Evra v Suarez -the findings in detail

[Paul Marin]

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]

Well, to me, I don't think freedom of speech should allow people to use that freedom to abuse others. If you want to say your piece, fine, but not berate or confront others which is what chanting and amounts to. For example, I may believe that people from redtown are vermin, I may even write that they are or make speeches that they are, but for me to shout out vermin in a man from redtown's face in any kind of threatening or abusing way is not kosher.

[GazX]

Well, to me, I don't think freedom of speech should allow people to use that freedom to abuse others. If you want to say your piece, fine, but not berate or confront others which is what chanting and amounts to. For example, I may believe that people from redtown are vermin, I may even write that they are or make speeches that they are, but for me to shout out vermin in a man from redtown's face in any kind of threatening or abusing way is not kosher.

Not kosher, so needs to be stamped out?

[Paul Marin]

Not kosher, so needs to be stamped out?

Yes, but you can't have innocent victims along the way. I see Suarez's situation as such. If you hear Kenny Dalglish's press conference yesterday, he states that they have other information which is not being allowed as evidence so they may as well shut up and take it, but because he knows this information, he knows he has to stand by his player.

Tribunals and legal systems operate by their own rules that sometimes counter-intuitively abrogate justice (e.g. if a policeman forgets to read a criminal his miranda rights, he's off the hook, despite being guilty). So yes, stamp it out, but not at the expense of the innocent.

[Gamma]

he states that they have other information which is not being allowed as evidence so they may as well shut up and take it, but because he knows this information, he knows he has to stand by his player.

that may be just a convenient way for Dalglish to gently ease out while still allowing him to publicly say that he backs suarez. let me get this straight, are you saying suarez is innocent of using racist language?

[Paul Marin]

he states that they have other information which is not being allowed as evidence so they may as well shut up and take it, but because he knows this information, he knows he has to stand by his player.

that may be just a convenient way for Dalglish to gently ease out while still allowing him to publicly say that he backs suarez. let me get this straight, are you saying suarez is innocent of using racist language?

"that may be just a convenient way for Dalglish to gently ease out while still allowing him to publicly say that he backs suarez. " - Sure, but it may also be true. To take him at his word (or not) is one's prerogative.

"let me get this straight, are you saying suarez is innocent of using racist language?" - I am saying that we don't know if he did or did not - we only have Evra's word to go on which has been far from reliable; from the report:

Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a ************". He now says that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".

Because the accusation is so severe, we need a better standard than one man's word against another especially when the accuser can't get his story straight.

[Gamma]

To take him at his word (or not) is one's prerogative. Fair enough.


am saying that we don't know if he did or did not - we only have Evra's word to go on which has been far from reliable what about this from the report?

"Our findings of fact which are directly relevant to the Charge are as follows: (1) In response to Mr Evra's question 'F*****g hell, why did you kick me,' Mr Suarez said 'Because you are black'.
"(2) In response to Mr Evra's comment 'Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you,' Mr Suarez said 'I don't speak to blacks'.
"(3) In response to Mr Evra's comment: 'Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you,' Mr Suarez said 'Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie'."

[Peter R]

It is confusing when they say "finding of fact" if they are going on Evra's word. Was there a recording somewhere of the exchange?

Suarez claims he only said "negro" once and that he never used it in a derogatory way.

[Peter R]

Clearly, if the finding of fact is as stated, to me that is racial abuse... the problem is that they could say"finding of fact" all they want, it still came down to one man's word against another... and they chose to go with the more "credible" witness.

[Sir X]

Correction ,they went with flawed probabilities.

[Peter R]

My point is that, had there been a recording of the exchanges that CLEARLY revealed that the "conversation" was as quoted in Gamma's post then I would say that Suarez would be guilty of abuse.

In the absence of such evidence I agree that they went in with a fair bit of conjecture.

[Gamma]

Did they not employ the use of linguists and lip readers when reviewing the video?

[Paul Marin]

To take him at his word (or not) is one's prerogative. Fair enough.

am saying that we don't know if he did or did not - we only have Evra's word to go on which has been far from reliable what about this from the report?

