I don't think Suarez wanted to apologise in relation to refusing to shake Evra's hand. The club forced him to and probably told him what to say, therefore I doubt he meant any of it or even was sorry at all.

I'm sure there was some form of guilt when thinking of the harm he'd caused the club and Kenny when Kenny had suggested beforehand that Suarez would shake Evra's hand but then this didn't materialise.

----------------------

Firstly, sorry if I'm annoying you.

I think you are correct in that Suarez didn't want to apologise for refusing to shake Evra's hand. You may even be correct in that the club forced Suarez to apologise.

You doubt therefore that Suarez meant any of his apology.

That is the thing that I have an issue with. Suarez apologised to Dalglish, and apologised for letting the club down. When I pressed you on this - by asking you that letting Dalglish and the club down were NOT the true feelings of Suarez - you confirmed that that was your opinion.

Now you're suggesting that Suarez does have some guilt in letting Dalglish and the club down. It contradicts your earlier comments, but alas a view that I would hope is actually the case. Because at least that renders some genuine sincerity in his apology.

comment by Afridi14 -...................Grayson OUT, Mour... (U2805)
posted 11 seconds ago
Evra came out of this whole saga looking the more professional and civil.... Having read the surez judgement statement time and time again, i still dont think surez was guilty....never an intent there...... however, abit childish not to shake his hand
-----------------------------------
It is easy to look more civil when you haven't be wrongly found guilty of something.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

So why was Suarez charged with racist abuse and not with referencing skin colour?
--------------------------------------------

He wasn't:

the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 29 seconds ago
I don't think Suarez wanted to apologise in relation to refusing to shake Evra's hand. The club forced him to and probably told him what to say, therefore I doubt he meant any of it or even was sorry at all.

I'm sure there was some form of guilt when thinking of the harm he'd caused the club and Kenny when Kenny had suggested beforehand that Suarez would shake Evra's hand but then this didn't materialise.

----------------------

Firstly, sorry if I'm annoying you.

I think you are correct in that Suarez didn't want to apologise for refusing to shake Evra's hand. You may even be correct in that the club forced Suarez to apologise.

You doubt therefore that Suarez meant any of his apology.

That is the thing that I have an issue with. Suarez apologised to Dalglish, and apologised for letting the club down. When I pressed you on this - by asking you that letting Dalglish and the club down were NOT the true feelings of Suarez - you confirmed that that was your opinion.

Now you're suggesting that Suarez does have some guilt in letting Dalglish and the club down. It contradicts your earlier comments, but alas a view that I would hope is actually the case. Because at least that renders some genuine sincerity in his apology.
------------------------------------------------
My mistake was scanning your comments and not reading them properly as there were other comments I was more focussed on. I didn't mean to say that Suarez didn't mean any of it. I meant to say only that Suarez didn't feel sorry for not shaking Evra's hand.

I'm sure he does feel sorry for letting the club down by not following through with his word. However, I do understand this, if I put myself in his shoes.

comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

So why was Suarez charged with racist abuse and not with referencing skin colour?
--------------------------------------------

He wasn't:

the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule
-------------------------------------
You're saying he wasn't, then showing evidence that he was....

So why was Suarez charged with racist abuse and not with referencing skin colour?

-------------------

"It is alleged that Suarez used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Manchester United's Patrice Evra contrary to FA rules. It is further alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra".

The official FA Statement.

comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

it's in your post where you posted two charges. One relating to abuse and one relating to racist abuse.
---------------------------------------------

Well that doesnt clarify it for me. The two charges are part of the same rule .
-------------------------------
How are they part of the same rule? You are showing two different rules and referencing them. You keep contradicting the evidence you post.

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
So why was Suarez charged with racist abuse and not with referencing skin colour?

-------------------

"It is alleged that Suarez used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Manchester United's Patrice Evra contrary to FA rules. It is further alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra".

The official FA Statement.
----------------------------------
Indeed. Which shows Suarez was banned for four games for abuse and four games for racial abuse. This begs the question, after an admission of going against the first statement, why wasn't Evra banned for four games?

I didn't mean to say that Suarez didn't mean any of it. I meant to say only that Suarez didn't feel sorry for not shaking Evra's hand.

I'm sure he does feel sorry for letting the club down by not following through with his word. However, I do understand this, if I put myself in his shoes.

------------------------------

Thanks for the clarification TOOR. Appreciate that. In regards to your clarification, I agree with your view!

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

posted 1 minute ago

comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

it's in your post where you posted two charges. One relating to abuse and one relating to racist abuse.
---------------------------------------------

Well that doesnt clarify it for me. The two charges are part of the same rule .
-------------------------------
How are they part of the same rule? You are showing two different rules and referencing them. You keep contradicting the evidence you post.
------------------------------------

I have not contradicted myself at all. They are obviously part of the same rule as they are number E3(1) and E3(2).

Anyway, I have had a look in the rule book and I was right. In order to give him the ban for the mention of skin colour they had to first give him the ban for abuse. The skin colour reference is seen as an 'aggravating factor', which serves to double the initial ban.


