RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evra v Suarez -the findings in detail

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Evra v Suarez -the findings in detail

    Unreliable and inconsistent! Suarez blasted as FA release details of race row evidence By Rob Draper
    Last updated at 11:59 PM on 31st December 2011

    Comments (5) Share
    Luis Suarez used the Spanish words 'negro' or 'negros' seven times in a sustained verbal assault on Patrice Evra, according to the Football Association's disciplinary commission that heard the case.

    The FA, who published the commission's 115-page judgement on Saturday night, cast doubt on the version of events given by Liverpool striker Suarez, undermining the club's campaign to back the Uruguayan, who has been banned for eight matches for racial abuse.
    Blasted: Liverpool's Luis Suarez gave 'unreliable' and 'inconsistent' evidence to the FA
    And Liverpool's chances of successfully appealing appear to have diminished after the full written reasons for the ban were released last night. The FA report says Suarez's evidence was 'unreliable in matters of critical importance' and 'inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence, especially the video footage'.

    The FA rejected Suarez's assertion that he had used the word 'negro' - Spanish for black and commonly used both with and without racist overtones in South America - in a friendly manner as 'incredible' and doubled what would ordinarily have been a four-match ban because he used the word seven times.

    Total support: Liverpool have continued to back their star man
    By contrast, the FA found that Evra was 'a credible witness' and that he gave evidence 'in a calm and composed way' and was 'for the most part consistent'.

    Evra, for his part, admitted using obscene language at the start of his clash with Suarez.

    The FA Disciplinary Commission, composed of Paul Goulding QC, Brian Jones, the chairman of Sheffield and Hallamshire FA, and former player and manager Denis Smith, decided that the likeliest version of events was that Evra initially spoke to Suarez aggressively, using foul and abusive language to ask why he had fouled him, and that Suarez responded by saying, in Spanish: 'Because you are black.'

    Controversial: Suarez has been involved in several high profile incidents since joining Liverpool a year ago
    Evra then responded, in Spanish: 'Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you!' to which Suarez replied: 'I don't speak to blacks.'

    Continuing in Spanish, Evra said: 'Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you.'

    Suarez responded: 'Dale, negro, negro, negro.' Having consulted linguistic experts, the commission decided that this had the colloquial meaning: 'Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie.'

    The commission also decided that Suarez used the word 'negro' twice more in separate conversations around the incident in the 63rd minute of the Liverpool- Manchester United game on October 15.

    Suraez's defence was that he used the word 'negro' only once and that it was when Evra is alleged to have said to him: 'Don't touch me, South American.' Suarez said he had replied: 'Por que, negro,' or 'Why, black?'
    He argued that his use of the word 'negro' did not equate to the racially offensive English meaning but was meant affectionately, as he claimed is often the case in Uruguay.

    He also insisted that he used the word in a conciliatory manner. The commission accepted that the meaning was more nuanced in Spanish and the FA commissioned a report by two experts on the use of Spanish in Uruguay, to adjudicate on that claim.

    Trouble: Suarez has had another game bolted on to his suspension for this gesture to Fulham fans
    They accepted that Suarez did not use the word in a way that could reasonably be translated as '************' but they rejected Suarez's assertion that there was no abuse or insult intended.

    The FA, who brought the case against Suarez, also stated in the argument that they did not contend that Suarez had acted out of 'deep-seated racial prejudice' but that it was likely that Suarez was 'seeking to provoke Mr Evra to cause him to be sent off, thereby gaining a competitive advantage in the game' and added that such behaviour was to be 'deplored'.
    Evidence presented on Suarez's side to show that he was not racist included the fact that he was made captain of the Dutch side Ajax, a multi-racial team, and it was revealed that he has a black grandfather.

    Flashpoint: The ugly exchange was sparked by a foul
    Suarez also accepted that he should not have used the Spanish word 'negro' and vowed that he would not do so again on a football pitch in England.
    However, the crucial point in opting for an eight-match ban was that they believed Evra's account, that Suarez had used the words 'negro' or 'negros' seven times, which aggravated the offence. The commission stated: 'The first aggravating factor was the number of times Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros".
    'We have found that Mr Suarez used [them] seven times in his exchanges with Mr Evra.

