However, this punishment is farcical. The whole prosecution has hinged on the word one man - Patrick Evra, who has garnered a reputation as a boy who cries wolf. It appears that no other player on that pitch was able to give any good evidence to back Evra's claims, yet the FA still took Evra's word over Suarez's. Why? Because they need to be seen to be acting against 'racism' so as to reinforce their criticism of Sepp Blatter.
-------------------
Exactly.
if they have proof then let them publish it. the 'proof' currently in the public domain is a joke.
i have been on the wrong end of ethnic abuse myself so have no sympathy for those who are punished for genuinely using it. what suarez was reported to have said, together with watching the incident first hand and minimal digging for south american culture, i don't for a second buy this was racial abuse.
if there is additional evidence then i reserve the right to change my mind but until that time suarez has my backing.
Do you not think that Suarez hung himself with his testimony?
"che_don_john
Show me one piece of evidence of Evra 'crying wolf'. Just one piece of evidence is all I ask. One direct quote from Evra. "
http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/225378-fa-charge-for-evra
Good enough for you?
That wasn't evra who made the accusation you plum, get your phackts right
Dance with the Devil (U5125)
was he involved, does it sound a bit familiar?
throw enough (expletive) and some will stick
and it has stuck hard
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Chelsea-are-upbeat-on-Evra-racism-row-article37223.html
5th Paragraph, Evra says he did not hear the racist comment. He didn't make the claim.
this is from another thread, you are changing your tune from crying wolf to now Evra just being involved.
Is straw clutching a part-time hobby? If you slur Evra's name enough does it justify your club defending a guilty racial abuser?
bmacdo
Where are the quotes from Evra claiming he was racially abused?
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
A disgrace how the FA can make a decision based on the word of a player alone, a player who has already been infront of the FA and his account judged "exaggerated and unreliable".
It seems like they didn't look at the evidence but instead wanted to prove that they are tackling racism. A disappointing day for the club but one we'll recover from.
-------------------
Let's wait until we see their reasons for finding him guilty. There must be more than just Evras word.
--------------------------------------------------------
It seems the club don't think so. But of course you're right, we should wait to see what evidence comes out before making judgement. I feel the same as you, surely they had some sort of evidence, as it can't be based on Evra's word alone.
I'll be shocked if it is only Evras word I really will. If so I'd expect an appeal.
I can only presume that Suarez admitted in his own statement using whatever word it was and the panel felt it was used with racist connotations. A hard thing to prove.
My personal feeling was that he has said something in a racial manner in order to wind Evra up and it has backfired. That doesn't him racist though. Just stupid.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 10 minutes ago
I'll be shocked if it is only Evras word I really will. If so I'd expect an appeal.
I can only presume that Suarez admitted in his own statement using whatever word it was and the panel felt it was used with racist connotations. A hard thing to prove.
My personal feeling was that he has said something in a racial manner in order to wind Evra up and it has backfired. That doesn't him racist though. Just stupid.
----------------------------------------------------
Well this can be the only logical explanation as they can't have used Evra's word alone. However the club seem to think otherwise. This has me stuck in limbo on what to think and I think I'll keep my comments to myself until I see what the evidence is.
A few hypocritical posts on here tonight.
LFC and a large number of their fans are claiming the FA are incompetent at best & not to be trusted, but then you are happy to trust their judgement that Evra used unreliable and exaggerated testimony in the chelsea case, which one do you want to use?
Also that you cannot trust anything Evra says, then jump onto the fact he said he doesn't think Suarez is a racist.
Do you think there may be some selective choices going on, or blinkered vision?
Fair enough.
You got those quotes f
Again? Surely you've got them memorised now, considering I've showed you them multiple times?
Yeh they are all memorised. Guess what? Not one of them has a quote from Evra claiming racial abuse! Or playing the race card as u like to put it.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 18 minutes ago
Yeh they are all memorised. Guess what? Not one of them has a quote from Evra claiming racial abuse! Or playing the race card as u like to put it.
---------------------------------------------
Shall we both jump on the circle again? I posted a quote which shows him claiming racial abuse. You decided it didn't. As I said before, I can't force you into believing it. I have no more to say on the matter and have no enthusiam left to debate on it, after hearing today's news which has came as a great shock to me.
I'll wait for the evidence before giving my verdict.
He didn't claim he was racially abused by the Senegalese fans - he claimed he was abused. The insult about him being a monkey must be considered in the context of the person doing the insulting. Coming from Senegalese people where monkeys are indigenous and often kept as pets; do you think they were using it as a racial slur? Or where they suggesting that he is the pet of white men?
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 6 seconds ago
He didn't claim he was racially abused by the Senegalese fans - he claimed he was abused. The insult about him being a monkey must be considered in the context of the person doing the insulting. Coming from Senegalese people where monkeys are indigenous and often kept as pets; do you think they were using it as a racial slur? Or where they suggesting that he is the pet of white men?
---------------------------------------------
Why did he have to mention white man if he only meant he was a pet? We both know what it meant. As I said before, if you refuse to accept and understand that, I can't force it on you.
He was repeating what was said to him. The white bit wasn't his words. You need to consider the history of the slave trade in Senegal. Being under the control of white men suggests he is weak. Nothing racist in it. You've still provided nothing to support your statement that he has a history of playing the race card.
Sign in if you want to comment
An unbiased perspective
Page 2 of 2
posted on 20/12/11
However, this punishment is farcical. The whole prosecution has hinged on the word one man - Patrick Evra, who has garnered a reputation as a boy who cries wolf. It appears that no other player on that pitch was able to give any good evidence to back Evra's claims, yet the FA still took Evra's word over Suarez's. Why? Because they need to be seen to be acting against 'racism' so as to reinforce their criticism of Sepp Blatter.