"Our findings of fact which are directly relevant to the Charge are as follows: (1) In response to Mr Evra's question 'F*****g hell, why did you kick me,' Mr Suarez said 'Because you are black'.
"(2) In response to Mr Evra's comment 'Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you,' Mr Suarez said 'I don't speak to blacks'.
"(3) In response to Mr Evra's comment: 'Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you,' Mr Suarez said 'Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie'."

Gamma, the "findings of fact" are anything but "fact". They are based on whether you agree with their logic of determining whose account was credible or not. This was Evra's account virtually word for word. They accepted his account as "fact" and dismissed Suarez's. That very same report also says:

382. In all the circumstances, we preferred the evidence of Mr Evra. His account was clear and consistent in all material respects. There is no basis for saying that he lied or was mistaken in what he heard. We found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened.

Preferred the evidence of Mr. Evra? Probably what happened? Wow! The report also includes the FA's case, which reads as follows:

5. The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie".

Remarkable. The FA's case reads exactly like the "findings of fact" you quoted above.

Q. How do you go from "Mr. Evra's account is probably what happened" to "[Mr. Evra's account is FACT"]?
A. Because we PREFERRED Mr. Evra's evidence.

Give me a break. This is too serious a charge for this kind of gaping hole. Never before have I ever seen PROBABLY = FACT. Again, racism is a serious charge that should be proven by the highest of standards which should be "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, not "balance of probability" standard.

My only regret is that those who don't know me will equate my position on this matter due to my passionate support for Liverpool; nothing could be further from the truth. Suarez could have played for Manu** and I would have spoken out against this sham process just as vigorously.

[Paul Marin]

Did they not employ the use of linguists and lip readers when reviewing the video?

No they did not hire lip readers. They took both Evra's and Suarez's accounts and asked language experts (from the University of Manchester - go figure ) to analyze each player's statements as if they were fact. They found Suarez's account to be inoffensive with reference to the word "negro" and they found some discrepancies in Evra's statements with the commonly spoken form in Uruguay; for example (with regard to Evra's statement):

The experts noted that the use of the verb form "porque tu eres negro" is not the most usual form for Montevidean Spanish, since the form of the verb "ser" most commonly used would be the "vos" form, that is "porque (vos) sos negro".

Apparently "tu eres" would be more common in Spain. Another example of their assessment of Evra's statement:

The experts considered it worth noting that the phrase "porque tu eres negro" struck both of them as slightly unusual. In this instance, a direct racial slur would more likely have been something like "porque eres un negro de mierda" [because you are a shitty black].

When I was reading this, I noticed another discrepancy which leaves me believing this was a stacked deck:

185. Mr Evra stated that Mr Suarez touched his arm at this stage, "indicating my skin". Mr Suarez's action is difficult to interpret; it looks like a pinch, intended perhaps to annoy or provoke.

95. Mr Evra said that as Mr Suarez was speaking he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr Evra said that Mr Suarez was drawing attention to the colour of Mr Evra's skin. This gesture is clearly shown on the video footage, just as Mr Kuyt comes between them. It seemed to us that Mr Suarez reached out and pinched Mr Evra's left forearm. In cross-examination, Mr Evra said that at the time he did not realise that Mr Suarez had pinched his arm. He was more focussed on his lips and what he was saying. Mr Evra only realised that Mr Suarez had touched his arm in this way when he saw the video footage later.

What the ...!!!?? Wait a minute. Evra makes a statement that says [Suarez is drawing attention to my skin colour] then on cross, states that he didn't realize Suarez was pinching his arm until he saw the video. What was it Evra? A gesture? A pinch? A pinching gesture? Isn't this misinterpretation all the way around? He clearly didn't recall the gesture accurately (pinching) so how can we draw any conclusion as to his interpretation of Suarez's gesture as intending to draw attention to his skin colour being accurate? Wouldn't he point, not pinch?

Again, the standard for accusing a man of racism has to be set high, but after all this, the report states (after reading the expert reports):

First, there are some black people in Uruguay and other areas of Latin America who object to the use of the word "negro" as a term of address, as they say it highlights skin colour when this should be irrelevant. This is the use of the word "negro" (ie as a term of address) which Mr Suarez contended before us is acceptable, yet his view appears to be contentious with some in Uruguay and Latin America.

