Life Sweet...

[Jangle]

I fail to understand why the word "NEGRO" is abusive or derogatory. I am a negro, Xcuse is a negro.......... John Terry is "WHITE or CAUCASIAN"...... I don't get your line of argument.

[Peter R]

Jangle I think he is talking about the "n" word (he wrote:"n-g-r")and not "negro"... you are correct more so in Spanish that it (historically) is not in itself an offensive word... "we" have moved on to "African-American" or just plain "African" or "Afro-Jamaican" as opposed to "negro" which apparently carries a hint of the "n" word and is to be eschewed... just how I see it.

[Paul Marin]

Were they have tea in the garden? Just look back at the incident without knowing what was said and look at the body language.

That is still subjective. You can't say without a doubt that this was the case as again, Suarez asserts he did not - and absent concrete proof, you have to be ultra careful when it's racism you are accusing someone of. In fact, the tribunal stated that Suarez was not making statements based on deep seated racism.

[Gamma]

they were racist comments .... were they not? suarez has to come to terms with whether people see him as racist or not. *HINT* making racist comments is not a good step in the direction of engendering a belief that one is not racist.

over the years most of those persons who have been hauled up in the court of public opinion for making racists statements have claimed that they are not racist. maybe they are, maybe they are not .... but they made racist comments

subjective? if you want to think so, i look at it as evidence.

[Paul Marin]

I fail to understand why the word "NEGRO" is abusive or derogatory. I am a negro, Xcuse is a negro.......... John Terry is "WHITE or CAUCASIAN"...... I don't get your line of argument.

Jangle - that's exactly the point and it is NOT my line of thinking. The commission has made the determination that the word "negro" is insulting and abusive. As ridiculous as that is, that was their finding. Your team's lawyers argued that violation of Rule 3 E1 was subject to an objective standard, not a subjective one (which is what Liverpool argued) meaning that if I called you "negro" (no context necessary), I am guilty. Crazy...but that's the way I read it, correct me if you think differently.

[Bricktop]

Why is he referring to a player by their skin colour?

[Peter R]

I couldn't say... why do you ask Red Man? ... LOL

... Mo de bout? mi might get a 8 day ban

[Paul Marin]

Why is he referring to a player by their skin colour?

That's the tribunal's point. Referring to him by his race (not skin colour) was insulting.

However, to ignore "intent" in such a multicultural setting as the Premiership, seems to me to be turning a blind eye to practical reality. You have people from all over the world that use their own language in a way that doesn't always translate true meaning in English.

In this particular case, I believe Evra misinterpreted Suarez but by the time he realized what Suarez had actually said, he couldn't back pedal. If you read the report, he first says that Suarez called him "ni--er". He then later changed it to "black", then "blackie".

If you see the exchange with the ref, when Suarez put his hand on Evra's head and he batted it away, I believe that Evra's reaction is consistent with a man who believed he was called "nigg--" not with a man who was called "black", which eventually came out as the actual term used. I also believe that Suarez's body language was consistent with someone trying to be conciliatory.