First they called Evra a liar, then they accused him of playing the race card, then they claimed Suarez said nothing, then Suarez said something but it was an endearment, then the culture excuse, then asked for Evra to be punished, then released a statement riddled with inconsistencies, then wore tshirts supporting a guilty man, then asked for evidence, now unhappy with the evidence as it clearly shows Suarez was wrong.
What next I wonder.
No.. We originally said Evra is a liar.
We all still say that Evra is a liar !
Metro_ as I've said elsewhere friend, sad though it is to say it, there was sufficient evidence, based on the balance of probabilities to find against Luis. The authors of the report, supported by Evra clearly state that Luis is not a racist but, big but, on this occasion, he broke the rules. End of mate. JimmyTheRed
....
I understand Jimmy but this isn't a Case with a wide range of testimonies or video evidence.
Since when can they decide what context people are speaking ? That's just ludicrous.
We can only base our view on the basis of the report and I think that it is lacking anything worthwhile.
No video evidence
No other witnesses to confirm
Acknowledged word is not racist but some can consider it racism so they can only say that Evra may have been aggrieved but they cannot make a decision on the intention and context of Suarezs word.
Metro_, the starting point is: the standard of proof. In this instance, the standard is the balance of probabilities, i.e, might have happened, might not have. LS makes admissions before the hearing, in good faith I'm sure, explaining his use and interpretation of the 'n' word to the Uruguayan Press. An explanation does not amount to a defence. Mitigation, possibly, defence, non-starter. The bottom line is that the court have accepted PE's account as opposed to Luis' either way, they had to make a decision, and they have, and, big and, they've put in writing. Based on the evidence provided, the case against Luis, on the above standard, is made out. I have no reason to believe that Luis has any racism in him, in fact both the Court and Evra accept that he isn't so. The report has a 'silks' stamp on it, large. Another way of phrasing that last sentence is: appeal, forget it. Sorry friend. YNWA JimmyTheRed
Good read Jimmy.
Any appeal will fail, Suarez and LFC need to accept the ban and move on.
Metro, read the document. It clearly shows that your man Suarez was lying. He changed his story multiple times. What he told Comoli and Kuyt are different to what he told the panel.
He accepted witness evidence without question as well. I would suggest you read the report because you are making yourself look foolish
Well, it is clear now why it took so long to present the 'evidence'.
If ever there is a one-sided document written to save FA's *rse..
Fully understand why LFC is so shocked about the whole process.
comment by Metro- (U6770)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
No.. We originally said Evra is a liar.
We all still say that Evra is a liar !
---------------
What exactly do u think he lied about? For me Evra has told the truth, which Suarez hasn't denied. The FA then had to decide if it was used in a racist manner. How does that make Evra a liar.
comment by CaptainRubik (U11830)
posted 20 minutes ago
============
It's clear you haven't read the report. Especially Liverpools lawyer accepting the charge.
What's wrong with this people?
So you're saying the FA wrote a balanced and unbiased statement not designed to cover their ****?
E.g. dismissing Kuyt's statement for no obvious reason or ignoring the inconsistensies in Evra's statements?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by CaptainRubik (U11830)
posted 19 minutes ago
================
Kuyts comments regarding the booking were dismissed because the ref didn't corrobirate them and were deemed inaccurate.
They still included his comments in Dutch as well as Mr Comolis in Spanish.
It's a lengthy read but please read the entire document. It's illuminating
ManUtdDareDevil
Did Kuyt claim that Evra said the bit about the ref only booking him because he is black?
Elvis
Yes he did. The ref confirmed that Evra didn't say this and his comments were discarded.
It's clear now that the story in the telegraph was leaked by Liverpool's defence team.
Evra also didn't tell say "don't touch me south american" another myth.
Suarez used the term negro and used it on 7 identifiable occasions as well.
Hi did Elvis, Kuyt said he heard Evra say 'you are only booking me because i am black' to the ref after the corner,
whereas it was Evra's and the ref's recollection that Evra was complaining of being called black by suarez, cos the ref hadn't heard or ignored this when he first brought PE & LS to him to tell them to calm down and behave before the corner.
This was another false story, drip fed to the media from the LFC propaganda machine, it was dismissed by the panel because the recollection of the ref backed up Evra's version & not Kuyt's
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted 19 minutes ago
================
Kuyts comments regarding the booking were dismissed because the ref didn't corrobirate them and were deemed inaccurate.
They still included his comments in Dutch as well as Mr Comolis in Spanish.
It's a lengthy read but please read the entire document. It's illuminating
---
Yes, the Kuyt incident is illuminating example of how the report is skewed.
