This is how you handle things, Paul and Peter

[Gamma]

then you take all wrong. suarez apologised as a last resort and even then, he did not apologise to evra ... not sure what he apologised for to be sure.

how is it disingenuous? it is what i would have expected from arsenal and the kind of players they have and how they behave as an organisation. cannot say the same thing for liverpool unfortunately ...

[Assasin]

"However, if you are truly serious about racism in football, then you should go after racists, not people who are accused wrongly and furthermore, you should make dyam sure that you are not hanging innocent people based on cultural misunderstandings or on the hidden agenda of the status quo. "

You can't have it both way. You either guilty or innocent. Is Suarez innocent????? I don't know who is racist unless the proclaim to be or show it up but when someone say a racist comment, I am not going to support it in ANY SHAPE OR FORM OR SUGAR COAT IT. It is not the end of the world, even good people do it, accept it, apologise and MOVE ON (THAT GOES FOR SUAREZ).

[Paul Marin]

"However, if you are truly serious about racism in football, then you should go after racists, not people who are accused wrongly and furthermore, you should make dyam sure that you are not hanging innocent people based on cultural misunderstandings or on the hidden agenda of the status quo. "

You can't have it both way. You either guilty or innocent. Is Suarez innocent????? I don't know who is racist unless the proclaim to be or show it up but when someone say a racist comment, I am not going to support it in ANY SHAPE OR FORM OR SUGAR COAT IT. It is not the end of the world, even good people do it, accept it, apologise and MOVE ON (THAT GOES FOR SUAREZ).

Tell me expressly what Suarez was guilty of. Please explain that.

[Paul Marin]

FACT the ball was going into the goal ... BUT FOR the hand ball it would have been a goal ... that is FACT, not conjecture.

Sorry - any first year philosophy logic student will tell you that "but for the hand ball would have been a goal" is conjecture. Not fact.

[Gamma]

this is not abstract, it is really simply a matter of looking at the footage.

interestingly though, you want to have it both ways. you claim they lost because gyan missed the penalty (presumably in open play) but it seems that the game went to penalities after that and gyan made that penalty ...so how do you reconcile that .. is that yuh just argumentative or that yuh just chat what it suit yuh fi chat at the time?

[Assasin]

"Suárez was hit with the hefty ban and fined £40,000 for racially abusing Manchester United’s Patrice Evra in the Premier League fixture between the clubs on Oct 15. "

Now you going to put the guilt on Kangaroo court and Evra. The same Kangaroo court that charge Frimpong.

[Assasin]

" is that yuh just argumentative or that yuh just chat what it suit yuh fi chat at the time?"
__________________


A dat mi a fi a wonder now.

[Paul Marin]

this is not abstract, it is really simply a matter of looking at the footage.

interestingly though, you want to have it both ways. you claim they lost because gyan missed the penalty (presumably in open play) but it seems that the game went to penalities after that and gyan made that penalty ...so how do you reconcile that .. is that yuh just argumentative or that yuh just chat what it suit yuh fi chat at the time?

You are correct. They did not lose because Gyan missed the penalty. They lost because they scored less penalties than Uruguay in the shoot out.

[Paul Marin]

"Suárez was hit with the hefty ban and fined £40,000 for racially abusing Manchester United’s Patrice Evra in the Premier League fixture between the clubs on Oct 15. "

Now you going to put the guilt on Kangaroo court and Evra. The same Kangaroo court that charge Frimpong.

Lord Almighty! This is where you and I differ: I will never subordinate my own principles for that of anyone else - so asking me to accept the judgment against Suarez in the face of overwhelming evidence that exonerates the man is akin to accepting tyranny. You are content with trusting their outcome without the responsibly verifying their findings. That mentality kept us enslaved for 400 years. You are welcomed to , but I ain't gonna go backwards.

Secondly, you are wrong on the statement "the same Kangaroo court that charge Frimpong". A court cannot charge anyone, but can only hear arguments put before it in order to render judgement. Frimpong, like Suarez was charged by the FA...but Frimpong, unlike Suarez, will not be subjected to lies being told about him and having those lies accepted by an organization with a thinly veiled agenda.

Make no mistake about it, Frimpong will be convicted as the precedent has been set through Suarez. That's the one good thing about the Suarez affair - the standard is such that anyone brought before the FA will now be fined/suspended unless they bring overwhelming evidence as to their innocence. Of course, there is the small matter as to whether Rio will be charged. What do you say on that one?

Oh - and by the way - if the Suarez affair is anything to go by, Frimpong will only get a one game ban. Suarez got 8 games for allegedly using the term "neh-gro" 8 times...seven of those times were based solely on Patrice LYAD Evra's testimony with no other corroborating evidence.

[Assasin]

If the court is a Kangaroo court, how do you know Evra is lying????

Do you believe Suarez only said it the one time? So he is also a liad?

My biggest concern is the game and getting racism out of the game. I know I have been racially abused in games already and I certainly didn't take it lying down. The fact is if the FA deemed what Rio said as racial so be it and he is charged, I have no problem with it.

