9 - Luis Suárez - v1

[Catalonian Devil]

Except nothing on that report is backed up by any concrete evidence and none of the witnesses confirms Evra's story.

It's 115 pages of no conclusive evidence at all and absurd statements like "Mr Suarez was not as impressive a witness as Mr Evra." It's 115 pages of absolute irrelevance. It'd be completely worthless before any real court of law.

The FA has possibly destroyed a player's career and reputation based on circumstantial evidence and hearsay, it's frankly a disgrace. A decision like this can never be made unless the facts are proved beyond any reasonable doubt, which is not even close to being the case here, as there's not one single piece of solid/irrefutable evidence.

Oh please, I'm pretty sure Suarez doesn't need the FA's help to earn himself any negative reputation ...

As far as the report is concerned I really couldn't care less whether it stands in a court of law or not. I wanted to have a better understanding of what truly happened and now I do. I'm basing my opinion off reading several non-contradicting quotes and statements from different witnesses. They all help form a clearer picture of what happened during that match, are they enough for convicting someone? I really don't know as I don't study law and I don't really care but there's little room left for imagination after reading all the statements. Its pretty clear to me what happened, Suarez racially abused Evra ( who I really don't care about) not once but multiple times and it wasn't just a 'slur' like I hoped it was, he degraded him in a disgusting manner.

A disgusting human being.

 

[Manuel Traquete]

Oh please, I'm pretty sure Suarez doesn't need the FA's help to earn himself any negative reputation ...

As far as the report is concerned I really couldn't care less whether it stands in a court of law or not. I wanted to have a better understanding of what truly happened and now I do. I'm basing my opinion off reading several non-contradicting quotes and statements from different witnesses. They all help form a clearer picture of what happened during that match, are they enough for convicting someone? I really don't know as I don't study law and I don't really care but there's little room left for imagination after reading all the statements. Its pretty clear to me what happened, Suarez racially abused Evra ( who I really don't care about) not once but multiple times and it wasn't just a 'slur' like I hoped it was, he degraded him in a disgusting manner.

A disgusting human being.

After this, I imagine it will be much harder for him if he ever wants to move to another club for instance.

I wonder how you got a better understanding of what really happened. We basically have at least six different accounts of events: Evra and Suarez's of course and those from the four United players, who are all different and frankly not very consistent. So what exactly happened? Why should we believe Evra's version over the other five? There's no video or audio evidence or any witnesses at all to back up Evra's version.

Did this really give you a better picture of what happened? It only made me have even more doubts.

 

[Catalonian Devil]

After this, I imagine it will be much harder for him if he ever wants to move to another club for instance.

I wonder how you got a better understanding of what really happened. We basically have at least six different accounts of events: Evra and Suarez's of course and those from the four United players, who are all different and frankly not very consistent. So what exactly happened? Why should we believe Evra's version over the other five? There's no video or audio evidence or any witnesses at all to back up Evra's version.

Did this really give you a better picture of what happened? It only made me have even more doubts.

I find the core scenario consistent with maybe a few variation in some parts.

My view of what happened after reading all the statements is something around this:

- Evra was fouled by Suarez
- Evra insulted Suarez's sister
- Suarez didn't hear the insult but heard Evra say something and so asked him what he said.
- The exchange then revolved around Suarez telling Evra that he fouled him/doesn't talk to him because he's black, repeatedly.
- Kuyt tries to calm the situation but Evra is irritated and shoves Kuyt's hands. Ref books him.
- Evra tells the Ref that Suarez racially abused him but the former brushes it off and tells him to calm down.

The ref would later recall the incident after it was formally brought to his attention by SAF and Evra post-match...

Just because there isn't concrete video and audio evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. One could gather all the information to get as close as possible to the truth.
Once again I don't really care about the conviction but I wanted to get an idea of the sequence of events and the nature of the abuse...

