148 replies to this topic

[Andreas]

Banned for 8 games and fined 40k.

Guilty of racially abusing Evra.

[dkw]

Have you seen the official liverpool statement? Dear god, its appalling.

[Andreas]

Yes just read it, shocking stuff.

[TheWestwayWonder]

dkw, on 20 December 2011 - 08:53 PM, said:

Have you seen the official liverpool statement? Dear god, its appalling.

Just feeds the hysteria of their own fans. I dont see how a club run by intelligent people could insinuate the process used to convict one of hte Prem's biggest stars as a racist could have been "based on the word of a single player".

Then again, this is a club for which buck passing, baseless accusations, and laying the blame elsewhere have been honed down to a fine science. Maybe Benitez and Dalglish helped them craft the press release.

Edited by TheWestwayWonder, 20 December 2011 - 09:38 PM.

[Phillip]

Now I am really worried about the length of ban that JT will get.  15 games?  20 games?

sh*t!

[The Moos]

If Suarez gets eight games when there's no proof, I wonder what JT will get if he's found guilty (we can always hope they accept the explanation he's given).

[Castiel]

JT will face a firing squad tomorrow.  Then he'll face Spurs on Thursday.  Then maybe we'll rest him for Fulham, if only to give other players a go.

[Zola's Love Child]

What a messy situation this is.  Suarez is guilty of making an offensive comment of a racial nature, but is not a racist - and gets 8 games for this.  Until we get the FA's reasoning released we're going to be second guessing regarding this issue, but it sure hasn't been handled well by anyone.  The process dragged on too long - and now we've got this disciplinary panel making the decision.  I heard SSN mention it was headed by a QC and two others.  The question must be asked, what standards are the panel's held under.  Are we looking at criminal law?  If so, then every football game is full of offensive comments (often of a foul and degrading nature).  Is the 8 game ban only in place because it wasn't conducted by the FA's usual closed shop style disciplinarians?

The obvious conclusion to pull from this is that anything of a racial nature that the FA picks up, is going to be absolutely hammered, unless innocence can be proven.

Very messy all around.

[clubhappy]

Thought JT was being investigated and hasnt been charged with anything yet .

[CFCCAN]

If the reports I read are accurate that the panel simply accepted Evra's recollection of events over Suarez with no other evidence then I find it appalling that they came to this decision; was there other evidence that the public is not privy to?   I can only assume that they dug up some cultural guru from his South America who shot down Suarez's explanation that the words used were not in fact cultural.  Wasn't Evra charged also for winding Suarez up?

[dkw]

CFCCAN, on 21 December 2011 - 04:54 AM, said:

If the reports I read are accurate that the panel simply accepted Evra's recollection of events over Suarez with no other evidence then I find it appalling that they came to this decision; was there other evidence that the public is not privy to?   I can only assume that they dug up some cultural guru from his South America who shot down Suarez's explanation that the words used were not in fact cultural.  Wasn't Evra charged also for winding Suarez up?

Im not sure why you find it appalling, considering many many criminal cases see the same kind of conclusion due to one persons evidence. Suarez himself is supposed to admitted to using the word, but his defence was it isnt racist in his country and is more a term of endearment similar to "mate". Its not.

[Snedger]

I'm surprsied Liverpool didn't blame Chelsea. They could have recycled the one about Chelsea NF saying that they did it.

"It can clearly be seen that there is a man behind the goal in the front row of the cop who is not wearing a Liverpool shirt or scarf and his lips are motionless. This is obviously a ventriloquist Chelsea supporting member of the National Front".

[Snedger]

I read a thing called the Daily Mash. They have a funny article about Liverpool's response.

Quote

LIVERPOOL'S defence of banned striker Luis Suarez will continue to be based on a strict interpretation of Uruguayan semantics.

Suarez has been banned for eight matches after what Liverpool have described as a 'cultural snafu' between their striker and Manchester United's Patrice Evra.

A spokesman said: "If he was Argentinean and he came out with that sort of unpleasantness we'd have kicked his buttocks all the way back to Buenos Aires.

"But Luis is Uruguayan and therefore not capable of what you think is racism. In Uruguayan, the term 'negro' means 'lovely friend'. Unfortunately not everyone speaks fluent Uruguayan.

