9 - Luis Suárez - v1

[Sewelly]

Clearly a racist.

 

[Sergio]

The reaction from Liverpool fans has been comical. They're desperately saying anything they can to avoid admitting what a joke the club looks like right now, but if anything, they're just digging a deeper hole for themselves.

Agreed.

Wonder how long it will be before Liverpool FC produce t shirts in support of fellow misunderstood hard-line racists like Robert Mugabe and Nick Griffin.

 

[ricknattery]

negro, nigger, nero, aswad, black etc... doesnt matter what it is, in any langauge once you bring skin color into discussion you are a twat and bound to get fucked. sentence deserved just not
well proven.

this is what i'm saying

 

[Manuel Traquete]

what would you like as a proof beyond reasonable doubt? an audiovisual tape of the exact moment of Suarez an Evra argument? you will never find anything like that. The Independet comission makes a decision based an all the information they adquire and Suarez and his defense had contradicted themselves many times plus they have accepted he said the word "negro". Do you still think it was in an endearing manner? obviously not, so he did it in a degrading manner aka racist abuse. And that's it. Lawyers like to exploit the "without reasonable doubt" even knowing their client is obviously guilty, and this is the case you are trying to make here

That's because that is the core principle of criminal justice in any democratic country. It's no exploitation of a hole, it's how things should be done. The principle of "innocent unless proven beyond any reasonable doubt" has a very simple reason: it's better to leave a guilty man free than to convict an innocent one.

Racism is a criminal offense, by analogy the same principle should have been used in this case even if it's an FA case. A decision with such an impact on a player's career/reputation can't be taken "on the balance of probabilities".

And no, we don't need audio/video evidence, although it'd obviously be very helpful. If the witnesses that were close to the events (the referee, the players...) had unanimously confirmed Evra's version of events, it could easily be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Suarez was guilty, and not only should his punishment be longer, he should also have criminal charges against him. But not even one witness confirmed the accusation...

Yes, they accepted he used the word negro, and there should be punishment for that (although light) even if it was used in a non-racist manner. But we need to prove that it was used in a racist manner (racism is not just about words, but intent) and repeatedly as Evra claims in a taunting manner. If these allegations had been proved, Suarez's punishment would have been fully justified, maybe not even heavy enough. But all we have to back this up are the words of one man.

And I repeat that it is not very relevant that Liverpool contradicted themselves repeatedly, they're not the ones who have to prove anything, the burden of proof likes with the accuser. Only if Evra had managed to prove anything would Liverpool's defense gain significant revelance.

Before anyone accuses me of defending racism or anything, I'm not on Evra's or Suarez's side. I just want the truth to be unveiled in a satisfactory fashion before decisions are made, which is definitely not the case here. The report raises more questions that answers.

 

[Deco 20]

you talk about the language experts saying it would be odd that Suarez said that as a racial slur. well is it not odd that from both spanish and dutch, Comoli and Kuyt come up with the same translation as Evra, 'because you are black'? What was the context of their exchange? certainly not friendly, and clearly said to insult and wind up.

Suarez admitted calling him 'negro' for goodness sake. that alone should be enough. then you add the fact that suarez changed his story multiple times.

Do you know if Evra really admitted to calling Suarez a "Sudaca"? Because if he did he should be banned too.

 

[Hatem Ben Arfa]

That's because that is the core principle of criminal justice in any democratic country. It's no exploitation of a hole, it's how things should be done. The principle of "innocent unless proven beyond any reasonable doubt" has a very simple reason: it's better to leave a guilty man free than to convict an innocent one.

Racism is a criminal offense, by analogy the same principle should have been used in this case even if it's an FA case. A decision with such an impact on a player's career/reputation can't be taken "on the balance of probabilities".

And no, we don't need audio/video evidence, although it'd obviously be very helpful. If the witnesses that were close to the events (the referee, the players...) had unanimously confirmed Evra's version of events, it could easily be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Suarez was guilty, and not only should his punishment be longer, he should also have criminal charges against him. But not even one witness confirmed the accusation...

Yes, they accepted he used the word negro, and there should be punishment for that (although light) even if it was used in a non-racist manner. But we need to prove that it was used in a racist manner (racism is not just about words, but intent) and repeatedly as Evra claims in a taunting manner. If these allegations had been proved, Suarez's punishment would have been fully justified, maybe not even heavy enough. But all we have to back this up are the words of one man.

And I repeat that it is not very relevant that Liverpool contradicted themselves repeatedly, they're not the ones who have to prove anything, the burden of proof likes with the accuser. Only if Evra had managed to prove anything would Liverpool's defense gain significant revelance.

Before anyone accuses me of defending racism or anything, I'm not on Evra's or Suarez's side. I just want the truth to be unveiled in a satisfactory fashion before decisions are made, which is definitely not the case here. The report raises more questions that answers.