 

[Metaphysical]

Mr Suarez spoke in Spanish to Mr Comolli soon after the game about this serious allegation. Mr Suarez also spoke in Dutch to Mr Kuyt. Both Mr Comolli and Mr Kuyt understood Mr Suarez to have told them that when he spoke to Mr Evra he said words which translate into English as, "Because you are black". According to Mr Suarez, Mr Comolli misheard what Mr Suarez said in Spanish, and Mr Kuyt misheard what Mr Suarez said in Dutch.

304. Mr Dalglish told the referee that Mr Suarez responded with "you are black" having first been taunted with "you are South American"...

which leads to

...If that is correct, it would suggest that Mr Dalglish understood Mr Suarez's comment to be in the nature of retaliation for having been called "South American". But that would suggest that the riposte "You are black" was used in a derogatory sense, which is contrary to Mr Suarez's case. In fact, Mr Suarez told us that he did not consider being described as South American to be derogatory, so it is difficult to understand why this was referred to as a "taunt".

 

[Manuel Traquete]

I find the core scenario consistent with maybe a few variation in some parts.

My view of what happened after reading all the statements is something around this:

- Evra was fouled by Suarez
- Evra insulted Suarez's sister
- Suarez didn't hear the insult but heard Evra say something and so asked him what he said.
- The exchange then revolved around Suarez telling Evra that he fouled him/doesn't talk to him because he's black, repeatedly.
- Kuyt tries to calm the situation but Evra is irritated and shoves Kuyt's hands. Ref books him.
- Evra tells the Ref that Suarez racially abused him but the former brushes it off and tells him to calm down.

The ref would later recall the incident after it was formally brought to his attention by SAF and Evra post-match...

Just because there isn't concrete video and audio evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. One could gather all the information to get as close as possible to the truth.
Once again I don't really care about the conviction but I wanted to get an idea of the sequence of events and the nature of the abuse...

The bold point is the core issue here and the one that lacks proof. Basically, only Evra has claimed that. Suarez denied it, the four Manchester United witnesses didn't confirm it. Suarez repeatedly insulting Evra racially is something that is only backed by Evra's words. There are many questions left unanswered, most importantly: what did Suarez exactly say to Evra? What did Evra say with Suarez? With what tone?

Especially as Barca fans, we shouldn't be accusing Suarez based on so little. This is exactly what many people did with Busquets last year, branding him a racist based on Marcelo's words and dubious lip-reading from a video. My stance is the same as it was back then with Busquets: innocent unless proven guilty. And frankly, these "findings" are no help at all.

 

[Metaphysical]

The bold point is the core issue here and the one that lacks proof. Basically, only Evra has claimed that. Suarez denied it, the four Manchester United witnesses didn't confirm it. Suarez repeatedly insulting Evra racially is something that is only backed by Evra's words. There are many questions left unanswered, most importantly: what did Suarez exactly say to Evra? What did Evra say with Suarez? With what tone?

Especially as Barca fans, we shouldn't be accusing Suarez based on so little. This is exactly what many people did with Busquets last year, branding him a racist based on Marcelo's words and dubious lip-reading from a video. My stance is the same as it was back then with Busquets: innocent unless proven guilty. And frankly, these "findings" are no help at all.

firstly: the Busquets case was nothing like this one. there we had a player and club who said nothing about racism for a week after the event despite complaining about everything else imaginable - it was part of a massive smear campaign against us. who presented doctored evidence to UEFA (the slow-mo multi-replay subtitled video). and who seemingly coerced their own player into testifying (he never said anything publicly & never reacted in the match itself).

secondly: Suarez's version of events don't match up with the video evidence they have (it expands on that in the report). and he's changed his story numerous times (expands on that too). and pinching someone to try and diffuse an argumentis the kind of excuse I'd expect from a 5 year old (and that, too, is covered).

he's damned by testimony from his own team-mates. unless you truly believe that two people misheard him saying the exact same thing on different occasions in different languages. and his own manager fucks him up by trying to invent an excuse on the fly with his "but he started it!" bullshit.

