Suarez gets 8 match ban

[littlebabyjesus]

AFAIK there's no video footage or sounds recordings showing him using the offending word.The expert witnesses were all about the semantics, not about the incident. Again, this doesn't mean that Suarez' version of the events is the correct one, but IMO neither does it conclusively prove that Evra's is. Anyway, didn't I excuse myself from this thread? Bye!

No, the conclusion of the report was that Suarez's version was not consistent with the evidence they had, whereas Evra's was. Basically, we may not know that Evra was telling the truth, but we do know that Suarez was lying. As butchers says, evidence of the reactions. Above all else, that's what has lost Suarez any sympathy from me. His continued insistence on his complete innocence is really grating now.

 

[TruXta]

There's visual video evidence of the reactions of both players when certain things happened - i.e facial expressions, physical reactions and so on.

Of course, but to my knowledge none of that has been any help in establishing whether or not Suarez used this word or that, on more than one occassion. He could've called Evra all sorts without referring to the colour of his skin.

Anyway, last word from me in this thread (promise!) will be a link to this piece: http://afootballreport.com/post/15301344153/flaws-and-consequences-the-curious-case-of-luis-suarez written by the solicitor for the Professional Footballers' Association of Ireland. Partisan in favour of Suarez as he's a LFC fan, but nonetheless interesting IMO.

 

[Fedayn]

A spokesman for a LFC supporters group has just been on Sky sports news blaming the FA for the whole thing.

Surely a Liverpool fan isn't blaming someone/anyone/everyone else for the actions of one of their players?!

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yes you did, when you argued that they were clear and unambiguous evidence of an apology, not only to Evra personally but everyone generally. Do you actually remember your own posts from hour to hour?

Where did I reference the articles to prove a point I was making?, what did I quote?

 

[butchersapron]

Where did I reference the articles to prove a point I was making?, what did I quote?

The articles that you linked to in order to argue that Suarez had offered an apology, one that included Evra. When you argued that the 'anyone' included in your link to the mail article included him - in this post.

 

[Lo Siento.]

That apology, as apologies go, is shit. It is as said a non-apology. And that's arguably another PR blunder on top of the many others that have happened. That said I think it's perfectly obvious why it's come out as it has. Neither Suarez nor, by extension, LFC agree with the verdict given by the FA panel. At the end of the day there is still only the word of Evra against the word of Suarez wrt how many times and in what context the offending word was used. Suarez maintains it was a one time, not intentionally offensive usage in a context where it was ill-advised to use that word (i.e. any English, or even Europea pitch), whereas Evra maintains it was malignly used either 7, 8 or more than 10 times (according to different statements to press and the commission). Seen in that light I can understand why Suarez feels the need to try and protect his reputation, such as it is. That doesn't make it right, even if his version of events is the true one. He should've realised straight off that it was a stupid thing to say and said sorry to Evra at once, in person.

As I understood it, according to what I've seen of the FA's report, in their initial statements both Damien Commoli and Dirk Kuyt told the 4th official that Suarez responded to the question "por que me diste un golpe?" with the response "porque tu eres negro", the former from overhearing it. They later decided otherwise.

Now, there are plenty of reasons why they could change their stories for perfectly innocent reasons, but given that their original statements match Evra's ...

 

[sleaterkinney]

The articles that you linked to in order to argue that Suarez had offered an apology, one that included Evra. When you argued that the 'anyone' included in your link to the mail article included him - in this post.

Referencing to me means specifically quoting or saying which part of the article I was talking about which proved my point, I don't do this.

 

[butchersapron]

I get it, you post a link to an article and suggest that this article demonstrates that Suarez has apologised, not only generally but specifically Evra as he was included in the "anyone" offended. (At this point you could only be quoting "anyone" from one of the two articles as this was the only place it was online) but you weren't referencing it/them.

Fair enough if you want to go along with the suggestion that the two newspaper articles both argue that Suarez's apology was a sham which is why you didn't use them to argue that his apology included Evra and was in fact a genuine apology then fine. Let's start again from there. Which still leaves the question of why the two papers responded in such a manner to the 'apology'. Any ideas?

 

[sleaterkinney]

I have no idea what mess you've got yourself into, when the news of the apology came out last night I posted up the sources I found for the purpose of quoting the apology, I didn't use or reference the articles beyond that, certainly not to back up my argument.

