Suarez gets 8 match ban

[sleaterkinney]

It really, really doesn't. 'The balance of probability' is the civil law standard. You're saying there was a choice between the criminal and civil and there was no such choice. This was not a criminal court. The burden of proof is the correct burden.

I'm saying that it's such a serious matter that it should be tried under the criminal law standard. This will hang over the guy for the rest of his career so it's more important than "a balance of probability".

Also, they did not take Evra's word, Suarez agreed the substance of the allegation but claimed a different intention, a non-racist intention.

They did:

In all the circumstances, we preferred the evidence of Mr Evra. His account was clear and
consistent in all material respects. There is no basis for saying that he lied or was mistaken
in what he heard. We found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened

Just give it up and have some respect. The world is losing respect for Liverpool FC as it is.

Give up what?. I was asked for my opinion on the evidence and I've giving it. Do you have a problem with that?.

 

[Wilf]

Sleater - as has been said, 'balance of probability' is absolutely the right standard for UK disciplnary hearings. Edit - and presumably the standard your club agreed to.

Also, you said you wanted to wait till you saw the evidence. Has reading the report made you more or less sympathetic to Suarez?

 

[strung out]

it's no surprise that sleaterkinney is still disputing this tbh. it's a despicable viewpoint to take, but entirely in line with form.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It wasn't a criminal case, though, and suarez clearly lied while evra's story was consistent with the evidence. What do you say to evra ( and anyone else on the future) by clearing him? Your evidence is entirely credible while his isn't yet we're going to rule as if you were lying and he were telling the truth?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Sleater - as has been said, 'balance of probability' is absolutely the right standard for UK disciplnary hearings. Edit - and presumably the standard your club agreed to.

I'm not sure they should have, because it looks like he could be fitted up without serious evidence.

Also, you said you wanted to wait till you saw the evidence. Has reading the report made you more or less sympathetic to Suarez?

It has, Evra kicked it all of with a curse in Spanish, the argument continued in Spanish and Suarez used a word he uses in Spanish back home - And the FA take the English view on that word.

 

[Epico]

It's just a good job Liverpool have got a class act £35 million striker to fall back on.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not sure they should have, because it looks like he could be fitted up without serious evidence.

It has, Evra kicked it all of with a curse in Spanish, the argument continued in Spanish and Suarez used a word he uses in Spanish back home - And the FA take the English view on that word.

Come off it. That is a gross mirepresentation of the report. The 'a word he uses back home' defence is laughable.

 

[sleaterkinney]

It wasn't a criminal case, though, and suarez clearly lied while evra's story was consistent with the evidence. What do you say to evra ( and anyone else on the future) by clearing him? Your evidence is entirely credible while his isn't yet we're going to rule as if you were lying and he were telling the truth?

I would have said to Evra - there's no clear evidence so we're giving Suarez a warning.

You can't fit a person up because they're a crap witness, I can barely recall stuff that happened last week. You have to have proof.

 

[Deareg]

And the FA take the English view on that word.

No they fucking didn't.

(3) We received expert evidence as to the use of the word "negro" in Uruguay and
other areas of Latin America. It is often used as a noun to address people,
whether family, friends or passers-by, and is widely seen as inoffensive.
However, its use can also be offensive. It depends on the context. It is inoffensive
when its use implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such rapport.
However, if it were used, for example, with a sneer, then it might carry negative
connotations. The Spanish language experts told us that if Mr Suarez said the
things that Mr Evra alleged, they would be considered racially offensive in
Uruguay and other regions of Latin America

 

[sleaterkinney]

Come off it. That is a gross mirepresentation of the report. The 'a word he uses back home' defence is laughable.

Evra started it off by cursing at him in spanish - what language should he have used?

 

[sleaterkinney]

No they fucking didn't.

(3) We received expert evidence as to the use of the word "negro" in Uruguay and
other areas of Latin America. It is often used as a noun to address people,
whether family, friends or passers-by, and is widely seen as inoffensive.
However, its use can also be offensive. It depends on the context. It is inoffensive
when its use implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such rapport.
However, if it were used, for example, with a sneer, then it might carry negative
connotations. The Spanish language experts told us that if Mr Suarez said the
things that Mr Evra alleged, they would be considered racially offensive in
Uruguay and other regions of Latin America

Can you even read?, I've bolded it for you

 

[strung out]

I would have said to Evra - there's no clear evidence so we're giving Suarez a warning.

You can't fit a person up because they're a crap witness, I can barely recall stuff that happened last week. You have to have proof.

what do you mean there wasn't clear evidence? the facts of the case were pretty much undisputed by suarez. he tried blagging his way out of it by explaining it away as harmless chat that he'd use back home, and he was called up on his bullshit by evra and the fa.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Evra started it off by cursing at him in spanish - what language should he have used?

That's the only bit of your post that wasn't a gross misrepresentation.