-------------------
Exactly.
posted on 20/12/11
if they have proof then let them publish it. the 'proof' currently in the public domain is a joke.
i have been on the wrong end of ethnic abuse myself so have no sympathy for those who are punished for genuinely using it. what suarez was reported to have said, together with watching the incident first hand and minimal digging for south american culture, i don't for a second buy this was racial abuse.
if there is additional evidence then i reserve the right to change my mind but until that time suarez has my backing.
posted on 20/12/11
Do you not think that Suarez hung himself with his testimony?
posted on 20/12/11
"che_don_john
Show me one piece of evidence of Evra 'crying wolf'. Just one piece of evidence is all I ask. One direct quote from Evra. "
http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/225378-fa-charge-for-evra
Good enough for you?
posted on 20/12/11
That wasn't evra who made the accusation you plum, get your phackts right
posted on 20/12/11
Dance with the Devil (U5125)
was he involved, does it sound a bit familiar?
throw enough (expletive) and some will stick
and it has stuck hard
posted on 20/12/11
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Chelsea-are-upbeat-on-Evra-racism-row-article37223.html
5th Paragraph, Evra says he did not hear the racist comment. He didn't make the claim.
this is from another thread, you are changing your tune from crying wolf to now Evra just being involved.
Is straw clutching a part-time hobby? If you slur Evra's name enough does it justify your club defending a guilty racial abuser?
posted on 20/12/11
bmacdo
Where are the quotes from Evra claiming he was racially abused?
posted on 20/12/11
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
A disgrace how the FA can make a decision based on the word of a player alone, a player who has already been infront of the FA and his account judged "exaggerated and unreliable".
It seems like they didn't look at the evidence but instead wanted to prove that they are tackling racism. A disappointing day for the club but one we'll recover from.
-------------------
Let's wait until we see their reasons for finding him guilty. There must be more than just Evras word.
--------------------------------------------------------
It seems the club don't think so. But of course you're right, we should wait to see what evidence comes out before making judgement. I feel the same as you, surely they had some sort of evidence, as it can't be based on Evra's word alone.
posted on 20/12/11
I'll be shocked if it is only Evras word I really will. If so I'd expect an appeal.
I can only presume that Suarez admitted in his own statement using whatever word it was and the panel felt it was used with racist connotations. A hard thing to prove.
My personal feeling was that he has said something in a racial manner in order to wind Evra up and it has backfired. That doesn't him racist though. Just stupid.
posted on 20/12/11
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 10 minutes ago
I'll be shocked if it is only Evras word I really will. If so I'd expect an appeal.
I can only presume that Suarez admitted in his own statement using whatever word it was and the panel felt it was used with racist connotations. A hard thing to prove.
My personal feeling was that he has said something in a racial manner in order to wind Evra up and it has backfired. That doesn't him racist though. Just stupid.
----------------------------------------------------
Well this can be the only logical explanation as they can't have used Evra's word alone. However the club seem to think otherwise. This has me stuck in limbo on what to think and I think I'll keep my comments to myself until I see what the evidence is.
posted on 20/12/11
A few hypocritical posts on here tonight.
LFC and a large number of their fans are claiming the FA are incompetent at best & not to be trusted, but then you are happy to trust their judgement that Evra used unreliable and exaggerated testimony in the chelsea case, which one do you want to use?
Also that you cannot trust anything Evra says, then jump onto the fact he said he doesn't think Suarez is a racist.
Do you think there may be some selective choices going on, or blinkered vision?
posted on 20/12/11
Fair enough.
You got those quotes f
posted on 20/12/11
*for me yet?
posted on 20/12/11
Again? Surely you've got them memorised now, considering I've showed you them multiple times?
posted on 20/12/11
Yeh they are all memorised. Guess what? Not one of them has a quote from Evra claiming racial abuse! Or playing the race card as u like to put it.
posted on 20/12/11
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 18 minutes ago
Yeh they are all memorised. Guess what? Not one of them has a quote from Evra claiming racial abuse! Or playing the race card as u like to put it.
---------------------------------------------
Shall we both jump on the circle again? I posted a quote which shows him claiming racial abuse. You decided it didn't. As I said before, I can't force you into believing it. I have no more to say on the matter and have no enthusiam left to debate on it, after hearing today's news which has came as a great shock to me.
I'll wait for the evidence before giving my verdict.
posted on 20/12/11
He didn't claim he was racially abused by the Senegalese fans - he claimed he was abused. The insult about him being a monkey must be considered in the context of the person doing the insulting. Coming from Senegalese people where monkeys are indigenous and often kept as pets; do you think they were using it as a racial slur? Or where they suggesting that he is the pet of white men?
posted on 20/12/11
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 6 seconds ago
He didn't claim he was racially abused by the Senegalese fans - he claimed he was abused. The insult about him being a monkey must be considered in the context of the person doing the insulting. Coming from Senegalese people where monkeys are indigenous and often kept as pets; do you think they were using it as a racial slur? Or where they suggesting that he is the pet of white men?
---------------------------------------------
Why did he have to mention white man if he only meant he was a pet? We both know what it meant. As I said before, if you refuse to accept and understand that, I can't force it on you.
posted on 20/12/11
He was repeating what was said to him. The white bit wasn't his words. You need to consider the history of the slave trade in Senegal. Being under the control of white men suggests he is weak. Nothing racist in it. You've still provided nothing to support your statement that he has a history of playing the race card.
Page 2 of 2