They COMPLETELY ignored the fact that "on the balance of probabilities" the use of the term in in Uruguay (as used by Suarez and corroborated by the experts) is inoffensive. The chose to highlight the exception. My take is that this is only to support and justify their flawed findings of "fact". LOL!!

[Sir X]

Suarez – (Still) Not A Racist

• Free, Member
  
  Posted on January 4th, 2012
  Posted by by Paul Tomkins
  Comments
  
  1
  Tags
  
  
  
  Don't want ads ? Subscribe to remove them. Only £3.50 a month.
  
  
  Luis Suarez is still being labelled a ‘racist’, and Liverpool FC are being castigated for supporting said ‘racist’. Never mind that the FA’s findings stated, quite clearly, that they felt that he was not a racist.
  And never mind that if those at the club truly believe their employee, colleague and friend to be innocent, they have every right to support him. So many in the media have shot down anyone who dared suggest Suarez is innocent, as if the guilty verdict was handed down by the Lord almighty.
  To suggest that you cannot support a man who has been found guilty by one single, partially-independent panel (clearly under pressure to make an example of someone, if you read many of the editorials on the subject) based on the balance of probabilities is insane.
  
  Just look at the amount of people found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of crimes due to police coercion in the 1970s, and go and tell their supporters that they were wrong to stand by their loved ones who were later fully exonerated. Whatever the crime, you have a right to stand by someone you feel incorrectly treated, and not be seen as condoning what it was they were accused of. Normally, you’d be able to make a full appeal. All the reporting on this issue states that only the sentence can be appealed.
  Yes, people support the genuinely guilty, too, out of blind faith, but Suarez is not a man found definitely guilty by the highest courts in the land, after all appeals and judicial reviews failed. He was found probably guilty by three men in room.
  Probably. (This isn’t even a Carlsberg ad; and anyone who’s drunk that lager will know that it’s almost certainly not the best in the world.)
  Admittedly, hardly anyone comes out of the report well: Suarez, Evra, Liverpool (and its sloppy legal representative), and the panel themselves, who, despite writing 115 pages, left far too many holes, and took far too many leaps of logic.
  Anyone reading it looking to find pantomime villain Suarez guilty will see their confirmation bias duly satisfied (just as officials ‘saw’ Joey Barton’s headbutt the other day, or why Craig Bellamy should have been booked for being forehead-prodded by Clint Dempsey), but anyone looking to find faults – as people should, with every judicial process – will discover plenty of disconcerting inconsistencies.
  (More on the inconsistencies here, from Stuart Gilhooly, who “is the solicitor for the Professional Footballers Association of Ireland and was also recently named Journalist of Year at the Irish Magazine Awards.”).
  That these faults are only being found by Liverpool fans is not the point; they exist, no matter who points them out. (It’s probably the case that only Liverpool fans have the motivation to question the inconsistencies. Daniel Geey, a football lawyer, has promised to share his view on this site as to the reasons why Liverpool would have had a case, had the process allowed a proper appeal.)
  Suarez was not found guilty due to the weight of evidence proving it beyond a doubt; he was found guilty on the balance of probabilities, based on a verbal exchange that lacked even one first-hand witness. The only witnesses to be called heard no more than what the participants had later told them; less ‘he said, she said’ and more ‘he told so-and-so, she told so-and-so’.
  The video evidence proved nothing as to what was said. And even what was claimed to have been said had to be deconstructed by linguistics experts, with others noting that the report’s findings – as to what was said – were incompatible with the Spanish language, as used by anyone who speaks it.
  (See this, for more on the language issue.)
  In cases where it’s essentially one man’s word against another – including what the two parties told people after the event – miscarriages of justice are rife. Look at the Innocence Project, which, coincidentally, is thankfully freeing lots of black men imprisoned decades ago because someone said, often with all honesty, “it was him!”. I’ve seen women who swore on oath that Man X raped them apologise 20 years later, when DNA proved it was Man Y. Memory is an unreliable witness.
  These were cases where juries were supposed to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt; not just say “hmm, it’s probable”. Given the seriousness of the accusations aimed at Suarez, “it’s probable” doesn’t seem fair at all.
  In cases built on words only, you have to try and discredit the witness who makes the accusation. What else is there to go on? Otherwise false claims can be made without compunction.
  If the ‘victim’ stands up to scrutiny, all well and good. I’m not sure that in this case, either party seems particularly reliable; either because they are wilfully twisting the facts, or struggling to remember them. And whilst having a story straight suggests truth telling, it can also be reminiscent of practiced liars; just as having a confused story can simply mean that you were confused.
