The Liverpool Thread

[BlueStar]

But did they not consider the terms Suarez admitted saying to be worthy of a charge of racist abuse, or would he have been let off those and he was only found guilty of the unsubstantiated things Evra alone says he said?

[JH]

AndyKerrtv Treat this with caution but I hear Kenny Dalglish was at #Nufc training ground today. #lfc

about 2 hours ago

 

[Sifu]

AndyKerrtv Treat this with caution but I hear Kenny Dalglish was at #Nufc training ground today. #lfc

about 2 hours ago

 

 

Courtesy of madras:

 

"look kenny, you haven't got the receipt so you're not getting a refund"

[David Icke - Son of God]

The daft cunt probably thought it was 1997.

[Fenham Mag]

Senile fuck.

[Fenham Mag]

Probably told Ben Arfa he was getting replaced by Steve McManaman.

[BlueStar]

Why would Kenny be at our training ground even if there was substance to the Carroll story? Does he not have a phone? Or are we signing Dalglish and he's there for a medical?

[wacko]

But did they not consider the terms Suarez admitted saying to be worthy of a charge of racist abuse

 

No, not inherently (the only thing both parties agreed on is that Suarez used the word "negro"). Some of what the language experts said in the report (it goes on for a couple of pages):

 

167. According to the experts, the Spanish word "negro" cannot simply be translated as "nigger". Whereas "nigger" refers exclusively to a person with dark skin, "negro" can be used both as a noun ("a black") and as an adjective; as an adjective it might be used to refer to a person ("un hombre negro" [a black man]) but equally to an object ("una caja negra" [a black box]).

 

168. It is important to grasp that the word "negro" is ambiguous in all countries and regions of Latin America.

 

169. 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 rarely used in this fashion. Others, however, actively claim the term "negro" as a political identity, seeking to overturn its possible negative connotations.

 

170. 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".

 

171. Thus, the word can be employed with the intent to offend and to offend in racial terms; often the word would be appended with further insult, as in the example "negro de mierda" [shitty black].

 

172. The word "negro" is by no means, however, always used offensively. The term can also be used as a friendly form of address to someone seen as somewhat brown-skinned or even just black-haired. It may be used affectionately between man and wife, or girlfriend/boyfriend, it may be used as a nickname in everyday speech, it may be used to identify in neutral and descriptive fashion someone of dark skin; several famous people in Uruguay are known as "el negro/la negra such-and-such".

 

The report also emphasises that Suarez was not charged with and found guilty of "racially offensive" language, but of using "abusive or insulting words or behaviour which included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin, colour or race." I understand that to underline that he wasn't charged with using inherently racist language.

 

or would he have been let off those and he was only found guilty of the unsubstantiated things Evra alone says he said?

 

In view of the above, it basically came down to the context in which Suarez said "negro" and whose version of events would be believed. I posted above what Suarez claimed he said and what Evra claimed was said. In a nutshell, the commission favoured Evra's testimony overall over Suarez's because it was more consistent, more detailed and gelled better with the accounts of others and video evidence. Comolli's testimony at times agreed with that of Evra and at others contradicted it. The same goes for Kuyt, only much more so.

 

The following is my interpretation, so you should take it with the amount of salt you deem necessary, and ideally at least read pages 88-96 of the report for the judgment and reasoning, and perhaps go back for the relevant testimony from there.

 

Having read a lot of, but not all of the report, my reading of the case (which is almost certainly biased at some level, as much as I'd love to think it weren't, but it is at least somewhat informed, as I've read much of the report) is (and here I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Suarez is not a complete idiot rating 10 on the Rooney scale—and this is important in the wider context of the full report) that while Suarez and Evra are both cunts when it comes to football, Suarez was doing his level best to wind up Evra the whole time (which we can all agree is entirely in character for him), but tried to present himself to the commission as a nice guy, a wouldn't-hurt-a-fly kind of bloke, whereas Evra was happy to admit that he'd started the argument with an insult, and generally did a better job of presenting a plausible case. The commission's members, being significantly smarter than Suarez, rightly pulled his testimony to bits, and thus preferred Evra's version of what happened.

 

Hence my previous statement that the case might well have gone differently had our side's case been better prepared. After further consideration, this was partly wrong, or at least overly vague. There were things LFC's lawyers could/should have mentioned but didn't, but I think there's no doubt that LFC hired decent lawyers, nor that these lawyers told Suarez exactly what to say/not to say. But from my own experience of interpreting at arbitration proceedings, you can spend hours drilling your client/expert witness, and once they sit down in front of the court, they fuck off everything the lawyers told them to do/not do, and seize their chance to "shine", like a fucking 5-year-old. Essentially, Suarez tried to bullshit the commission, and for that they rejected more or less everything he said where it contradicted what other witnesses that they deemed more reliable said. (It's worth noting that the FA had deemed Evra an "unreliable witness" in previous proceedings. Strangely, this was not brought up by Liverpool's counsel, and was thus not considered by the commission.)

