this point Suarez had already called him "negro" five times. If that were true, why the shocked reaction now? Strange, unless Suarez said something even more shocking than 'negro' of course, but then Evra doesn't even mention in his testimony what Suarez said at this point. I wonder why?

 

This is the one and only time the FA refer to Evra as looking shocked at any point. We are expected to believe that he remembers everything that took place previously but can't remember what was said on the one occasion when he looked visibly shocked? Given that he has not made reference to any other racial insult, it's fair to assume that he was reacting to Suarez saying 'negro'. So, he took it all in his stride on the other five occasions then suddenly reacted on the 6th? Yeah, coz that makes more sense then Suarez's version doesn't it?

 

There are numerous other parts of the video that contradict Evra but back up Suarez, yet the FA spun it the other way. The pinch being another example. Who pinches somebody to say 'look your skin is black'. Fuck off with that shit, it's ridiculous.

 

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.

 

IF we had said "yes there were heated verbal exchanges on BOTH sides ( to which there is evidence) but Luis did not intend his words to be racist" - i think we would have been ok.

 

Instead Luis was advised to go down the preposterous "it was affectionate" route which no-one believed, and so undermined him.

[ngogswilly]

Ngogswilly, I agree 100% with your sentiment, I just disagree slightly on tactics.

 

The report does lay out the pros and cons and inconsistencies and doubts. The problem with labouring the points in our favour is that there was also testimony to the contrary, and we lost, that train has left the station.

 

I totally agree that the fact that both the report, and Evra, explicitly cleared Luis of being a racist was lost, needs emphasising, and the Mirror chased for a retraction ( although the damage has been done).

 

I also agree that “giving up” on this should not be an option, even if our tactics and objectives need to be reviewed now that the story has moved on.

 

You're right we had incosistencies on our side too and we fucked up badly. Thats never been in doubt. One thing I will say though is a lot of the incosistency on Luis's part could be easily challenged by asking why Evra got to give his account watching the video and Luis didn't. But anyway I digress.

 

I think you're right, the story has moved on. My only motivation for continuing to talk about this is merely to argue against the points being made that seem to suggest theres nothing we can do to at least spin the story to help Luis.

 

Thats my only motivation now, I'm not for wanting to re-open Pandoras Box and go on a full scale offensive. I just want the world to know Luis isn't guilty of the shit Evra said he is because its quite clear Evra's account cannot be proven and the majority of the evidence available shows Luis's account to be more accurate, and in addition to that the judgement made by the FA supporting Evra's account was full of inconsistency and obvious Bias. Thats all I want.

 

Luis does kick Evra but it is a nothing challenge' date=' the bit that confuses me is they claim that Dirk Kuyt said nothing to Evra when he was rolling around on the floor but the video quite clearly shows Dirk saying something to him. I wonder if they claim nothing was said because then they would have to say that one of the two of them was unreliable as they both stated something different was said in their testimonies?

And if they claim that Dirk was unreliable then they wouldnt be able to take anything he said as truth and we all know how reliable Evra is so the FA have just chosen to believe nothing was said. How fucked up is that?[/quote']

 

Theres plenty of that stuff that went on. The Hernandez evidence too that was requested not to be brought up. I obviously don't know what was in there but its a fair guess Hernandez admitted using the word negro around Black players before.

[LFC64]

The video evidence supports Suarez's story though.

 

The FA Report: There are numerous other parts of the video that contradict Evra but back up Suarez, yet the FA spun it the other way. The pinch being another example. Who pinches somebody to say 'look your skin is black'. Fuck off with that shit, it's ridiculous.

 

The 'pinch' is an example of the report getting carried away with itself in it's attempt to justify the verdict. Evra admits to not even remembering it but with the aid of video and a bit of witness leading and prompting he agrees it was a reference to his skin colour and not just part of the general spat going on between them.

There were some gigantic leaps of logic and assumptions in the report but this one is stunning. How it can be given serious consideration is amazing never mind used as 'evidence'. This must be an indictment of our defence that it stands at all.