GENERAL BEHAVIOUR
3 (1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not
act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any
one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive,
indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
(2) In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more
of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation
or disability (an “aggravating factor&rdquo, a Regulatory Commission shall consider
the imposition of an increased sanction, taking into account the following entry
points:
For a fi rst off ence, a sanction that is double that which the Regulatory Commission
would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present.

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
I didn't mean to say that Suarez didn't mean any of it. I meant to say only that Suarez didn't feel sorry for not shaking Evra's hand.

I'm sure he does feel sorry for letting the club down by not following through with his word. However, I do understand this, if I put myself in his shoes.

------------------------------

Thanks for the clarification TOOR. Appreciate that. In regards to your clarification, I agree with your view!
--------------------------------
Success!

comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 7 minutes ago


TOOR: Just fùck off, soft lad.

============================================================



Beeb, he's one special case. Look out for him, he'll be the one cleaning the bus window from the inside, no shammy needed

Thanks for clarifying that Elvis. It does put my mind at ease on the two separate charges Suarez was deemed to have fallen foul of.

However you can still fall foul of 3 (1)

A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not
act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any
one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive,
indecent or insulting words or behaviour.

Without falling foul of E 3(2).

I think when Evra threatened to assault Suarez and verbally abused him, as he admitted to, the FA were supposed to, by their own rules, ban him in relation to E3(1).

TOOR...abuse or sledging is normal in most sports, even in the old gentlemans game of cricket.

There is a line

Suarez crossed it.

Terry has also seemingly crossed it and will get his comeuppence!

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 25 seconds ago
TOOR...abuse or sledging is normal in most sports, even in the old gentlemans game of cricket.
----------------------------------------------
I don't care what is normal or not normal. According to the FA's own rules and by Evra's own admission he fell foul of rule E3(1) and wasn't banned.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR...abuse or sledging is normal in most sports, even in the old gentlemans game of cricket.

There is a line

Suarez crossed it.

Terry has also seemingly crossed it and will get his comeuppence!
----------------------------------------------
Well i don't know about Terry, I haven't seen any evidence nor do i believe the player heard or reported anything, it was only a fan. In a real court it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. In light of all this, I doubt that Terry could be found guilty.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

posted 1 minute ago

Thanks for clarifying that Elvis. It does put my mind at ease on the two separate charges Suarez was deemed to have fallen foul of.

However you can still fall foul of 3 (1)

A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not
act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any
one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive,
indecent or insulting words or behaviour.

Without falling foul of E 3(2).

I think when Evra threatened to assault Suarez and verbally abused him, as he admitted to, the FA were supposed to, by their own rules, ban him in relation to E3(1).
---------------------------------------------

Which was my point earlier about the seriousness of the incident. Abuse happens all the time on pitch. As does swearing. The FA on the whole arent going to charge players for this. Rooney overstepped the mark by swearing down the camera. Suarez overstepped the mark by referencing skin colour. Both got what they deserved. In order to charge Suarez with the skin colour reference they had to first charge him with the first part.

I can understand that you feel aggrieved that Evra didnt get charged for the abuse - but if the FA brought charges for that kind of thing then half the PL would be banned.

TOORON, I just want to say goodbye, I think I will WUMFi you, it's nothing personal, not a hate thing, like I said I pity you greatly, it can't be an easy life when winding others up on a forum is all you have to do all day every day.

I hope you take my advice and see your GP about some counselling, all the best

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

I don't care what is normal or not normal. According to the FA's own rules and by Evra's own admission he fell foul of rule E3(1) and wasn't banned.
----------------------------------------

And Kenny was clearly seen swearing on TV right after Rooney got his 2 game ban for swearing. The difference is the severity. We arent crying about Kenny not getting a ban as he just did what every other player and manager does every week. And the abuse that Evra dished out is the same as most players dish out every week. Suarez went too far (in the eyes of the FA) and got punished for it.

I am not aggrieved Evra didn't get charged, at all. I have no interest in Evra, he's a Manchester United player. I'm aggrieved only because I believe Suarez wasn't given a fair trial and he was banned without evidence to ban him. I'm aggrieved that he was banned for four games, without evidence of abuse when it was established in the same hearing Evra did abuse and threaten Suarez but nothing happened.

in this case that doesnt make it right as theres clear discrimination...

if youre going to ban Suarez for insulting behaviour on this occassion then Evra must be banned too..otherwise their justice is obviously flawed and bias

comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

I don't care what is normal or not normal. According to the FA's own rules and by Evra's own admission he fell foul of rule E3(1) and wasn't banned.
----------------------------------------

And Kenny was clearly seen swearing on TV right after Rooney got his 2 game ban for swearing.
-------------------------------
There is a big difference here though. As I'm sure you pointed out when Rooney was banned, many players swear, however Rooney did it directly down the camera.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

posted 56 seconds ago

I am not aggrieved Evra didn't get charged, at all. I have no interest in Evra, he's a Manchester United player
----------------------------

So why did you bring it up then?

Basically the FA suited their agenda.

They did not want to set a precedent for insulting behaviour bans, ignoring the fact that it was completely discriminatory against Suarez

TOOR

Re: Terry, it was a fan who reproted it but it is backed up by video evidence and Anton has "strong feelings" about the situation and is happy it goes to court...Fan + Video + Anton = strong case against the word of Terry.