 

According to the analysis I linked earlier, the relatively low standard of proof required probably did for Suarez's. This is almost certainly why Terry is being investigated by the police with a view to prosecution under criminal law where the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt", but Suarez wasn't. The FA's standard of proof is like that of civil law: "the balance of probabilities". With regards to "beyond reasonable doubt", there isn't even a case to be made, let alone sufficient grounds for conviction (otherwise the police would be investigating).

 

While the club and many other fans are, humiliatingly, busy besmirching Evra and the commission, this is the fact in which I, as a Liverpool fan, would find my no-he-didn't place if I felt I needed one.

[mrmojorisin75]

the depth and level of discussion taking place about this still

 

if it was anyone but a liverpool player the ban would have been accepted and everyone would have moved on long ago

[wormy]

Probably told Ben Arfa he was getting replaced by Steve McManaman.

 

Don't know why I found this so funny.

[Cajun]

So Suarez got an 8 game ban for being mean to another player?

[Ishmael]

Seatbelts engage.

 

The report also emphasises that Suarez was not charged with and found guilty of "racially offensive" language, but of using "abusive or insulting words or behaviour which included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin, colour or race." I understand that to underline that he wasn't charged with using inherently racist language.

 

 

I think you will find that the use of words that refer to the colour of somebody’s skin in the midst of a heated argument is actually racially inherent language, that’s what is known as a fact, as is the definition of inherent, you cannot therefore claim different.  That’s just how it works.

 

Then you go on to accuse the commission was biased at some level without giving an iota of evidence, whilst at the same time making reference to a rival player in regards to idiocy…  Ha.  If that doesn’t allow the casual reader to make assumptions as to your biased outlook on this matter, then its not too far off being your give-away.

 

Then there is the comments on the difference between civil law and criminal law, which whilst informed really do miss the point.  You’re a reasonably intelligent lad; I’ll let you work that one out yourself.  (I’m still laughing at the ‘reasonably low’ description of the evidence by the way.)

 

Finally; I’ve saved the best until last.  You’re unhappy about the preparation of your defence; you wanted the legal team to tell Suarez exactly what to say.  How about the f***ing truth, yeah?  It is so very unfortunate for Suarez that everyone told the truth, isn’t it? 

 

So, it seems that the tl:dr version of your post for all our sane board members, who unlike me, didn’t wake up on a Saturday and begin the day by reading your post: Liverpool actually allowed Suarez to… walk alone.

 

[Si]

Why would Kenny be at our training ground even if there was substance to the Carroll story? Does he not have a phone? Or are we signing Dalglish and he's there for a medical?

 

Apparently they found him in the car park cradling a toon shirt singing Ebony & Ivory.

[LesPaul]

Suarez was banned for 8 games for using racist language. Can we not fucking leave it at that like?

[mrmojorisin75]

Suarez was banned for 8 games for using racist language. Can we not fucking leave it at that like?

 

not when liverpool are involved, when title is mathematically out of their reach we'll be hearing about this for decades as the reason it cost them

[LesPaul]

Suarez was banned for 8 games for using racist language. Can we not f***ing leave it at that like?

 

not when liverpool are involved, when title is mathematically out of their reach we'll be hearing about this for decades as the reason it cost them

Who did they blame the season that Rafa went nuts?

[Si]

Suarez was banned for 8 games for using racist language. Can we not f***ing leave it at that like?

 

not when liverpool are involved, when title is mathematically out of their reach we'll be hearing about this for decades as the reason it cost them

Who did they blame the season that Rafa went nuts?

 

Wasn't that one the biased refs?

[LesPaul]

Suarez was banned for 8 games for using racist language. Can we not f***ing leave it at that like?

 

not when liverpool are involved, when title is mathematically out of their reach we'll be hearing about this for decades as the reason it cost them

Who did they blame the season that Rafa went nuts?

 

Wasn't that one the biased refs?

Oh yeah that was it. It was the refs not Rafa loosing his marbles against Fergie.

[LesPaul]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2085598/Samir-Nasri-abused-fans-car-Liverpool-match--video.html

Sorry if its a

[mrmojorisin75]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2085598/Samir-Nasri-abused-fans-car-Liverpool-match--video.html

Sorry if its a

 

football fans in non-racist or even controversial taunting non-incident...this is groundbreaking

[LesPaul]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2085598/Samir-Nasri-abused-fans-car-Liverpool-match--video.html

Sorry if its a

 

football fans in non-racist or even controversial taunting non-incident...this is groundbreaking

TBF I didn't even read it properly. I just saw the headline and said I'd post it anyway Realise now it's a non story.