We have come to far to simply put a blind eye to racism of any sort in the game.

First you contend that what Suarez said is not racist, Then you content Evra is a liad, then you contented that the court is Kangaroo court and telling me the meaning of "negro" in Suarez country to support your argument, then you are asking what is he charged for??? you don't see you are stretching it? Suarez is an idiot but Rio and Fergie are Scumbags.

I can say I would love you to be on my side, defending me, you and Peter going to be my "Al Sharpton" if I ever get in a little trubble because mi know even if I am guilty unnu a go fight for me .

[Paul Marin]

If the court is a Kangaroo court, how do you know Evra is lying???? Do you believe Suarez only said it the one time? So he is also a liad?

Issue 1: Is Evra lying? You tell me. If someone changes their story several times and uses about four or five different terms for what he alleges he was called with no evidence to support his claims despite having a battery of cameras pointed at the field, is that consistent with lying? If you don't think so, then we can agree to disagree.

Issue 2: Is Suarez lying? Suarez told the court he used the term "neh-gro" (very different from "knee-gro") in Spanish once. There is no concrete evidence to prove that he said this much less anything else other than over-weighting Evra's testimony. Had he denied it, there would have been no evidence against him whatsoever other than Evra's word. Is that consistent with someone who was trying to hide anything? Without concrete evidence, can you say the man is guilty? Remember, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

First you contend that what Suarez said is not racist, Then you content Evra is a liad, then you contented that the court is Kangaroo court and telling me the meaning of "negro" in Suarez country to support your argument, then you are asking what is he charged for???

Issue 3: Was what Suarez said racist? Evra and the FA were both clear to make statements that Suarez is not a racist. Why would they do this if they found him guilty of racially abusing Evra? Do you know? Afterall, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck why would you say it isn't a duck? Even so, referring to someone's colour is not automatically racist (see "Context" below).

Issue 4: Was the court a Kangaroo Court? I gave you one example before that the court took the Spanish words "concha de tu hermana" used by Evra in confronting Suarez and translated this figuratively (i.e. "f-ing hell"). They translated the term "negro" literally. Figuratively across the latin world "negro" can be translated to mean "pal", or "buddy". They also went against the expert testimony that says that were Suarez being offensive it is more likely that he would have said "negro mierda" ("shitty black"). There are other examples of their incongruence, but ask yourself - is this what you would want from a court if you were accused of racism? Why is there one standard for Suarez and another for Evra?

Issue 5: Context. If you can't understand that context matters and cultural differences matter then there is nothing to discuss. The meaning of the word in Uruguay is acceptable to me as they were speaking Spanish, were they speaking English, then Suarez would have been directly wrong...no ifs and or buts as the word in English is unacceptable. To give you an example I've used before, if an Englishman asked an undercover cop in NYC where he could get a "fag" (meaning cigarette) do you think he should be locked up for soliciting male prostitution?

You don't see you are stretching it?

Issue 6: Am I stretching it? No. Take the time to objectively read the 115 page report; substitute for Suarez an accused black Jamaican youth with barely a high school education being tried in a foreign language. Substitute for Evra a white woman accusing him of rape. Then come back and talk to me.

Suarez is an idiot but Rio and Fergie are Scumbags.

Issue 7: Is Suarez and idiot? Are Rio and Slurgie scumbags?: Yes on all counts, but even idiots and scumbags deserve fairness. Rio and Slurgie's scumbaggery preceded the Suarez affair, so that bit is irrelevant. By the way, Rio has not been charged by the FA...correct me if I'm wrong.

[Paul Marin]

I can say I would love you to be on my side, defending me, you and Peter going to be my "Al Sharpton" if I ever get in a little trubble because mi know even if I am guilty unnu a go fight for me .

And by the way...you bet your bottom dollar that if you were wrongly accused I would fight for you same way...as I would for anyone on this board even Jangle - poor ting, him cyan fight even a flea fi himself.

[Paul Marin]

then you take all wrong. suarez apologised as a last resort and even then, he did not apologise to evra ... not sure what he apologised for to be sure.

how is it disingenuous? it is what i would have expected from arsenal and the kind of players they have and how they behave as an organisation. cannot say the same thing for liverpool unfortunately ...

What basis are you saying that he apologised as a "last resort"? Last resort to what? Would you apologise to someone who you believe lied? The same someone that starts a conversation with you telling you about your sister's privates? He also apologised to the club for the "non-handshake" - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...vras-hand.html so how much more than that do you need? As you showed in what I posted before, I would have stepped in that lying dwarf Evra's throat before I apologised to him if I was in Suarez's shoes.

As far as the Arsenal approach being disingenuous, it is not that ARSENAL is disingenuous, it is you all for thinking that they are not factoring in the recent events with JT, Rio and Suarez. To think that they haven't is patently ridiculous. This post is entitled: "This is how you handle things, Paul and Peter".

[Assasin]

it is only sad that Suarez is guilty of abusing Evra.

[Paul Marin]

it is only sad that Suarez is guilty of abusing Evra.

You mean sad that he was WRONG FOUND GUILTY ...