Dear GOD it has finally taken you all this time to acknowledge that he ADMITTED TO CALLING HIM 'NEGRO'.

you don't need a witness to see that the context was that of an argument.

He meant it in an insulting way and to wind up, just like pinching Evra on the arm (which he claimed was to defuse the siutation). why should it be a light punishment for him calling 'negro'?

GOD you are unbelievable. IT IS PROVEN THAT SUAREZ REFERRED TO EVRA AS 'NEGRO' IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ARGUMENT. Now you claim it has to backed up by a witness near the two of them when it happened to dertermine it was done in a tuanting manner, and if not well then he's innocent in your eyes. PATHETIC!

I'm not going to bother with you anymore, you have decided to stick your head in the sand on this one.

 

[Hatem Ben Arfa]

Do you know if Evra really admitted to calling Suarez a "Sudaca"? Because if he did he should be banned too.

He did not use that term.

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Discipli...Written Reasons of Regulatory Commission.ashx

 

[Manuel Traquete]

Dear GOD it has finally taken you all this time to acknowledge that he ADMITTED TO CALLING HIM 'NEGRO'.

you don't need a witness to see that the context was that of an argument.

He meant it in an insulting way and to wind up. why should it be a light punishment for him calling 'negro'?

GOD you are unbelievable. IT IS PROVEN THAT SUAREZ REFERRED TO EVRA AS 'NEGRO' IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ARGUMENT. Now you claim it has to backed up by a witness near the two of them when it happened to dertermine it was done in a tuanting manner, and if not well then he's innocent in your eyes. PATHETIC!

I'm not going to bother with you anymore, you have decided to stick your head in the sand on this one.

Do you have any real, non-hysterical arguments to back up your claims?

Ah I knew all along that he admitted to calling him "negro" and that it was in the context of an argument. So?

And he should be punished (lightly) for the use of the word alone - as should Evra if it had been proved that he called Suarez "sudaca" or whatever offensive term it was. He's never innocent per se in my eyes. He's innocent of what he's been charged with specifically (that paragraph I posted), which hasn't been proved at all. If the charge is racism, obviously the racist intent of his words must be proved. I'm surprised that this comes as a shock.

Again, let me remind you that Suarez isn't being accused of stealing Evra's lunch money, he's being accused of racial insults, which is not only against football law, but it is a criminal offense. There's no way he can be convicted on circumstantial (at best) evidence.

A poster in the previous page put it very well:

Is this how you would like to be treated in a case? Do you really want "it's obvious to me he did it, I don't care if there's concrete evidence" to become a precedent?

But I guess the only way you'll ever understand is if you're ever charged with a crime and found guilty with no evidence...

 

[ricknattery]

Yes, they accepted he used the word negro, and there should be punishment for that (although light) even if it was used in a non-racist manner. But we need to prove that it was used in a racist manner (racism is not just about words, but intent) and repeatedly as Evra claims in a taunting manner. If these allegations had been proved, Suarez's punishment would have been fully justified, maybe not even heavy enough. But all we have to back this up are the words of one man.

In which other manner he could have said so? You bring the word "negro" in a heated moment, and your intent is clear

 

[bMd-]

Manuel running around in circles, that's how I see it.

 

[Hatem Ben Arfa]

Do you have any real, non-hysterical arguments to back up your claims?

Ah I knew all along that he admitted to calling him "negro" and that it was in the context of an argument. So?

And he should be punished (lightly) for the use of the word alone - as should Evra if it had been proved that he called Suarez "sudaca" or whatever offensive term it was. He's never innocent per se in my eyes. He's innocent of what he's been charged with specifically (that paragraph I posted), which hasn't been proved at all. If the charge is racism, obviously the racist intent of his words must be proved. I'm surprised that this comes as a shock.

Again, let me remind you that Suarez isn't being accused of stealing Evra's lunch money, he's being accused of racial insults, which is not only against football law, but it is a criminal offense. There's no way he can be convicted on circumstantial (at best) evidence.

A poster in the previous page put it very well:



But I guess the only way you'll ever understand is if you're ever charged with a crime and found guilty with no evidence...

so? SO? you really are not worth bothering with.

this is charge:

The
charge brought is that Mr Suarez used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour
towards Mr Evra contrary to Rule E3(1), and that this breach of Rule E3(1) included a
reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race within the meaning of Rule
E3(2).

He clearly called him 'negro' as insult in the contex of their argument. That also clearly referred to the colour of his skin. You want someone to have been right next to them listening to everything they said as witness otherwise Suarez is innocent which is pathetic. DeGea was focusing on the corner kick as stated and did not hear what they were saying to each other. Because there was no one else to hear you are saying Suarez is innocent when it is clear what he has admitted to and what Dalglish, Comolio and Kuyt have said that is damning of Suarez. you aslo say we can't take translations of what he said to Kuyt and Comolio and use them against him because they are second hand, even though both translations in 2 different languages come out the same

Suarez never claimed Evra called him 'sudaca', read the freaking report. Suarez claimed he was called 'south american' by Evra. NOT SUDACA.