Kuyt's comments are dismissed, because the ref said he didn't hear Evra. On the other hand Evra accusses LS of repeatedly making racist remarks in Spanish in the goalmouth next to De Gea (ten, 6 or 5 times depending on which of Evra's accouts you want to consider). De Gea says he didn't hear anything - some consistency there! One of many similar examples in the statement-
We can probably argue different similar points for quite length. I am obviously going to be biased and give LS the benefit of doubt while Macs will support Evr. That's fine and as expected.
My point is that I doubt few fans would accept if one of theirs was banned and vilified by the FA based on such evidence.
On the whole it is a strange and complicated case where I feel FA are more determined to make a satement against Blatter and save their faces than really judging the PE/LS case by its merits.
Again, I ask are you saying the FA wrote a balanced and unbiased statement not designed to cover their ****?
Also ManUtdDareDevil, do drop the condessending tone if you want to discuss, not wum.
Evra volunteered the info regarding his comments, didn't deny this, Suarez also didn't hear it.
However the culture experts said the term can be translated to you fn cnt. So not necessarily his sister.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
CaptainRubik,
I understand where you are coming from but your player was given an opprtunity to tell his side of the story and he changed his story on multiple ocassions, claimed the word he used was in a concillatory tone, which was false again and told Comoli, Kenny and Kuyt different things.
It's clear that one person has lied consistently in this saga and it's Suarez. If he can't get his story straight and lies to his club officials as well, how can the panel rule in his favour.
You guys asked for evidence and it has been given, you may not like it but it's damning for Suarez and any appeal would be silly as Mr Mcormick, your lawyer accepted his player used abusive language.
Not sure why you guys are still defending him. This is not a Utd vs LFC thing at all. If Suarez hadn't said what he did, none of this would have happened. He only has himself to blame
Tommy, the excuse was made by the cultural experts. I am not excusing Evra's abuse as well. Howver Suarez didn't hear it and can't use it as an excuse for his racial abuse
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Tommy, if someone said that about my sister, I would floor him. No arguments.
Just shows how stupid footballers are and the nonsense they indulge in on the pitch
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
The Reasoning behind the Suarez ban...
Page 7 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 1/1/12
First they called Evra a liar, then they accused him of playing the race card, then they claimed Suarez said nothing, then Suarez said something but it was an endearment, then the culture excuse, then asked for Evra to be punished, then released a statement riddled with inconsistencies, then wore tshirts supporting a guilty man, then asked for evidence, now unhappy with the evidence as it clearly shows Suarez was wrong.
What next I wonder.
posted on 1/1/12
No.. We originally said Evra is a liar.
We all still say that Evra is a liar !
posted on 1/1/12
Metro_ as I've said elsewhere friend, sad though it is to say it, there was sufficient evidence, based on the balance of probabilities to find against Luis. The authors of the report, supported by Evra clearly state that Luis is not a racist but, big but, on this occasion, he broke the rules. End of mate. JimmyTheRed
....
I understand Jimmy but this isn't a Case with a wide range of testimonies or video evidence.
Since when can they decide what context people are speaking ? That's just ludicrous.
We can only base our view on the basis of the report and I think that it is lacking anything worthwhile.
No video evidence
No other witnesses to confirm
Acknowledged word is not racist but some can consider it racism so they can only say that Evra may have been aggrieved but they cannot make a decision on the intention and context of Suarezs word.
posted on 1/1/12
Metro_, the starting point is: the standard of proof. In this instance, the standard is the balance of probabilities, i.e, might have happened, might not have. LS makes admissions before the hearing, in good faith I'm sure, explaining his use and interpretation of the 'n' word to the Uruguayan Press. An explanation does not amount to a defence. Mitigation, possibly, defence, non-starter. The bottom line is that the court have accepted PE's account as opposed to Luis' either way, they had to make a decision, and they have, and, big and, they've put in writing. Based on the evidence provided, the case against Luis, on the above standard, is made out. I have no reason to believe that Luis has any racism in him, in fact both the Court and Evra accept that he isn't so. The report has a 'silks' stamp on it, large. Another way of phrasing that last sentence is: appeal, forget it. Sorry friend. YNWA JimmyTheRed
posted on 1/1/12
Good read Jimmy.
Any appeal will fail, Suarez and LFC need to accept the ban and move on.
posted on 1/1/12
Metro, read the document. It clearly shows that your man Suarez was lying. He changed his story multiple times. What he told Comoli and Kuyt are different to what he told the panel.
He accepted witness evidence without question as well. I would suggest you read the report because you are making yourself look foolish
posted on 1/1/12
Well, it is clear now why it took so long to present the 'evidence'.
If ever there is a one-sided document written to save FA's *rse..