 

[Manuel Traquete]

Mr Suarez spoke in Spanish to Mr Comolli soon after the game about this serious allegation. Mr Suarez also spoke in Dutch to Mr Kuyt. Both Mr Comolli and Mr Kuyt understood Mr Suarez to have told them that when he spoke to Mr Evra he said words which translate into English as, "Because you are black". According to Mr Suarez, Mr Comolli misheard what Mr Suarez said in Spanish, and Mr Kuyt misheard what Mr Suarez said in Dutch.

304. Mr Dalglish told the referee that Mr Suarez responded with "you are black" having first been taunted with "you are South American"...

which leads to

...If that is correct, it would suggest that Mr Dalglish understood Mr Suarez's comment to be in the nature of retaliation for having been called "South American". But that would suggest that the riposte "You are black" was used in a derogatory sense, which is contrary to Mr Suarez's case. In fact, Mr Suarez told us that he did not consider being described as South American to be derogatory, so it is difficult to understand why this was referred to as a "taunt".

I agree that Liverpool's defense was not very impressive and had its fair share of goals. But it didn't really need to be.

Evra is the one with the burden of proof, he's the one who needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Suarez did insult him, not the other way round, as the report itself states. It's not Liverpool that have to prove that what Evra says didn't happen, it's Evra who has to prove (beyond doubt) that it did happen.

The burden of proof

75. It is common ground between the parties that the burden of proving a breach of Rule
E3(1) and (2) lies on the FA. It is not for Mr Suarez to satisfy the Commission that he did
not breach the Rules. Rather, it is for the FA to satisfy us to the required standard that Mr
Suarez did breach the Rules.

And frankly there's not one piece of solid, conclusive evidence in these 115 pages. It's a decision based on circumstantial evidence, hearsay and, apparently, Evra being "a more impressive witness" than Suarez. It's a joke decision.

 

[Manuel Traquete]

firstly: the Busquets case was nothing like this one. there we had a player and club who said nothing about racism for a week after the event despite complaining about everything else imaginable - it was part of a massive smear campaign against us. who presented doctored evidence to UEFA (the slow-mo multi-replay subtitled video). and who seemingly coerced their own player into testifying (he never said anything publicly & never reacted in the match itself).

secondly: Suarez's version of events don't match up with the video evidence they have (it expands on that in the report). and he's changed his story numerous times (expands on that too). and pinching someone to try and diffuse an argumentis the kind of excuse I'd expect from a 5 year old (and that, too, is covered).

he's damned by testimony from his own team-mates. unless you truly believe that two people misheard him saying the exact same thing on different occasions in different languages. and his own manager fucks him up by trying to invent an excuse on the fly with his "but he started it!" bullshit.

It was like this one in the sense that a player was unanimously considered guilty by people despite lack of evidence. Busquets was vilified beyond belief and branded as a racist simply because Marcelo said so.

And yes, I know Liverpool's defense wasn't the most convincing. But that'd only be relevant if Evra had actually been able to prove anything, which clearly isn't the case. Each of the United players has a different version of what Suarez said, from a very short to a very long sentence, and none confirms that Suarez repeatedly abused Evra, which is the main issue here.

And I wonder why the last part of Hernandez's account was left out; apparently it was his interpretation of the finer meaning, in Spanish, of what Suarez had said and its tone. That could actually have been some useful information.

Just to avoid any misinterpretations, I'm in no way claiming that Evra/Suarez are innocent/guilty nor am I in any way defending racism. I'm just defending transparency and a fair trial. I don't believe a player (or any person for that matter) should be convicted for something as serious as racism unless it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. This report, however, offers no solid evidence at all.