  In this case, I’d say that it’s possible that Suarez is guilty as charged. With so little evidence, anything can seem possible; it’s how conspiracy theories get their oxygen, after all.
  I’d also say that it’s possible that he’s not guilty; not least given the fact that his accuser was criticised for giving unreliable evidence in a previous FA hearing. After all, if you lied in court, your testimony at subsequent trials should be worthless.
  Again, I’m not saying that Evra was lying this time. I’m just saying that I don’t see enough evidence to saddle Suarez with a conviction that, even though the wording claimed otherwise, would doubtless lead to lead to “RACIST!” headlines.
  Suarez did admit to using the word ‘negro’ (pronounced neg-gro) once; plenty of media outlets have since claimed that he admitted to using the far more racially loaded term, negro (as in knee-grow) on seven occasions. This admission is not true.
  Suarez’s defence was that in Uruguay, such language is commonplace, and not deemed offensive; our culture loads the word with meanings that do not exist in his country, where racial integration has been rife for much longer.
  Just because an adjective was used in an argument, it does not mean the adjective was laden with hatred; presumably why Suarez was found guilty of ‘referencing colour’, rather than being a racist – although the guilty verdict means he’ll just be labelled a racist anyway.
  If offence was taken by Evra, it’s fair to understand why; however, he initially admitted that he took offence due to thinking that Suarez meant ‘************’, which he later admitted was wrong. So there’s a lot of misunderstanding inherent in the case.
  What I would question is Evra admitting to the use of “your sister’s cunt” to Suarez to initiate the exchanges, and getting away with it scot-free. That falls foul of the FA’s rules, but nothing appears to have been done. And when only one side gets punished, it smacks of bias.
  I also think that, by choosing to speak in Spanish, Evra in essence dictated the linguist nuances; this may have been on English soil, but it was not an English dispute. After many years here, Evra presumably speaks good English; yet he chose to insult Suarez in Spanish.
  Apparently, in Spanish, “your sister’s cunt”, means something less incendiary, like “********ing hell”. But while Suarez was held to literal translations of what hesaid, Evra was not. It was ‘just a saying’. Also, the idea that Evra was in deep shock from a slight kick on the knee, just seconds before he goaded the Liverpool fans in the Main Stand by kissing his badge on the touchline, is hard to reconcile.
  Again, the report correctly notes that Evra was even getting into a lather over the coin toss. He does genuinely appear like someone who – with a history of spats in his career, including one a Stamford Bridge and one with France in the World Cup – was looking for a fight; and equally, there’s no denying that Suarez is someone who could get involved in a contretemps on a deserted island. Both of them are ‘winners’ who get carried away, to put it politely.
  For the misjudged, if not malignant, use of the Spanish word for ‘black’, which also just happens to be spelt the same way as something deemed very offensive in the West, Suarez could have been given a small ban and an explanation about how it could easily be misconstrued in our culture. (Just as we hope to see Brits abroad not being taken to task over foreign customs they are not aware of; despite ‘ignorance of the law being no defence’, we don’t like to have to stick totheir rules, wherever ‘over there’ may be, if we think them unfair to our ‘superior’ understanding of the world, but Brits are good at saying “but this is our country!” when a foreigner falls foul of the law.)
  Perhaps Suarez and Liverpool should have admitted to the guilt of cultural ignorance at the start. An apology for the misunderstanding may have helped defuse the situation, although even the report is not full of every last fact and detail, so it’s hard to second-guess Liverpool FC’s full reasoning. One can only assume that the club wanted to help Suarez defend his honour, and feel that vital things were missed.
  Unfortunately, and perhaps outrageously given the seriousness of the charge, even though Suarez was only found guilty on the balance of probabilities – which, by its definition, suggests that there’s a good chance (up to 49%) that even those finding him guilty could concede that he is innocent – he could not appeal the guilty verdict; just the length of the ban. What kind of system allows for no appeal on a verdict, apart from witch trials where drowning is involved?
  And appeal the length of a ban to the FA, and they’re likely to accuse you of being ‘frivolous’, even though they’ll take advantage of Uefa laws that don’t work in the same way.
  (The FA had a right to appeal Wayne Rooney’s ban, but what does it say for theirpolicy of a decision being final? Just because Uefa allow it, it still undermines the notion of one decision being the end to the matter.)
  Liverpool, and Suarez, were not in a position to appeal, due to the nature of the beast; and therefore the player was seen as ‘admitting’ to the charges, rather than simply seeing no way to overturn them.