 

[sleaterkinney]

what do you mean there wasn't clear evidence? the facts of the case were pretty much undisputed by suarez. he tried blagging his way out of it by explaining it away as harmless chat that he'd use back home, and he was called up on his bullshit by evra and the fa.

You haven't read it then.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Can you even read?, I've bolded it for you

Your posts are not consistent with each other. Are you luis suarez perchance?

 

[Deareg]

Can you even read?, I've bolded it for you

Well the FA believe he did say it.

 

[strung out]

You haven't read it then.

you're a disgrace. i vote we ban you for 8 matches.

 

[Wilf]

And again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yITzZmhFjko

 

[Deareg]

Can you even read?, I've bolded it for you

Even Comolli says that he used racist fucking language.

Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"

 

[Wilf]

It has, Evra kicked it all of with a curse in Spanish, the argument continued in Spanish and Suarez used a word he uses in Spanish back home - And the FA take the English view on that word.

You are seriously suggesting that reading the report has made you more favourable to Suarez??!! Wow, fucking wow.

And no, the FA (independent panel) didn't just go on the English usage. They got expert advice on the Uraguayan usage and got unambiguous advice that the word was offensive in the context of an argument. Of all the things you are arguing, that is the most dishonest. Well, no, go on, I'll let you make it clear what you think: is it the case that negro or little black boy, used in the context of an on-field battle could be used innocently? Is that what you really think?

 

[London_Calling]

He also said that his use of the word "negro" to
address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence

It's almost all you need to know.

 

[Deareg]

It is not an acceptable term to all black Uruguayans either.

First, there are some black people in Uruguay and other areas of Latin America who 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. This is the use of the word "negro" (ie as a term of address)
which Mr Suarez contended before us is acceptable, yet his view appears to be contentious
with some in Uruguay and Latin America

 

[Deareg]

Thirdly, the experts' confine their conclusions on Mr Evra's and Mr Suarez's accounts to
how the word would be understood in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more
generally, They were right to do so, no doubt recognising that whilst it is legitimate and
helpful for the experts to give their opinion on whether or not the word might be used to
offend in Uruguay and Latin America, it is the Commission's task to decide whether the
use of the word in England is abusive or insulting. The use of the word in a particular way
might be seen as inoffensive by many in Uruguay. The same use of the same word in
England might nevertheless be abusive or insulting.

 

[sleaterkinney]

You are seriously suggesting that reading the report has made you more favourable to Suarez??!! Wow, fucking wow.

It has, because they took Evra's word on the majority of what happened.

And no, the FA (independent panel) didn't just go on the English usage. They got expert advice on the Uraguayan usage and got unambiguous advice that the word was offensive in the context of an argument. Of all the things you are arguing, that is the most dishonest. Well, no, go on, I'll let you make it clear what you think: is it the case that negro or little black boy, used in the context of an on-field battle could be used innocently? Is that what you really think?

Did you read the report?:

194 The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez's account as follows. If Mr Suarez
used the word "negro" as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either
offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America

 

[strung out]

so you believe suarez was being friendly when he called evra a negro then? even though they were in the middle of an argument?

 

[butchersapron]

It has, because they took Evra's word on the majority of what happened.
Did you read the report?:

Did you miss the other half of the experts conclusions:

that if Mr Suarez used the words "negro"and "negros" as described by Mr Evra, this would be understood as offensive and offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally

My italics.

 

[Deareg]

Whilst Mr Suarez had, in his interview with the FA, said that he had used the word
"negro" towards Mr Evra in a "friendly and affectionate" way, the first time that he used
the words "conciliation" and "conciliatory" was in his witness statement. This was signed
after Mr Suarez had received the experts' report which referred to the possibility that Mr
Suarez's use of the term was intended as an attempt at conciliation. It is difficult to avoid 67
the conclusion that Mr Suarez used the words conciliation and conciliatory to describe his
use of the word "negro" because the experts had used those terms to describe the
circumstances in which the word would not generally be offensive in Uruguay

 

[Wilf]

sleaterkinney, said "It has, because they took Evra's word on the majority of what happened."

You've become more favourable to Suarez because the Commission rejected his evidence as unreliable??? Again, fucking Wow!!

Also... "194 The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez's account as follows. If Mr Suarez
used the word "negro" as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either
offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America"

You quote this to suggest the Commission believed the friendly version of 'Negro' line - but missed out the relevant point that they actively REJECTED the idea that this was any any way a pally situation. I've only found a pdf version, so can't quote from the report, but just have a look at 453 part 5. Oh, and maybe have a look at yourself while you are at it.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Did you miss the other half of the experts conclusions:

that if Mr Suarez used the words "negro"and "negros" as described by Mr Evra, this would be understood as offensive and offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally

My italics.

My bolding.

 

[Deareg]

My bolding.

And believed by the FA.