Of course that if he is found guilty of racism beyond any reasonable doubt, not only should he be heavily punished by the FA but Evra should file criminal charges against him, as racism should never be accepted or tolerated

 

[Metaphysical]

so first it was

"he didn't say anything!! Evra made it up!"

then it was

"he said something, but it wasn't an offensive term!"

then we had

"he said something, but he didn't know it was racist!"

and then

"the ban is ridiculous! it's a conspiracy!"

and now we have

"there's no proof beyond of reasonable doubt! YOU CANNOT CONVICT! THIS IS A FARCE!"

this isn't a Court of Law. they're not sending him to jail. you don't need 100% beyond all reasonable doubt proof to suspend someone internally as they have.

and Suarez & Liverpool won't take this higher (if they're smart... which tbh they're clearly not so you never know) because they know they've already made such utter fucks out of themselves no court will take their claim seriously. it will be obvious they're trying to use a technicality to get Suarez off the hook for a crime he's (hilariously) admitted to committing. everyone on Suarez's side of the case (including Suarez himself) has basically fucked him with differing stories and constantly changing accounts of what happened.

 

[Manuel Traquete]

so first it was

"he didn't say anything!! Evra made it up!"

then it was

"he said something, but it wasn't an offensive term!"

then we had

"he said something, but he didn't know it was racist!"

and then

"the ban is ridiculous! it's a conspiracy!"

and now we have

"there's no proof beyond of reasonable doubt! YOU CANNOT CONVICT! THIS IS A FARCE!"

I never said any of the first four...

this isn't a Court of Law. they're not sending him to jail. you don't need 100% beyond all reasonable doubt proof to suspend someone internally as they have.

and Suarez & Liverpool won't take this higher (if they're smart... which tbh they're clearly not so you never know) because they know they've already made such utter fucks out of themselves no court will take their claim seriously. it will be obvious they're trying to use a technicality to get Suarez off the hook for a crime he's (hilariously) admitted to committing. everyone on Suarez's side of the case (including Suarez himself) has basically fucked him with differing stories and constantly changing accounts of what happened.

It's a decision that will affect a player's career and reputation in every possible way. You definitely need proof beyond any reasonable doubt to punish someone for racism.

And Liverpool would definitely be smart to take this higher. If the "findings" of this report are all there is to this case, Liverpool would win this case very easily in the CPS, they don't even need competent lawyers. And what do you mean "their claim"? Liverpool don't have to claim anything, if the case goes to a real court, it's Evra who has to prove he was insulted, not the other way round.

 

[Metaphysical]

It was like this one in the sense that a player was unanimously considered guilty by people despite lack of evidence. Busquets was vilified beyond belief and branded as a racist simply because Marcelo said so.

he was branded a racist because Real Madrid released an excellent bit of propaganda to make him look like one.

no one gave a fuck about Marcelo's testimony (private, late, probably coerced & never remarked upon again). it was all about the video, which was so magnificently manipulated that Stalin himself would be proud. it was a stellar piece of propaganda.

as for being vilified because of a lie, who gives a fuck? he's a big boy, he can take it.

And I wonder why the last part of Hernandez's account was left out; apparently it was his interpretation of the finer meaning, in Spanish, of what Suarez had said and its tone. That could actually have been some useful information.

they explained that too.

There was one caveat to this which was that Mr Greaney invited the Commission to attach no weight to paragraph 8 of Hernandez's statement, which largely contained a statement of his opinion on the use of the Spanish language (on the basis that a witness may generally only give evidence of facts, not opinion unless he is called as an expert, here in the Spanish language, which Hernandez was not).

Hernandez wasn't called in as an expert (they did get experts in, however), but as a witness. so his opinion was/is irrelevant. fairly straightforward.

 

[Manuel Traquete]

they explained that too.

There was one caveat to this which was that Mr Greaney invited the Commission to attach no weight to paragraph 8 of Hernandez's statement, which largely contained a statement of his opinion on the use of the Spanish language (on the basis that a witness may generally only give evidence of facts, not opinion unless he is called as an expert, here in the Spanish language, which Hernandez was not).

Hernandez wasn't called in as an expert (they did get experts in, however), but as a witness. so his opinion was/is irrelevant. fairly straightforward.