Like I said I'm not going to bother with you anymore, you are not worth it.

 

[Manuel Traquete]

In which other manner he could have said so? You bring the word "negro" in a heated moment, and your intent is clear

Points 167 to 176 of the report explore the various different finer meanings of the word.

The fact that they were in a heated moment in no way makes it clear that the intent was racist. Pejorative intent? Surely. Racist? Not sure at all. The fact that we have six different accounts (Suarez, Evra and the 4 United players), completely inconsistent, of what Suarez really said, doesn't help at all.

Also, although this is by no means factual evidence of anything, I have my doubts as to the racist intent in Suarez's words. I'm not Spanish, but I'm Portuguese, which is also a Latin language in many ways similar to Spanish. The word "negro/preto" alone isn't really that offensive. It is in no way similar to the English word "nigga".

I want to know what Suarez and Evra said to each other exactly (six different accounts of events aren't helping here) and, more importantly, the tone/intent. The thing is that Evra's version was accepted despite the lack of any concrete evidence and not witness conforming it. Basically, the only evidence that Evra's version is true is that Evra said so.

Manuel running around in circles, that's how I see it.

There's no other way, I'm afraid. No matter how the case is spinned, it always comes down to the fact that a career/reputation-tarnishing decision was made with no real evidence, "on the balance of probabilities" apparently.

The "It's obvious he did it, therefore he did it" argument seems to be the popular one around here unfortunately.

so? SO? you really are not worth bothering with.

this is charge:

The
charge brought is that Mr Suarez used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour
towards Mr Evra contrary to Rule E3(1), and that this breach of Rule E3(1) included a
reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race within the meaning of Rule
E3(2).

He clearly called him 'negro' as insult in the contex of their argument. That also clearly referred to the colour of his skin. You want someone to have been right next to them listening to everything they said as witness otherwise Suarez is innocent which is pathetic. DeGea was focusing on the corner kick as stated and did not hear what they were saying to each other. Because there was no one else to hear you are saying Suarez is innocent when it is clear what he has admitted to and what Dalglish, Comolio and Kuyt have said that is damning of Suarez. you aslo say we can't take translations of what he said to Kuyt and Comolio and use them against him because they are second hand, even though both translations in 2 different languages come out the same

Suarez never claimed Evra called him 'sudaca', read the freaking report. Suarez claimed he was called 'south american' by Evra. NOT SUDACA.

Like I said I'm not going to bother with you anymore, you are not worth it.

Ah no, this is the charge, the case against Suarez:

5. The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to
each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the
foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because
you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch
you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr
Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr
Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie".
As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr
Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to
him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he
just called me a fucking black"


This is the case/charge that needs to be proved.

I never said we can't take the translations because they're second hand, they are just not very relevant unless Evra/the FA can actually prove their charge, which is that Suarez repeatedly insulted Evra and did so with racist intent.

And yes, you shouldn't bother arguing with me anymore (although I don't really mind if you do) unless you can bring some real points forward and not this regurgitating of the "It's obvious he did it, therefore he did it" mantra, society would be chaotic if real law (and not just the joke FA/FIFA law) worked like this.

 

[Deco 20]

He did not use that term.

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Discipli...Written Reasons of Regulatory Commission.ashx

Well then that's that (I didn't read that, it's 150 pages after all, but I take your word for it)

 

[Ambrosia]

ADD TO THAT SUAREZ ADMITTED TO CALLING HIM 'NEGRO'! DOES THAT MEAN NOTHING?

For someone who claims to have read the report you are missing the point.

I'll dumb it down for you though. You can thank me later.

Para 182. which is based on Evra's testimony the linguistic experts found the phrase that Evra accuses Suarez of saying to be "slightly unusual" and that perhaps another phrase would have been more appropriate to use if Suarez had intended racism. Interestingly, the panel seemed to ignore this aspect of the experts view.

Para 191 which is based on Suarez's testimony the linguistic experts found the use of the phrase "por que, negro?" sounds right linguistically and culturally. In para 190 and i quote "in Rioplatense Spanish the use of "negro" as described here by Mr Suarez would not be offensive".

So you can throw away the argument that his usage of the word negro is enough to convict him because the proper experts (i.e. not you) concluded para 194 "if Mr Suarez used the word "negro" as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America".

Suarez was basically convicted on one man's word i.e. that Evra's account of events were correct even though in a crowded penalty box no one caught Suarez using the word "negro" in a racist manner even though he it is alleged he said it a number of times.

That is a miscarriage of justice right there and any reasonable human being would see it a such.

 

[Ambrosia]

I find it funny that users from RAWK(Ambrosia) try and defend the racist scumbag. He even admitted he called Evra a vile word. I'm really hoping he gets the full 8 match ban.

I don't post on RAWK.

Said vile word in the context in which he says he used in wasn't considered offensive by the linguistic experts used in this case.