"So, in fact, Luis was actually telling Patrice that because of all the shoving they were now 'lovely friends forever' and hoped that, at the end of the season, they could perhaps go on a fishing holiday together .

"And then he said it another nine times."

The spokesman added: "And also, we are Liverpool. We are a lovely, cheeky, cuddly left-wing football club that takes everyone at face value and then makes a wonderful, pithy joke about our shared humanity."

An FA spokesman said: "We're assuming Suarez's appeal will involve the Uruguayan ambassador and a group of indigenous tribes people playing unusual wind instruments. So that's something to look forward to.

"In the meantime, it would be a lot easier if everyone just stuck to calling Patrice Evra an arsehole."

http://www.thedailym...'-201112214697/

[SHELLY]

I did something a bit sad today I went on RAWK for a look at how they are handling this, and the answer is not very well...They can't see the irony of defending their own player, while slagging off John Terry...basically they think he's got off lightly..Errmm the Police are involved and the consequences for Terry could be a lot more serious than an 8 match ban and 3 days wages...Some of them think JT should get a years ban, but have decided that the FA won't punish him because he is the England Captain...!

Unreal..!

[Mourinho]

-

Edited by Mourinho, 21 May 2012 - 01:34 PM.

[SHELLY]

Thats what the Scousers think, I am not as confident...!

[CFCCAN]

dkw, on 21 December 2011 - 08:41 AM, said:

Im not sure why you find it appalling, considering many many criminal cases see the same kind of conclusion due to one persons evidence. Suarez himself is supposed to admitted to using the word, but his defence was it isnt racist in his country and is more a term of endearment similar to "mate". Its not.

Having been involved in many Human Rights Tribunals, the decision would not surprise me as much as I might be appalled because the HRT always look after the apparent victim despite even over whelming evidence to the contrary, the FA on the other hand should see things fairly and impartial.  IF there was no other evidence   available and with the assumption that both individuals solidly kept to their story they can be no other conclusion than 'not proven' .   I am no Liverpool fan but this seems to me as if the FA wanted to send a strong message and I think that the appeal process will drag on for a while yet and I would not be surprised if the sentence was reduced or 'suspended'.

[dkw]

Maybe you should read this article, it says it much better than I ever could hope. http://www.surrealfo...ez-the-verdict/

Especially relevant to our conversation is this part:-

Quote

Which leads us neatly — this thing structures itself, doesn’t it? — onto the oh-so-vexed complaint that you can’t possibly reach a conclusion when it’s one man’s word against another. I happen to have some experience working for a body that frequently has to make decisions on the basis of such evidence, and if that body were to make a decision along the lines of “gosh, you say this, and you say that, and I just don’t know what to believe! Let’s leave it” then it would very likely be overturned in court.

When two people provide an account of something, and that account conflicts, then it is incumbent upon whoever’s job it is to judge them to consider the credibility, likelihood, consistency, and other aspects of each statement against each other. If you ask two people who won the 4.15 at Newton Abbot, and one tells you ” a horse” while the other says ” a unicorn”, then your own knowledge of the entry criteria for the race can help you choose one man’s word over the others even if there’s no other relevant evidence to hand.

[CFCCAN]

dkw, on 21 December 2011 - 02:25 PM, said:

Maybe you should read this article, it says it much better than I ever could hope. http://www.surrealfo...ez-the-verdict/

Especially relevant to our conversation is this part:-

Fair article and very valid points, as in all civil hearings (although this was a disciplinary committee) the writer is absolutely correct that the balance of probabilities is far less than required in a criminal trial.  One assumes that the 3 man panel were fair and honest men and qualified to make a sound judgement.  I can only assume (because no one knows) that Evra was more convincing in front of the panel than Suarez was, and that is what the judgement was based upon assuming no additional evidence was presented.  I concede to their judgement...but I don't neccessarily have to agree with it.

[dkw]

I think until we hear the official FA statement on the evidence presented we wont know what the outcome was wholly based on. But as Suarez`s defence was basically "yes I called him it but its ok in Uruguay and I thought it was ok here" I can see why they found him guilty of racist abuse. This doesnt necessarily make him racist though.