The Liverpool Thread

[Ishmael]

"It is further alleged that your breach of Rule E3(1) included a reference to the ethnic

origin and/or colour and/or race of Mr Patrice Evra within the meaning of Rule

E3(2)."

 

Someone should report their Welsh forward.

[Fenham Mag]

They're still defending him like.

 

 

[Dave]

Mr Dalglish said, "hasn't he done this before?". This was the evidence to us of Mr Dowd,

which was also accepted by Mr Suarez. Mr Dowd remembered this as it caused him to

consciously stop and think whether he was aware of any previous allegation involving Mr

Evra. 

[Aphrodite]

Evra's version of events:

 

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".

 

Suarez's version:

 

Mr Suarez denied the Charge. His case, in short, was as follows. He agreed with Mr Evra

that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. When Mr Evra asked why he

had kicked him, Mr Suarez replied that it was a normal foul and shrugged his shoulders.

Mr Evra then said that he was going to kick Mr Suarez, to which Mr Suarez told him to

shut up. As Mr Kuyt was approaching, Mr Suarez touched Mr Evra's left arm in a

pinching style movement. According to Mr Suarez, at no point in the goalmouth did he

use the word "negro". When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra spoke to Mr

Suarez and said (in English) "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez replied "Por

que, negro?". He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar

from his upbringing in Uruguay.

 

Someone's lying

[themanupstairs]

How these cunts will have the gall to appeal I'll never know! (assuming they do).

 

 

[johnnypd]

Mr Dalglish said, "hasn't he done this before?". This was the evidence to us of Mr Dowd,

which was also accepted by Mr Suarez. Mr Dowd remembered this as it caused him to

consciously stop and think whether he was aware of any previous allegation involving Mr

Evra. 

 

how does he get away with this shit? ku klux kenny deserves a ban of his own.

[Revolution Number 9]

Mr Dalglish said, "hasn't he done this before?". This was the evidence to us of Mr Dowd,

which was also accepted by Mr Suarez. Mr Dowd remembered this as it caused him to

consciously stop and think whether he was aware of any previous allegation involving Mr

Evra. 

The most important thing here is; how the hell did they actually manage to figure out what Daglish was saying?

[Dave]

Mr Evra stated that the goalmouth incident started  when he addressed Mr Suarez,

beginning with the phrase "Concha de tu hermana". According to the experts, the literal

translation is "your sister's cunt" and it can be taken as a general swear word expressing

anger, although the word "concha" is not as taboo as the English word "cunt". It is thus

equivalent to "fucking hell" or "fuck me". If directed at someone in particular, it can also be

understood as "[you] son of a bitch".

 

[Fenham Mag]

"por que,negro?" sounds racist as fuck tbh.

[Wullie]

Despicable football club. I'm ashamed to even have our club associated with a cunt like Dalglish.

[Frazzle]

I hated Suarez before all this, hate him more now.  Hope this ban gets upheld even if Liverpool campaign for a New Years honour for him.

[johnnypd]

Mr Evra stated that the goalmouth incident started  when he addressed Mr Suarez,

beginning with the phrase "Concha de tu hermana". According to the experts, the literal

translation is "your sister's cunt" and it can be taken as a general swear word expressing

anger, although the word "concha" is not as taboo as the English word "cunt". It is thus

equivalent to "fucking hell" or "fuck me". If directed at someone in particular, it can also be

understood as "[you] son of a bitch".

 

 

reminds me of HTT's "the phrase 'my n*gger', as popularised by denzel washington" hilarity.

[Ishmael]

I am going to have so much fun on twitter (as soon as it's back up) with this juicy evidence.

[Dave]

However, Mr Suarez was not as impressive a witness as Mr Evra. His answers were not

always clear or directly addressed to the question. We give one example in paragraph 246

below. Whether this was due to language difficulties or evasiveness was not entirely clear

and so, whenever we could, we gave Mr Suarez the benefit of the doubt. We were

certainly more concerned by the substance of his evidence (as explained below) than by

the manner in which he gave it.

[Skirge]

Liverpool have appealed it haven't they ?