As to why they reacted the way they did?. To sell newspapers.

 

[butchersapron]

Or because they easily saw through the dishonest self serving nature of the apology and wanted to mock the apologist.

 

[Fedayn]

Oh this gets better and better.... Truly brilliant.... Nomination for thread of the year and nomination for idiot of the year aswell and we're only in January.

 

[Big Gunz]

We should ban this vile racist too http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

Credible witness? Please...

 

[butchersapron]

Oh this gets better and better.... Truly brilliant.... Nomination for thread of the year and nomination for idiot of the year aswell and we're only in January.

Hang on, you may have spoke too soon fed...

 

[kained&able]

We should ban this vile racist too http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

Credible witness? Please...

Oh cause that's entirely the same thing isn't it!!

 

[Wilf]

We should ban this vile racist too http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

Credible witness? Please...

Another Liverpool fan displays a comendable grasp of the word 'context'.

 

[Fedayn]

We should ban this vile racist too http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

Credible witness? Please...

Absolutely, I mean it's exactly the same isn't it?!

 

[Combustible]

We should ban this vile racist too http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

Credible witness? Please...

So how does that indicate Evra is more likely to have lied in his account?

 

[Lo Siento.]

We should ban this vile racist too http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

Credible witness? Please...

jesus wept, I'm checking my calendar. Is it really 2012 and there are still people in the world who haven't accepted that "nigger", when a black person uses it to describe another black person, is different in meaning to the same word used a racist slur?

 

[twistedAM]

Oh this gets better and better.... Truly brilliant.... Nomination for thread of the year and nomination for idiot of the year aswell and we're only in January.

Which idiot? There's at least four on here worthy of the job of Liverpool LFC Press Officer

This thread has descended way beyond the zone

 

[Fedayn]

Which idiot? There's at least four on here worthy of the job of Liverpool LFC Press Officer

This thread has descended way beyond the zone

I think there's one who is head and shoulders above the rest frankly....

 

[mwgdrwg]

And they call Evertonians bitter! Ha!

 

[Gingerman]

Liverpool and their supporters should draw a ________ under this and move fucking on.

 

[Refused as fuck]

No Liverpool must first apologise for at least two racist official statements and Dalglish personally needs to apologise for his involvement, which comes after Suarez is banned for his entire life.
Then Liverpool FC can draw a line under it and move on.

 

[Fedayn]

Liverpool and their supporters should draw a ________ under this and move fucking on.

Liverpool FC want further meetings with the FA to discuss the disciplinary procedure and Evra's evidence/statement. They aren't drawing a line under anything.

 

[han]

This thread is making me laugh out loud, for some reason.

 

[Big Gunz]

Calm down fella's when I posted up that Evra rap my tongue was firmly in cheek! But I don't think his word should be taken as gospel. But we've accepted the punishment and there's no point further debating the issue.

Another Liverpool fan displays a comendable grasp of the word 'context'.

So it's okay to say "I'm going for a chinky then?" when I know plenty of Chinese who would take offence. Context isn't always so clear as this case has proved.

 

[kained&able]

So it's okay to say "I'm going for a chinky then?

no, no its not.

 

[butchersapron]

Calm down fella's when I posted up that Evra rap my tongue was firmly in cheek! But I don't think his word should be taken as gospel. But we've accepted the punishment and there's no point further debating the issue.

So it's okay to say "I'm going for a chinky then?" when I know plenty of Chinese who would take offence. Context isn't always so clear as this case has proved.

How the fuck did you reach that last conclusion out of what Wilf wrote?

 

[Fedayn]

So it's okay to say "I'm going for a chinky then?" when I know plenty of Chinese who would take offence. Context isn't always so clear as this case has proved.

What do you think?!

 

[Wilf]

How the fuck did you reach that last conclusion out of what Wilf wrote?

I thought we'd struggle to beat sleater's "It's okay to call someone 'negro' on a multicultural training ground", but it seems the competition has heated up!

Oh and BG, the context is clear in the Suarez case, that's the whole point. The only way you could dispute that (and deploy the 'Uruguayan defence') is if you think they were two mates joshing away and nipping each other's flesh as only the best of chums can do. Is that what you reckon?