[wacko]

Seatbelts engage.

 

The report also emphasises that Suarez was not charged with and found guilty of "racially offensive" language, but of using "abusive or insulting words or behaviour which included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin, colour or race." I understand that to underline that he wasn't charged with using inherently racist language.

 

 

I think you will find that the use of words that refer to the colour of somebody’s skin in the midst of a heated argument is actually racially inherent language, that’s what is known as a fact, as is the definition of inherent, you cannot therefore claim different.  That’s just how it works.

 

Only if you're arguing... Evra started the argument with "your sister's cunt" (in Spanish), but the commission found that Suarez hadn't heard him. So, if you believe Suarez said what he claims, it wasn't during an argument because he wasn't aware he was having one.

 

At any rate, the FA drew the distinction, not me.

 

By the way, you've got your definition of "inherent" arse-about-tit. For a word to be inherently racist, it cannot not be racist. This is clearly not the case with the Spanish word "negro".

 

Then you go on to accuse the commission was biased at some level without giving an iota of evidence, whilst at the same time making reference to a rival player in regards to idiocy…  Ha.  If that doesn’t allow the casual reader to make assumptions as to your biased outlook on this matter, then its not too far off being your give-away.

 

 

No, I said I was biased at some level, not the commission. Really. Go read it again.

 

Then there is the comments on the difference between civil law and criminal law, which whilst informed really do miss the point.  You’re a reasonably intelligent lad; I’ll let you work that one out yourself.  (I’m still laughing at the ‘reasonably low’ description of the evidence by the way.)

 

It is what it is. We've all felt aggrieved at some point because we felt unfairly judged. In the terms that the FA applies, Suarez was quite reasonably found guilty. I don't have a problem with that (if it's good enough for civil law, I guess it's good enough for the FA), but I suppose I am implying some kind of justification for the continued protests by the club and fans. That was not my intention.

 

Finally; I’ve saved the best until last.  You’re unhappy about the preparation of your defence; you wanted the legal team to tell Suarez exactly what to say.  How about the f***ing truth, yeah?  It is so very unfortunate for Suarez that everyone told the truth, isn’t it? 

 

Perhaps I'd had a beer or two too many when I wrote it. The line about lawyers telling him what to say/not to say is awful. I didn't mean that the lawyers told Suarez to lie, but that they will have coached him extensively on how to give his evidence, and will have told him what information he should and shouldn't volunteer unless explicitly asked.

 

At any rate, the important bit was that I think Suarez tried to bullshit the commission and make himself out as a goody-two-shoes. I am absolutely certain that LFC's lawyers will have expressly told him not to do that, i.e. they told him to tell the truth. Either Suarez didn't stick to the game plan or that was his story from the word go, and our lawyers had to work around a client that was bullshitting them.

 

Suarez claimed the whole time that he was being conciliatory and trying to diffuse the situation. I don't believe that for a second. You don't believe that for a second. I doubt even RAWK's most deluded or his own mother would believe that. And the commission sure as shit didn't. And with that, his credibility was gone, and nothing he said could be reasonably believed in the face of contradictory evidence from apparently more credible witnesses.

 

The commission cast doubt on almost everyone's testimony at some point, but none more so than that of Suarez. (Apart from Kuyt, who contradicts everyone and everything. I think he might have been high.)

 

So, it seems that the tl:dr version of your post for all our sane board members, who unlike me, didn’t wake up on a Saturday and begin the day by reading your post: Liverpool actually allowed Suarez to… walk alone.

 

 

My tl;dr: Suarez probably had a winnable case, but torpedoed it himself by trying to bullshit the commission, and possibly his own lawyers, too.

[BlueStar]

When people try to bullshit a commission, it's usually because they've done something wrong. But yes, I agree the behaviour of the club and player after the event was just as bad or worse

[wacko]

When people try to bullshit a commission, it's usually because they've done something wrong. But yes, I agree the behaviour of the club and player after the event was just as bad or worse

 

More than usually, but not always the thing they're being accused of.

 

At any rate, I hope, but doubt, that Suarez will learn from this and stop being suck such a cock.

 

EDIT: haha. Freudian slip.

[Wandy]

From RAWK....

 

"The totally unsurprising summary is that Carroll is shite, Adam is shite, Downing is shite, the tactics are shamefully shite, and after spending countless millions we look in dire need of another rebuild."