Surely it should be upheld and increased by half for a frivolous appeal

[Dave]

Mr Suarez's claim to be acting in a conciliatory and friendly way

253.  Mr Suarez claimed that when he used the word "negro" in speaking to Mr Evra, he was

doing so in a conciliatory and friendly way.

 

Good luck with that.

[Frazzle]

Despicable football club. I'm ashamed to even have our club associated with a c*** like Dalglish.

 

I've slagged Dalglish off before on here and had people moaning about it

 

ffs the bloke's a knob

[Skirge]

Roy Suarez Brown

[Frazzle]

However, Mr Suarez was not as impressive a witness as Mr Evra. His answers were not

always clear or directly addressed to the question. We give one example in paragraph 246

below. Whether this was due to language difficulties or evasiveness was not entirely clear

and so, whenever we could, we gave Mr Suarez the benefit of the doubt. We were

certainly more concerned by the substance of his evidence (as explained below) than by

the manner in which he gave it.

 

Not clear answers is harsh on Suarez, must be hard to articulate anything with those teeth in the way.

[Aphrodite]

Evra told us that he began the conversation by saying "Concha de tu hermana". Mr Evra's

evidence was that this is a phrase used in Spanish  like when you say "fucking hell" in 27

English, but the literal translation is "your sister's pussy"

 

What?!

[johnnypd]

Despicable football club. I'm ashamed to even have our club associated with a c*** like Dalglish.

 

I've slagged Dalglish off before on here and had people moaning about it

 

ffs the bloke's a knob

 

i know he had difficulties with injuries and money but overall his reign saw us go from one of the 2 or 3 most exciting sides the premiership has ever seen to a dour mid-table team lacking any inspiration or verve staffed by has-beens and never-will-bes.

[Frazzle]

If Suarez was nipping him and that at the same time he was calling him a negro its pretty obvious its wasn't used in a friendly way, why would you be trying to wind him up and calm him down at the same time...

[Dave]

Here's the summary. All you need to read really:

 

IX Summary

 

452.  The length of these Reasons reflects the complexity of this case, the detailed arguments

that have been put before us, and the entitlement of those involved to know why we

reached the decision that we did. 

 

453. It may be helpful if we summarise our Reasons, which we do as follows:

 

(1) Whether a player has used abusive or insulting words or behaviour is a matter

for us to decide as a Regulatory Commission, having regard to all the

circumstances of the case. These circumstances include the fact that many players

playing in England come from overseas, with a different language and culture.

However, we apply the standards that we consider appropriate to games played

in England under the FA Rules. Whether the words or behaviour are abusive or

insulting is an objective matter; it does not depend on whether the alleged

offender intended his words to be abusive or insulting (paragraphs 50 to 73

above).

 

(2) The burden of proof in this case is on the FA. The standard of proof is the flexible

civil standard of the balance of probability. The more serious the allegation,

taking into account the nature of the misconduct alleged and the content of the

case, the greater the burden of evidence required to prove the matter. The FA

accepted that the allegation against Mr Suarez was serious, as do we (paragraphs

74 to 80 above).

 

(3) We received expert evidence as to the use of the word "negro" in Uruguay and

other areas of Latin America. It is often used as a noun to address people,

whether family, friends or passers-by, and is widely seen as inoffensive.

However, its use can also be offensive. It depends on the context. It is inoffensive

when its use implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such rapport.

However, if it were used, for example, with a sneer, then it might carry negative

connotations. The Spanish language experts told us  that if Mr Suarez said the

things that Mr Evra alleged, they would be considered racially offensive in

Uruguay and other regions of Latin America (paragraphs 162 to 202 above).

 

(4) Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and

clear way. It was, for the most part, consistent, although both he and Mr Suarez

were understandably unable to remember every detail of the exchanges between

them (paragraphs 229 to 234 above).

 

(5) Mr Suarez's evidence was unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance.

