Extracts from the FA report on the Luis Suárez Patrice Evra

[Hortical]

Mr Evra said that he followed up Mr Suárez's reply "Because you are black" by saying "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada", which means "Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you". Mr Suárez replied by saying "No hablo con los n.e.g.r.o.s". Mr Evra said that, at the time, he understood this to mean "I don't speak to n.i.g.g.e.r.s", although he now says it means "I don't speak to blacks".
Mr Suárez's evidence was that Mr Evra replied to the comment "it was just a normal foul" by saying "OK, you kicked me, I'm going to kick you". Mr Suárez said in his witness statement that his response was "Le dije que se callara e hice un gesto breve con mi mano izquierda parecido a la mocion de un "pato cuando hace cuac" para indicarle que hablaba mucho y deberia callarse", which was translated as "I told him to shut up and made a brief gesture with my left hand like a "quacking" motion as if to say he was talking too much and should be quiet".
Mr Evra said that after Mr Suárez said "I don't speak to blacks", he (Mr Evra) said "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada", which means "OK, now I think I'm going to punch you". To this he says that Mr Suárez replied "Dale, n.e.g.r.o...n.e.g.r.o...n.e.g.r.o". At the time Mr Evra understood this to mean "OK, n.i.g.g.e.r, n.i.g.g.e.r, n.i.g.g.e.r". He now says it means "OK, blackie, blackie, blackie". The expert witnesses stated that the phrase "Dale, n.e.g.r.o" can be understood as "Bring it on, blackie" or "do it, blackie" or "go ahead, blackie".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...z-patrice-evra

[OJ]

uhm.. thanks hortical... can you point Paul and Peter to this.. Not sure how much more context they need.

[Rudi]

Free Suarez mi say. I guess him no shake Blackie hand either. Stan Collymore is saying:Tous la change tous la meme chose. Liverpool fans seem to be the same regardless of their complexion. Must be something in the water. Is a good thing some a unuh family never mek the cut to play for Liverpool. what a quandry.

[Paul Marin]

uhm.. thanks hortical... can you point Paul and Peter to this.. Not sure how much more context they need.

OJ - I have read the report in its entirety. The issue here is that this is ONE SIDE OF THE STORY. I will leave it to you and your conscience to read and research the other.

Again, I hope to god that you are NEVER in a situation where the burden is on YOU to prove your innocence. Read the report from the basis of the "burden of proof" being on the FA and stop bringing media biased snippets as arguments.

[Peter R]

...what is funny is while the above, just being a snippet, in some measure corroborates Suarez's defence... the gentlemen are so eager to crucify Suarez that there is no consideration that Evra could be exaggerating what Suarez said... it basically was one man's word against another; Suarez could have denied using the "word" negro but he DID NOT... the expert points out that "Dale negro" amounts to "go ahead blackie"...which is vastly different from " Go ahead n.i.g.g.e.r." and those who are in the languages business KNOW (I have been a translator myself of many documents )that there are nuances that are impossible to translate..."blackie" doesn't even cut it for me but I would not argue with the expert... if this were JA and you said " gwaan den nuh Missa Chin , or chiney man" racism would not be an issue... IMO Evra realise that HE, Evra, screwed up and fabricated the repetition... if I am proven wrong I will eat my words, beg forgiveness and then string up Suarez by his cojones...

[OJ]

bwoy if I ever get in trouble i want the two you guys to defend me...Peter and Paul LLP.... you guys could of help out Saddam.... if him called him blackie same thing. Do you remember last year Kobe bryant got fined 80k to say someone played like a fag**T..... ???

[Paul Marin]

bwoy if I ever get in trouble i want the two you guys to defend me...Peter and Paul LLP.... you guys could of help out Saddam.... if him called him blackie same thing. Do you remember last year Kobe bryant got fined 80k to say someone played like a fag**T..... ???

OJ - you are still not getting it. Context matters. The men were speaking in SPANISH not English. Secondly, the way the court was set up, Suarez basically had to PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. What madness is that!!!??? As I said, if Fuller called Park "chiney" man on the field, is he racist? If you have to pause, you have given it more thought than the tribunal. I have posted elsewhere that this was an OBJECTIVE test on the FA's part, so the use of the word "chiney" by itself would heng Fuller. In their eyes, all of us who have used that term - and don't tell me you haven't - could have been found guilty. Absolute madness.