    'Whilst we recognised that the exchanges occurred over only a two-minute spell in the second half of the match, there were multiple uses of the insulting words by Mr Suarez.
    'The second aggravating factor was what Mr Suarez said when using the insulting words.
    'He did not simply use the word "negro" to address Mr Evra. He did that, but he also said that he had kicked Mr Evra because he was black and that he did not talk to blacks.
    SUAREZ VERDICTRead the FA's full 115-page release by clicking here
    'Even if Mr Suarez said these things in the heat of the moment without really meaning them, nevertheless this was more than just calling Mr Evra "negro".

    According to the Spanish language experts, the uses would have been regarded as racially offensive in Uruguay.'

    The FA commission also took account of the fact that Suarez had pinched Evra in the confrontation and that he had directed the words at him and intended for them to be heard.

    But they also accepted that Evra had provoked the confrontation. Liverpool said in a statement:'The player, the club and our legal advisors will now take the necessary amount of time to read, digest and properly consider the contents of the judgement and will make no further comment at present.'
    Liverpool have until January 13 to respond, meaning Suarez can play in their next three games, including their Carling Cup semi-final first leg trip to Manchester City on January 11.


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz1iCZXIQkY

  • #2
    "The FA, who brought the case against Suarez, also stated in the argument that they did not contend that Suarez had acted out of 'deep-seated racial prejudice' but that it was likely that Suarez was 'seeking to provoke Mr Evra to cause him to be sent off, thereby gaining a competitive advantage in the game'..."

    It seems a bit contradictory for them to charge him with racism and then say he wasn't acting out of racial prejudice. The unfortunate part for Suarez now, is that if the verdict is upheld, the world will consider him a racist, even though the FA say he's not. This could seriously affect his career which is why Liverpool are in a position where they have no option but to fight the charge.
    "H.L & Brick .....mi deh pan di wagon (Man City)" - X_____ http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/showthread.php?p=378365&highlight=City+Liverpool#p ost378365

    X DESCRIBES HIMSELF - Stop masquerading as if you have the clubs interest at heart, you are a fraud, always was and always will be in any and every thing that you present...

    Comment


    • #3
      They judged him based on british cultural norms, if he played in jamaica , and you know how we use racial,ethnic and nationalistic terms, he would be at home.

      But hey he has to learn.
      THERE IS ONLY ONE ONANDI LOWE!

      "Good things come out of the garrisons" after his daughter won the 100m Gold For Jamaica.


      "It therefore is useless and pointless, unless it is for share malice and victimisation to arrest and charge a 92-year-old man for such a simple offence. There is nothing morally wrong with this man smoking a spliff; the only thing wrong is that it is still on the law books," said Chevannes.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Paul Marin View Post
        If this is the case, then what about every other "wind up" on the football pitch?
        Interesting question. This comes from the BBC article on the report:

        According to the report, Evra admitted that he begun the exchange with Suarez by referring to the Uruguayan's sister in Spanish.

        So assuming that Evra's remark on Suarez's sister was an insult -- and I'd have a hard time believing it was anything but that -- then wouldn't he be guilty of using "indecent or insulting words or behaviour" according to the same rule also cited in the article?
        "Donovan was excellent. We knew he was a good player, but he really didn't do anything wrong in the whole game and made it difficult for us."
        - Xavi

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Zeppo View Post
          Interesting question. This comes from the BBC article on the report:

          According to the report, Evra admitted that he begun the exchange with Suarez by referring to the Uruguayan's sister in Spanish.