It was, in part, inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence, especially the

video footage. For example, Mr Suarez said that he pinched Mr Evra's skin in an

attempt to defuse the situation. He also said that his use of the word "negro" to

address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence. To 

describe his own behaviour in that way was unsustainable and simply incredible

given that the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument. That this was

put forward by Mr Suarez was surprising and seriously undermined the

reliability of his evidence on other matters (paragraphs 235 to 267 above). There

were also inconsistencies between his accounts given at different times as to

what happened (paragraphs 282 to 318).

 

(6) It was argued for Mr Suarez that Mr Evra invented the allegations to exact

vengeance for Mr Suarez's refusal to apologise for  the foul on Mr Evra; that he

did so knowing that the allegations were false and that the complaint, if upheld,

would be damaging to a fellow professional, who Mr Evra did not think was a

racist. We rejected this argument as implausible and inconsistent with our

assessment of Mr Evra as a witness. No alternative explanation was suggested to

us as to why Mr Evra would make the allegations if untrue (paragraphs 323 to

337).

 

(7) Mr Suarez fouled Mr Evra in the 58th minute of the game. In the 63rd minute, Mr

Evra challenged Mr Suarez about the foul. Mr Evra used an offensive phrase,

which did not have any racial element and which Mr Suarez did not hear. An

acrimonious argument ensued in which both players had a go at each other. In

the course of this confrontation, Mr Suarez used the words "negro" or "negros"

seven times. He did so both before and after the referee had spoken to them and

told them to calm down. Mr Suarez addressed Mr Evra as "negro". He also made

other derogatory comments using the word. In the course of the argument, Mr

Suarez also pinched Mr Evra's skin (which was not in itself insulting behaviour

nor did it refer to Mr Evra's colour) and put his hand on the back of his head,

which were part of Mr Suarez's attempts to wind up Mr Evra (paragraphs 346 to

384 above).

 

(8) Mr Suarez's comments were made in the heat of the moment in response to being

confronted by Mr Evra about the foul. He did not use the word "negro" in a way

that could reasonably be translated as "nigger". He used the word “negro”

because Mr Evra is black (paragraphs 383, 274 above).

 

(9) Mr Suarez's words, which included a reference to Mr Evra's colour, were

insulting. The use of insulting words which include a reference to another

person's colour on a football pitch are wholly unacceptable (paragraphs 385 to

399 above). 

 

(10) Had Mr Suarez been sent off for using insulting words (not including reference

to a person's colour), he would have received an automatic two-match

suspension. The guidance in the FA Rules suggested  that our starting-point

should be to double that sanction, ie a four-match  suspension. However, we

were entitled to increase or reduce the penalty further. We took account of

various aggravating and mitigating factors. As for  the aggravating factors, Mr

Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros" seven times, in the course of an

acrimonious argument, and went beyond simply addressing Mr Evra as "negro".

Mr Suarez knew or ought to have known that these words were unacceptable,

particularly in view of the FA-supported campaigns against all forms of racism

in football. The words were targeted directly at Mr Evra, as part of Mr Suarez's

attempts to wind him up. As for the mitigating factors, Mr Suarez had a clean

record in relations to charges of this type. Mr Evra started the confrontation in

the goalmouth, in response to which Mr Suarez used  the insulting words. Mr

Suarez is likely to suffer personal embarrassment as a result of his behaviour

coming to light through this decision. He has in the past supported, and

continues to support, a charitable project in South Africa designed to promote

multi-racial football. He is likely to have learned a lesson through the experience

of these proceedings, and said that he would not use the word "negro" on a

football pitch in England in the future (paragraphs 401 to 440 above).

 

(11) Balancing all these factors, we imposed an eight-match ban, a £40,000 fine and

gave Mr Suarez a warning as to his future conduct. We considered this to be an

appropriate and proportionate penalty in all the circumstances (paragraphs 441

to 446 above).

[Aphrodite]

Feel sorry for the panel reading all this, two totally different versions of events

[Fugazi]

Mr Suarez's claim to be acting in a conciliatory and friendly way

253.  Mr Suarez claimed that when he used the word "negro" in speaking to Mr Evra, he was

doing so in a conciliatory and friendly way.

 

Good luck with that.

 

http://emotibot.net/pix/2690.jpg