Fully understand why LFC is so shocked about the whole process.
posted on 1/1/12
comment by Metro- (U6770)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
No.. We originally said Evra is a liar.
We all still say that Evra is a liar !
---------------
What exactly do u think he lied about? For me Evra has told the truth, which Suarez hasn't denied. The FA then had to decide if it was used in a racist manner. How does that make Evra a liar.
posted on 1/1/12
comment by CaptainRubik (U11830)
posted 20 minutes ago
============
It's clear you haven't read the report. Especially Liverpools lawyer accepting the charge.
What's wrong with this people?
posted on 1/1/12
these
posted on 1/1/12
So you're saying the FA wrote a balanced and unbiased statement not designed to cover their ****?
E.g. dismissing Kuyt's statement for no obvious reason or ignoring the inconsistensies in Evra's statements?
posted on 1/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/1/12
comment by CaptainRubik (U11830)
posted 19 minutes ago
================
Kuyts comments regarding the booking were dismissed because the ref didn't corrobirate them and were deemed inaccurate.
They still included his comments in Dutch as well as Mr Comolis in Spanish.
It's a lengthy read but please read the entire document. It's illuminating
posted on 1/1/12
ManUtdDareDevil
Did Kuyt claim that Evra said the bit about the ref only booking him because he is black?
posted on 1/1/12
Elvis
Yes he did. The ref confirmed that Evra didn't say this and his comments were discarded.
It's clear now that the story in the telegraph was leaked by Liverpool's defence team.
Evra also didn't tell say "don't touch me south american" another myth.
Suarez used the term negro and used it on 7 identifiable occasions as well.
posted on 1/1/12
Hi did Elvis, Kuyt said he heard Evra say 'you are only booking me because i am black' to the ref after the corner,
whereas it was Evra's and the ref's recollection that Evra was complaining of being called black by suarez, cos the ref hadn't heard or ignored this when he first brought PE & LS to him to tell them to calm down and behave before the corner.
This was another false story, drip fed to the media from the LFC propaganda machine, it was dismissed by the panel because the recollection of the ref backed up Evra's version & not Kuyt's
posted on 1/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/1/12
posted 19 minutes ago
================
Kuyts comments regarding the booking were dismissed because the ref didn't corrobirate them and were deemed inaccurate.
They still included his comments in Dutch as well as Mr Comolis in Spanish.
It's a lengthy read but please read the entire document. It's illuminating
---
Yes, the Kuyt incident is illuminating example of how the report is skewed.
Kuyt's comments are dismissed, because the ref said he didn't hear Evra. On the other hand Evra accusses LS of repeatedly making racist remarks in Spanish in the goalmouth next to De Gea (ten, 6 or 5 times depending on which of Evra's accouts you want to consider). De Gea says he didn't hear anything - some consistency there! One of many similar examples in the statement-
We can probably argue different similar points for quite length. I am obviously going to be biased and give LS the benefit of doubt while Macs will support Evr. That's fine and as expected.
My point is that I doubt few fans would accept if one of theirs was banned and vilified by the FA based on such evidence.
On the whole it is a strange and complicated case where I feel FA are more determined to make a satement against Blatter and save their faces than really judging the PE/LS case by its merits.
Again, I ask are you saying the FA wrote a balanced and unbiased statement not designed to cover their ****?
Also ManUtdDareDevil, do drop the condessending tone if you want to discuss, not wum.
posted on 1/1/12
Evra volunteered the info regarding his comments, didn't deny this, Suarez also didn't hear it.
However the culture experts said the term can be translated to you fn cnt. So not necessarily his sister.
posted on 1/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/1/12
CaptainRubik,
I understand where you are coming from but your player was given an opprtunity to tell his side of the story and he changed his story on multiple ocassions, claimed the word he used was in a concillatory tone, which was false again and told Comoli, Kenny and Kuyt different things.
It's clear that one person has lied consistently in this saga and it's Suarez. If he can't get his story straight and lies to his club officials as well, how can the panel rule in his favour.
You guys asked for evidence and it has been given, you may not like it but it's damning for Suarez and any appeal would be silly as Mr Mcormick, your lawyer accepted his player used abusive language.
Not sure why you guys are still defending him. This is not a Utd vs LFC thing at all. If Suarez hadn't said what he did, none of this would have happened. He only has himself to blame
posted on 1/1/12
Tommy, the excuse was made by the cultural experts. I am not excusing Evra's abuse as well. Howver Suarez didn't hear it and can't use it as an excuse for his racial abuse
posted on 1/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/1/12
Tommy, if someone said that about my sister, I would floor him. No arguments.
Just shows how stupid footballers are and the nonsense they indulge in on the pitch
posted on 1/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 7 of 8
6 | 7 | 8