          So assuming that Evra's remark on Suarez's sister was an insult -- and I'd have a hard time believing it was anything but that -- then wouldn't he be guilty of using "indecent or insulting words or behaviour" according to the same rule also cited in the article?
          That's the problem isn't it? There is a slippery slope here that could really create a bizarre precedent on the pitch. Anyone who plays football knows that these exchanges happen and it is a back and forth of continually raising of the stakes. For one man, being called something racial is less offensive than mentioning his mother, sister wife etc. whereas for another it is not. The question therefore becomes the standard of measure - do you base the infraction on the impact on (or interpretations of) "the offended" or the intent of "the offender"? I submit that if it is by the former, then there is no end in sight to the potential litany of complaints that can come the FA's way for everything from racism to making fun of a man's cat. (How dare you insult my cat!!) I would expect that they should have some kind of code of conduct which spells it out - maybe one exists and if so, then that's all that is needed. If one doesn't then the upshot of this incident is that maybe one could be (and should be) created.

          Independently of football, racism is a serious allegation and I think should stand alone. However, as I see it, the FA has to be careful to weigh the implications of banning the man for a "racist act" and then at the same time saying that they don't think he's a racist. There is a potential incongruence there.

          The bottom line is that the allegations and verdict could have serious implications to the man personally and professionally. The FA's responsibility is to also ensure the protection of him as a player as well, despite the infraction. This is clearly (at least to me) Liverpool's dilemma. I can't see the club having a choice but to launch an appeal.
          Last edited by Paul Marin; January 1, 2012, 12:36 PM.
          "H.L & Brick .....mi deh pan di wagon (Man City)" - X_____ http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/showthread.php?p=378365&highlight=City+Liverpool#p ost378365

          X DESCRIBES HIMSELF - Stop masquerading as if you have the clubs interest at heart, you are a fraud, always was and always will be in any and every thing that you present...

          Comment


          • #6
            Okay. I have heard enough.

            I will be walking alone from 2012.


            BLACK LIVES MATTER

            Comment


            • #7
              Nonsense, Paul Marin! Just because they did not feel he was acting " out of 'deep-seated racial prejudice'", that does not mean he wasn't acting out of racial prejudice.

              Screw Suarez' career! I am more concerned about stamping out racism in all walks of life, not just sport.


              BLACK LIVES MATTER

              Comment


              • #8
                In the report, Suarez claimed: "I would refer to Glen Johnson as 'negro' in the same way that I might refer to Dirk Kuyt as 'Blondie' - because he has blond hair, or Andy Carroll as 'Grandote' - 'Big Man' - because he is very tall.
                Tek people fi eediat!


                BLACK LIVES MATTER

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mosiah View Post
                  Nonsense, Paul Marin! Just because they did not feel he was acting " out of 'deep-seated racial prejudice'", that does not mean he wasn't acting out of racial prejudice.

                  Screw Suarez' career! I am more concerned about stamping out racism in all walks of life, not just sport.
                  Well said!!, he deserved everything he got and more.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Good chat, Sir Paul!
                    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mosiah View Post
                      Nonsense, Paul Marin! Just because they did not feel he was acting " out of 'deep-seated racial prejudice'", that does not mean he wasn't acting out of racial prejudice.

                      Screw Suarez' career! I am more concerned about stamping out racism in all walks of life, not just sport.
                      So what are the variations of racial prejudice that we should use as a standard? Is that your measure? Or mine? You can't have it both ways - he is either prejudiced or not. It is like saying someone is "a little pregnant".

                      Secondly, you have to look at the bigger picture. If you think that stamping out racism comes from restricting a man's rights, then that's your prerogative. However, for me, you can't step on someone's rights just to further an agenda, no matter how noble that might be.

                      For example, the KKK in the US can march and spew their insipid message all they want, curtailing their freedom to speak what they want however by stamping them out is not the way to address the problem.

                      Suarez's conduct cannot be condoned, but you can't make an example of him if there is no absolute irrefutable evidence that he is indeed a racist. They used to do that with black Americans in the south with allegations of raping white women where the woman's word was all that was needed to hang a man with vigilante justice.