  Had it been Glen Johnson who was on the receiving end of the same wording from Javier Hernandez, for example, I’d probably be outraged in the manner that a lot of United fans and neutrals are over Suarez (although neutrals can still hate other clubs, and other clubs’ players). But my outrage wouldn’t make me right, in terms of knowing what actually happened.
  (A note: Johnson, who should know more than almost anyone else, stands by Suarez. People keep using him as an example of someone who should have been appalled at Suarez’s behaviour, or using him as an example of how Liverpool fans would feel if the shoe was on the other foot. But his support of Suarez is being glossed over.)
  As a fan of fairness and justice – I follow true crime issues obsessively – I’d also hope that any accused was not universally condemned and vitriolically vilified merely because he or she was ‘probably’ guilty. I’d expect such serious charges to come with a criteria of ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. This is not a case of whether or not a player meant to injure an opponent, which does not carry the same stigma.
  Like other Liverpool fans, I don’t want to be seen to defending a ‘racist’. We would not support someone who admitted to, or was caught on tape, being racist. (As an aside, I posted this first in TTT’s debate section, to check that the site’s multicultural readership was behind publication. Subscribers of all races felt that it should indeed be made public.)
  However, like most other Liverpool fans who have closely followed the whole sorry saga, I am yet to see the evidence in a case where there was no smoking gun; no forensic evidence; no independent witnesses (or indeed witnesses beyond those given second-hand information); and no conclusive video footage, beyond showing that an argument taking place (which we already knew).
  Just stories, possibly told by truthful folks, possibly told by liars, or possibly told by those with all-too-common cases of unreliable memory.
  To conclude, to me, it’s clearly probable that Luis Suarez did not say the word ‘negro’ (neg-gro) more than once, and that no ill meaning was intended. It’s probable, because he admitted to a single use of the word, when he could have denied it and gotten away with it. It’s probable, because he himself is from a black background, and – logically, at least – that makes it less likely, if not impossible, that he’d be racially offensive.
  His innocence is probable, because no-one heard what he is alleged to have said, and no recording device, visual or audio, picked it up – and the chances of that happening, while not impossible, are less likely than if it was definitely said. (Some of the things you do might not get captured by a dozen cameras; but none of the things you don’t do can end up on tape.)
  If it was any friend or relation of yours who was found guilty of a charge based on the balance of probabilities, and it was splashed all over the papers in the most damming manner, I’d expect you’d want better, too. Let’s kick racism out of the game, and out of society – but let’s have standards of evidence, so that the innocent, or misunderstood, aren’t caught in the crossfire.
  

[Sir X]

I will quote first the FA document on the key point:

“90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr
Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that
comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a ******". He now says
that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".”

End quote.

I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don't know what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...

What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.

***

That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.

“138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He
said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him
"Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had
replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"." Endquote.

“Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.

And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:

"141. Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli
explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that
Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr
Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him
"Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por que negro?". Mr Suarez told
Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said."

What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words…

The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:

"284 (...) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you
are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as
"you are black"." Endquote.

It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.

In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.
Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.

***

Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the "negro" word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.

Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:
1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
3) They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means they don't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.

A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.

Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.