Suarez would have been better off in a court of law, but the FA and Evra's lawyers were smart enough to side step that one by not calling him a racist.

[OJ]

uhm.... yes but the man did not deny what he said. and the fA felt he should be punished. I have already concur that i dont feel the youth is a racist.. but he deserved the punishment... Did i think it was also political? yes... commming after blatter open its mouth The FA was gonna set an example, but he deserved it and after the weekend he shuould bet another 7 if was up to me.

[Paul Marin]

uhm.... yes but the man did not deny what he said. and the fA felt he should be punished. I have already concur that i dont feel the youth is a racist.. but he deserved the punishment... Did i think it was also political? yes... commming after blatter open its mouth The FA was gonna set an example, but he deserved it and after the weekend he shuould bet another 7 if was up to me.

OJ - this is where you lose credibility. If you believe that it was political, then how can you possibly believe what the political forces have not contrived guilt upon the man? Again, the issue here is that the man - no matter if we like him or not - is entitled to a "presumption of innocence" standard where the "burden of proof" is on his accusers. That is what I would want for ALL OF US. Denying it for any ONE man is the mark of a fascist state. Support that at your peril.

[Jangle]

Suarez couldn't just say to Evra that he doesn't talk to dummies or idiots instead of saying Blackie?

[OJ]

Paul it is simple you cannot say i dont talk to blackies or whatever. Did the FA come down on him hard and yes they should. Just the same way if a ref give you an opponent a yellow for two foot tackle and you then do the same to even the score you may get a red! simply because they have the latitude to do so and within thier mandate.... yes it was political but deserved...

[Paul Marin]

Suarez couldn't just say to Evra that he doesn't talk to dummies or idiots instead of saying Blackie?

That would have been much smarter, wouldn't it? Even so, you do realize that calling Evra an "idiot" or a "dummy" could have been interpreted as abuse under Rule E3(1)?

"A Participant shall not use any one, or a combination of, abusive or threatening words or behaviour."

But I am not defending Suarez's choice of words, but rather, trying to make people understand that context matters and that the whole thing was really a huge misinterpretation made worse by an unfair process and an underlying agenda on the FA's part. We have to be fair, even if we don't like the accused (your case) or the accuser (my case).

[Paul Marin]

Paul it is simple you cannot say i dont talk to blackies or whatever. Did the FA come down on him hard and yes they should. Just the same way if a ref give you an opponent a yellow for two foot tackle and you then do the same to even the score you may get a red! simply because they have the latitude to do so and within thier mandate.... yes it was political but deserved...

Okay - we have a difference of opinion. I believe intent matters, you don't, so if Fuller called Park a "chiney man", and got a similar sanction, you'd be okay with that, I wouldn't. Sass would be okay with it too, even though he understands that Fuller would not have any racial intent behind such a comment. Although I vehemently disagree with that position, it is not an argument to be resolved if cultural context is summarily ruled out.

That said, I hope we can agree that the tribunal process was unfair and one-sided that none of us would want for ourselves were we the accused as there was a "presumption of guilt" rather than "presumption of innocence" and there was no "burden of proof" put upon the FA who leveled the charge.

[Gamma]

paul you are missing one important element to all of this, i think that the FA being a private body, did not have to hear this matter IF suarez had behaved differently after the allegations.

after evra made the complaint, suarez claims he did (said) nothing wrong. in light what what he said and the context, do you agree with him, yes or no?

[Paul Marin]

paul you are missing one important element to all of this, i think that the FA being a private body, did not have to hear this matter IF suarez had behaved differently after the allegations.

after evra made the complaint, suarez claims he did (said) nothing wrong. in light what what he said and the context, do you agree with him, yes or no?

Gamma - I totally agree. They botched it and screwed the player while doing so. I just posted in another thread (in response to you saying that Liverpool gave Suarez a disservice) that the Liverpool administration was at fault. Way back, I originally posted this:

Suarez in my opinion is no victim other than the victim of poor administration by the club, poor legal representation and a flawed tribunal process. I doesn't take much to realize his lawyer was off his game and that the tribunal's process and findings were inconsistent. If you read the report, it is SHOCKING how many disparities are in it. I could write an entire dissertation on the flaws in their report, not the least of which were a "Findings of Fact" which were nothing more than Evra's side of the story.

http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...yer#post339856