                      However, if there is a code of conduct that he violated that says "you can't use language like...." then okay, by that measure he is guilty of violating the policy. That however, does not mean that he is a racist. There does not seem to be (correct me if I'm wrong) any such policy that I know of that he is violation of, so he is being branded a racist based on the evidence of one man...like the white women crying "rape".

                      We can't have it both ways.
                      "H.L & Brick .....mi deh pan di wagon (Man City)" - X_____ http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/showthread.php?p=378365&highlight=City+Liverpool#p ost378365

                      X DESCRIBES HIMSELF - Stop masquerading as if you have the clubs interest at heart, you are a fraud, always was and always will be in any and every thing that you present...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Paul Marin View Post
                        That's the problem isn't it? There is a slippery slope here that could really create a bizarre precedent on the pitch. Anyone who plays football knows that these exchanges happen and it is a back and forth of continually raising of the stakes. For one man, being called something racial is less offensive than mentioning his mother, sister wife etc. whereas for another it is not.
                        This article was posted by X in another thread, but it brings up the same point:

                        If Patrice Evra did indeed start the conversation talking about Luis Suarez’s sister “Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in golpe”, how can that not bring the game to disrepute (specially since the statement is now well known) and not be tantamount to abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting words? It is also to be noted that all parties have agreed that this (or whatever else Evra’s version is) was the starting point of whatever transpired later. In that case, should this not be penalized first and everything that happened later shouldn’t only be seen as a by-product of this first offense?

                        http://www.empireofthekop.com/anfiel...fking-anarchy/
                        "Donovan was excellent. We knew he was a good player, but he really didn't do anything wrong in the whole game and made it difficult for us."
                        - Xavi

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          it is abusive and and in very poor taste! btw isn't that similar to what materazzi said to zidane? BUT the racial slurs takes it to another level!

                          Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Zeppo View Post
                            This article was posted by X in another thread, but it brings up the same point:

                            If Patrice Evra did indeed start the conversation talking about Luis Suarez’s sister “Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in golpe”, how can that not bring the game to disrepute (specially since the statement is now well known) and not be tantamount to abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting words? It is also to be noted that all parties have agreed that this (or whatever else Evra’s version is) was the starting point of whatever transpired later. In that case, should this not be penalized first and everything that happened later shouldn’t only be seen as a by-product of this first offense?

                            http://www.empireofthekop.com/anfiel...fking-anarchy/

                            ...on another note: It is strange that the FA did not issue Eanvra some form of punishment for his acknowledged role. At the least Evra's stated actions was a 'red card' offense - At least 1 match ban, no? Could almost be said, Evra gave self that ban?
                            "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Paul Marin View Post
                              So what are the variations of racial prejudice that we should use as a standard? Is that your measure? Or mine? You can't have it both ways - he is either prejudiced or not. It is like saying someone is "a little pregnant".

                              Secondly, you have to look at the bigger picture. If you think that stamping out racism comes from restricting a man's rights, then that's your prerogative. However, for me, you can't step on someone's rights just to further an agenda, no matter how noble that might be.

                              For example, the KKK in the US can march and spew their insipid message all they want, curtailing their freedom to speak what they want however by stamping them out is not the way to address the problem.

                              Suarez's conduct cannot be condoned, but you can't make an example of him if there is no absolute irrefutable evidence that he is indeed a racist. They used to do that with black Americans in the south with allegations of raping white women where the woman's word was all that was needed to hang a man with vigilante justice.

                              However, if there is a code of conduct that he violated that says "you can't use language like...." then okay, by that measure he is guilty of violating the policy. That however, does not mean that he is a racist. There does not seem to be (correct me if I'm wrong) any such policy that I know of that he is violation of, so he is being branded a racist based on the evidence of one man...like the white women crying "rape".

                              We can't have it both ways.

                              Then some would argued that the current Kick It Out Campaign, to rid the game of racism is also curtailing certain people's freedom/ rights to speak/chant what they want (be it racist) by trying to stamp out the problem of racism in football/ society.
                              Would you say that this initiative is also not the way to address this problem?
                              .
                              [/B]

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X