Unhappy LFC plan to "revisit" Suarez-Evra decision...

[Paul Marin]

http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2012/01...o-revisit.html

[Gamma]

hmmm .... i agree with much of the article and "the finding of fact" discussion.

the problem is i don't see how it can be re-visited without re-opening wounds. i think i understand marin's POV a little better now and it would be unfortunate for such statements to be found as fact on flimsy evidence (i am assuming that is just a matter of rejecting suarez' credibility and accepting evra's) and then shrouded with other facts to produce a finding. the difficult thing is, i agree with the ban and agree that he used racist language so how does that not amount to him being racist, worse if you include the findings of fact?

[Sir X]

he used racist language so how does that not amount to him being racist.

Looked at in cultural relativism it is not ,looked at in cultural ethnocentrism it is.In layman terms he spoke from a cultural term and also the word negro by itself in spanish isnt racist , every african is referred to as negro,up to the 60s africans reffered to themselves as negro in standard English.

A fine line is drawn when you throw in the competitive nature of the game, but to answer your question, racist langauge is used in jamaica culturally in competitive settings are they racist ?

I heard players being reffferd to as every hue in Jamaican cultural relativism in a competitive setting, myself included, not once did I think it was racist.

[Lazie]

he used racist language so how does that not amount to him being racist.

Looked at in cultural relativism it is not ,looked at in cultural ethnocentrism it is.In layman terms he spoke from a cultural term and also the word negro by itself in spanish isnt racist , every african is referred to as negro,up to the 60s africans reffered to themselves as negro in standard English.

A fine line is drawn when you throw in the competitive nature of the game, but to answer your question, racist langauge is used in jamaica culturally in competitive settings are they racist ?

I heard players being reffferd to as every hue in Jamaican cultural relativism in a competitive setting, myself included, not once did I think it was racist.

X YOU NEED TO STOP THE FOOLISHNESS. There is even video evidence when he touched or better yet pinched Evra ... it is clear he was taunting the player based on his color. Time Liverpool accept that Suarez is wrong and stop defend ********ery!

[Sir X]

Yeah a racist is going to touch a man of colour? Taunting him based on colour is far fetched considering the heat of the battle, taunting him to get a mental advatnge ,yes, was the word negro used , yes.

Incidentally Evra opened the conversation with addressing the man as South American ? Obviously a term of endarement.

A racist NO !

[Paul Marin]

X YOU NEED TO STOP THE FOOLISHNESS. There is even video evidence when he touched or better yet pinched Evra ... it is clear he was taunting the player based on his color. Time Liverpool accept that Suarez is wrong and stop defend ********ery!

Lazie - as of this moment, have you read the report in full? Simple "Yes" or "No" question.

[Lazie]

Yeah a racist is going to touch a man of colour? Taunting him based on colour is far fetched considering the heat of the battle, taunting him to get a mental advatnge ,yes was the word negro used , yes.

Incidentally Evra opened the conversation with addressing the man as South American ? Obviously a term of endarement.

A racist NO !

As mi say ... unuh need fi learn something from Espanyol coach.

[Paul Marin]

hmmm .... i agree with much of the article and "the finding of fact" discussion.

the problem is i don't see how it can be re-visited without re-opening wounds. i think i understand marin's POV a little better now and it would be unfortunate for such statements to be found as fact on flimsy evidence (i am assuming that is just a matter of rejecting suarez' credibility and accepting evra's) and then shrouded with other facts to produce a finding. the difficult thing is, i agree with the ban and agree that he used racist language so how does that not amount to him being racist, worse if you include the findings of fact?

My problem from the outset has been that the standard used to evaluate guilt/innocence was on the "balance of probabilities" as opposed to "beyond reasonable doubt". But this is the FA's "club" and its rules, so we have to live with that even though calling a man a "baby" or the "n-word" are both treated equally under Rule 3E(1).

JT's case will be tried by the higher "beyond reasonable doubt" standard as it is a criminal case. He will get off. No witnesses as far as I know, an obscured video tape that actually supports JT's claim, Anton's testimony only, all add up to not enough conclusive evidence.

My take is that Suarez would not have been found guilty in a criminal court, based on my interpretation of the FA's 115 page report (which I read cover to cover) and my understanding of the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

I'm not sure if I've said it on this board, but I have elsewhere, a charge as serious as racism cannot be treated with anything but the highest fidelity - there can be no doubt. As minorities, we should make sure this is the case as we can't "do to them" as they've "done to us". When found truly guilty though, racists should be "burned at the stake", whether they play for Liverpool, Chelsea or anyone else.

[Gamma]

the only thing is that the FA is not a criminal tribunal and if the intent is to stamp out racism "within the sport" for now, i support the lower standard. if we go with the BARD standard then in my opinion, a 8 ban match (e.g.) would be insufficent. they should be kicked out of the sport altogether.

i agree that ought not to be abused ...i .e. every likkle ting ... BUT .. i believe it is best to be more stringent and then, if anything pull back, than just to be dibby dibby in dibs and drabs..

[Paul Marin]

the only thing is that the FA is not a criminal tribunal and if the intent is to stamp out racism "within the sport" for now, i support the lower standard. if we go with the BARD standard then in my opinion, a 8 ban match (e.g.) would be insufficent. they should be kicked out of the sport altogether.

i agree that ought not to be abused ...i .e. every likkle ting ... BUT .. i believe it is best to be more stringent and then, if anything pull back, than just to be dibby dibby in dibs and drabs..

Gamma, if you go with the lower standard, then the problem won't really be solved. The higher standard allows the FA to kick them out altogether, whereas the lower one does not; at least - it is much more difficult to kick them out altogether with the lower one. After this case, the FA should *require* awareness training for all clubs so that there can be no misunderstanding and capitulate to the higher standard for transgressions that are worthy of a life-time ban -e.g. racism, violent conduct and fraud...but this will presume the FA is run by competent men, which I assure you it is not.