Yeah, I read that and I kind of understand it. But I still think Hernandez's interpretation would have been interesting information. Unlike the Spanish language experts, he was actually there when Suarez said, presumably heard it and picked up his tone. I'd definitely like to know what he said. While not very relevant from an evidence point of view, it'd be interesting insight from a native Spanish speaker. Of course assuming that Hernandez's observations were directly related to Suarez's words and were not just general observations about the Spanish language.

 

[Metaphysical]

It's a decision that will affect a player's career and reputation in every possible way. You definitely need proof beyond any reasonable doubt to punish someone for racism.

they have everything but 100% conclusive proof. if this was a movie, Suarez would be the bad guy who gets away with it because there's no 100% conclusive proof, even though everyone knows he's guilty. reading the report, it's staggeringly obvious he's guilty. I'm amazed anyone can come to a different conclusion.

And Liverpool would definitely be smart to take this higher. If the "findings" of this report are all there is to this case, Liverpool would win this case very easily in the CPS, they don't even need competent lawyers. And what do you mean "their claim"? Liverpool don't have to claim anything, if the case goes to a real court, it's Evra who has to prove he was insulted, not the other way round.

I mean if this case goes to court, it will be at the behest of Liverpool. they will be claiming the independent commission's ruling is incorrect. that is the claim I'm talking about.

and I don't think they'll take it higher. it would be a PR disaster to use a legal loophole to try and get Suarez off for an offence he quite obviously committed. they already look foolish enough and I'd be amazed if the Americans don't step in now and tell Commoli, Dalglish, etc. to stop making such utter fucks of themselves.

 

[Metaphysical]

and finally, just for Nolan:

In Uruguay and other areas of Latin America, some people who self-identify as black object to the use of the word "negro" as a term of address, as they say it highlights skin colour when this should be irrelevant; they point out that the term "blanco" [white] is 46 rarely used in this fashion. Others, however, actively claim the term "negro" as a political identity, seeking to overturn its possible negative connotations.

The word "negro" can have pejorative connotations, as it may be associated with low class status, ugliness, vulgar behaviour, noisiness, violence, dishonesty, sexual promiscuity etc. In the River Plate region, for example, "los negros" is sometimes employed as a general term for the lower classes and especially for lower-class people whose behaviour is deemed vulgar and not "respectable".

 

[Manuel Traquete]

they have everything but 100% conclusive proof. if this was a movie, Suarez would be the bad guy who gets away with it because there's no 100% conclusive proof, even though everyone knows he's guilty. reading the report, it's staggeringly obvious he's guilty. I'm amazed anyone can come to a different conclusion.

Which is exactly what is required to punish someone based on racism. It's very easy to doubt that he's guilty, at least in the terms described. There are at least six different accounts of what happened: Suarez and Evra obviously have different accounts, and the four United players all have different accounts as well, and no one confirms Evra's. I frankly can't extract any definite conclusions from that report. What I find odd is that they ruled in favor of Evra based on him being a reliable witness when none of his teammates and no one and no evidence confirmed his version of the story.

I mean if this case goes to court, it will be at the behest of Liverpool. they will be claiming the independent commission's ruling is incorrect. that is the claim I'm talking about.

and I don't think they'll take it higher. it would be a PR disaster to use a legal loophole to try and get Suarez off for an offence he quite obviously committed. they already look foolish enough and I'd be amazed if the Americans don't step in now and tell Commoli, Dalglish, etc. to stop making such utter fucks of themselves.

Legal loophole? What? Innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt is no legal loophole, it's the basic principle of the criminal justice system in like every democratic country. Taking a case to the courts is not exploiting a legal loophole...

If Suarez has convinced them that he's innocent, I see no reason why Liverpool wouldn't take it higher. There's basically no chance they can lose if the "findings" in this report are all Evra has. Needless to say, the CPS wouldn't take any of these finding seriously.

Seriously, if it happened, the only ones to be made fools of would be Evra and the FA. As you might imagine, a decision from the CPS would carry infinitely more weight and credibility than the decison of the FA and some independent commission.