They were also trained in the laws of the land Phil, as the panel who came to the verdict was a QC by trade.

But ignore their conclusions, they were wrong, Suarez was right, it was fix, blah, blah.

He made an imappropriate comment / comments & got done for it - the end. Close the fricking book ffs

VC

Lets address one point at a time, keep it simple for you.

"I am posting you what is written on the FA report.

But you keep on ignoring it if you want."

How am I ignoring what is written in The FA report? That is the crux of my argument. I disagree with aspects of the ruling. Such as they placed emphasis on inconsistencies surrounding Suarez's evidence. But ignored inconsistencies surrounding Evra's evidence.

"It is not very often I do this, but you really are not a full shilling".

Ok we'll run through this again shall we;

1) Evra claimed that he hates the word n****r and never uses it (his testimony to the panel, in the report). You Tube footage emerged of Evra using the word n****r. When he claimed to never use the word was he

a) Telling the truth?
or
b) Lying?

Evra claimed to Ferguson and the ref, straight after the match, to have been called a n****r by Suarez. This turned out not to be true. Was Evra;

a) Telling the truth?
or
b) Lying?

comment by Fellaini's pirouette to perfection (U1308)
posted 6 minutes ago
Funny, you believe Evra lied...but people trained in the LAWS of the game got a different verdict to the one you wanted....

.........................

It really is unreal.

1) Evra claimed that he hates the word n****r and never uses it (his testimony to the panel, in the report). You Tube footage emerged of Evra using the word n****r. When he claimed to never use the word was he

...........................

Did Suarez lawyers use this in the trial?

VC

What a surprise, answer the questions, with another question.

I've put it in the simplest format for you. You only have to type 'a' or 'b' for each question.

So they were also layers/solicitors involved. People much more knowledgeablethan 99.9% of people on here.....but still they got it all wrong

comment by red_man23 (U1669)
posted 6 minutes ago
VC

What a surprise, answer the questions, with another question.

....................

I can't answer your childish A&B question with out knowing the full facts. That would make me come off like a Liverpool fan.

So, did Suarez lawyers use this in the trial?

Please provide the evidence with your answer, unless it is no.

Funny, you believe Evra lied...but people trained in the LAWS of the game got a different verdict to the one you wanted....

------

Haha, you really couldn't make it up.

VC

Eh? You can't tell us whether Evra lied about something he said?

I believe the You Tube footage appeared after the trial.

Evra claiming he was called a n****r was included in the report. For reasons only know to them the panel didn't deem this important, or place the same amount of relevance on it as the inconsistencies in Suarez's evidence.

I thought you'd read the report inside out?

Now come on lad, did Evra lie on those two occasions?

comment by red_man23 (U1669)
posted 5 minutes ago
VC

Eh? You can't tell us whether Evra lied about something he said?

I believe the You Tube footage appeared after the trial.

....................

So, it was irrelevant to the trial then.

Glad that is cleared up.

Anything more that is irrelevant to the trial that you would like to bring up.

VC

How is it irrelevant? It shows that Evra lied to the panel. If he lied about that what else did he lie about?

You still can't give us an answer, can you? The reason I put it in the 'childish' A and B format is because you either keep ignoring the question, or evading it.

Come on VC, did Evra lie on those 2 occasions, yes or no?

comment by red_man23 (U1669)
posted 10 seconds ago
VC

How is it irrelevant?

.................

The fact that it wasn't included in the trial would be my guess.

Wild stab in the dark mind.

God you have no idea how trials work, do you?

VC

When have I mentioned that it was a part of the trial that was over-looked?

I've been using it to point out that Evra is a liar. This in turn casts doubts about the reliability of the evidence he gave. He lied directly to the panel. How can his evidence then be treated more trustworthy than the evidence Suarez gave?

One more time;

Did Evra lie on those two occasions, yes or no?

Come on VC, did Evra lie on those 2 occasions, yes or no?

...............

I wasn't there so have nothing to base my answer on.

I beliieve this clip you are on about came out in 2004, you really have to ask yourself why it wasn't used?

I will tell you why, it was irrelevant.

VC

Wow, still evading answering then.

Evra is a liar, that is a fact. How can you trust someone to give honest testimony when they have been found to lie?

What else did Evra lie about when giving his evidence to the panel?

It makes you wonder doesn't it?

Did Evra lie?

The only person who knws is evra.....Suarez admitted to lying

You should pose that question to Evra, did you lie???

Or to the solicitors/lawyers who found his evidence suffcient to give a ban

Felliani's

We know Evra lied. There's evidence to prove this. I just want to hear VC, or perhaps yourself admit to it.

Neither of you can. You'll both keep answering with questions, or evading answering at all.

comment by red_man23 (U1669)
posted 5 minutes ago
VC

Wow, still evading answering then.

..............

There is nothing to evade.

I don't have all the facts, so can't answer.

....................

What else did Evra lie about when giving his evidence to the panel?

........................

Not much according to the panel, this is what the panel said:

The report concludes: "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.

Again, you want Evra to be made out as the villain here, despite being racially abused by Suarez.

What is wrong with you?

Fellaini's

Refresh my memory, what dod Suarez admit to lying about?

We know Evra lied. There's evidence to prove this.

..................

I would use the word incionsistant, as opposed to lying, and the FA noted this in the bit I keep highlighting to you.

No one is disputing some of Evra's evidence was inconsistant.

However, it seems Suarez was even more inconsistant. add that to his admission of using the word 'negro' and you get a guilty verdict.

You need to let it go now. Case closed.

VC

"There is nothing to evade.

I don't have all the facts, so can't answer."

I've furnished you with the facts.

Evra claimed he hated the n word, and he NEVER uses it. He was found in video, using the n word.

Evra claimed he was called the n word by Suarez. This WAS NOT true.

Both comments, made by Evra are lies.

I'm not trying to make Evra out to be the villian. I just want to know why a liar can be trusted and his word taken over someone else.

It's not unreasonable.

Again, you want Evra to be made out as the villain here, despite being racially abused by Suarez.
==================================
Look, if the CPS had looked at this case, it wouldn't have even reached a court of law.
The FA hold no legal right to brand anyone as being racist, so tippy toed around that one, and then came up with their probability nonsense.

We know Evra lied.

==

The panel think evra gave consistent evidence....case closed

"I would use the word incionsistant, as opposed to lying, and the FA noted this in the bit I keep highlighting to you".

VC honestly that is genius. You are wasted on here. You should work in politics.

comment by jloo1978 (U10516)
posted 3 minutes ago
Again, you want Evra to be made out as the villain here, despite being racially abused by Suarez.
==================================
Look, if the CPS had looked at this case, it wouldn't have even reached a court of law.

................

That makes it ok then does it?