Suarez gets 8 match ban

[revol68]

Evra's claims should still be investigated but if the case boils down to one word against another, then in that senario do you go with somebody that might be deemed as an unreliable witness.

It wasn't one persons word against anothers, it was one idiots word against many others, including his own teammates and even his own word as his ridiculous argument sank himself, afterall the clown admitted to referring to Evra's skin tone but tried ot pass it off as friendly banter.

 

[The39thStep]

Language patterns follow deeper historical and cultural patterns. The contention that Argentinian and Uruguayan cultures are very different doesn't stand up.

I think you really need to follow the logic of your statement that language follows deeper historical and cultural patterns rather than language is the same therefore they are all the same.

Btw before you go on to dismiss jonny wop as a load of Hitler loving racists who don't understand our culture, Uruguay actually had black players in their national team in the 1930s. In the 1930s the English national team had none and the FA were doing quite a good job in Kicking in Racism:

 

[trampie]

Still not defending Suarez, I see.

At the risk of wasting more keystrokes, the point is that what Suarez was saying in his evidence was not credible, unless you believe that repeated gestures - the pinch, the hand on the back of Evra's head after the ref had spoken to both, the words exchanged between the two - were an effort to calm Evra down. If you dont believe what Suarez said about why he said something, then the only position left is to find him guilty.

The lack of any hard evidence should have resulted in the case not being proven, my personal sense of justice tells me you cant convict somebody if you cant prove it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not quite sure what your point is here, 39th step. Are you taking offence on behalf of all Uruguay or something?

 

[trampie]

It wasn't one persons word against anothers, it was one idiots word against many others, including his own teammates and even his own word as his ridiculous argument sank himself, afterall the clown admitted to referring to Evra's skin tone but tried ot pass it off as friendly banter.

Did Evra refer to Suarez ethnic background ?

You still havent addressed the following points 'revol68' that Evra is apparently a Spanish speaker, yet he mistranslates a word he should understand ?, if has mistranslated that, why should we take as fact everything that he is translating and then giving as evidence ?
Also, he says to the ref during the game that he has been called a ''blah blah'' so was he mistaken at that point ? and then at what point did he admit to mistranslating it ?, after he had heard what Suarez version was and after there was no video evidence forthcoming ?

Also would Suarez had been found guilty by a court/panel/board that had a higher proof of burden than the English FA ?, who apparently find 99.5% of all cases put before it as guilty.​

 

[trampie]

I'm not quite sure what your point is here, 39th step. Are you taking offence on behalf of all Uruguay or something?

You are like revol68, littlebabyjesus asking questions but not answering any, what lies exactly are you stating that Suarez told the tribunal ?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

agricola very kindly answered for me. Did you miss the bit where Suarez was forced to change his story as the video evidence showed that he was lying?

 

[trampie]

agricola very kindly answered for me. Did you miss the bit where Suarez was forced to change his story as the video evidence showed that he was lying?

No i havent seen it, tell me all about it, as you are a person that has read the 115 page report, what lies has Mr Suarez said ?, we know that Mr Evra withdrew his accusations of the use of a serious word and i have pointed out that reference to it can be found on para 272 and the fact that Mr Evra also withdrew that the word was said 'at least ten times' can be seen on para 279-281.
Where can i see in the report that Mr Suarez has withdrawn something or other ?

 

[trampie]

Still waiting revol68, it takes a lot of figuring out to answer my questions to you does it ?

 

[trampie]

If you dont believe what Suarez said about why he said something, then the only position left is to find him guilty.

Oh dear, i wouldnt like to see you on a murder trial, like i said if you cant prove it you shouldnt convict imo, as we are talking about a serious matter. The FA usually deal with, 'was it or wasnt it a dangerous tackle ?', but they should have higher standards for more serious cases.

 

[Deareg]

Oh dear, i wouldnt like to see you on a murder trial, like i said if you cant prove it you shouldnt convict imo,

This was not a criminal case so why do you keep pointing out that the evidence would not stand up in a court of law?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In civil law, disputes between two parties such as this are decided on the balance of probabilities. That's the standard this case was tried to.

I can't believe I'm still responding to you, tbh. at self.

 

[Deareg]

No i havent seen it, tell me all about it, as you are a person that has read the 115 page report, what lies has Mr Suarez said ?, we know that Mr Evra withdrew his accusations of the use of a serious word and i have pointed out that reference to it can be found on para 272 and the fact that Mr Evra also withdrew that the word was said 'at least ten times' can be seen on para 279-281.
Where can i see in the report that Mr Suarez has withdrawn something or other ?

Suarez has admitted using the words that he was charged with using, the FA did not believe his reasons for using them.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Suarez has admitted using the words that he was charged with using, the FA did not believe his reasons for using them.

And neither would any reasonable person, imo.

 

[agricola]

Oh dear, i wouldnt like to see you on a murder trial, like i said if you cant prove it you shouldnt convict imo, as we are talking about a serious matter. The FA usually deal with, 'was it or wasnt it a dangerous tackle ?', but they should have higher standards for more serious cases.

You are demonstrating the calm, bias-free reasoning and logic that other kopites have been famed for in this case.

Suarez admitted saying "Por que, negro", he just claimed that he did it in a friendly way. To quote the FA tribunal:

To describe his own behavior in that way was unsustainable and simply incredible given that the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument.

If this was a murder trial, what you are asking everyone to believe is that Suarez admitted stabbing the bloke to death - he just did so to make the victim feel better.

 

[trampie]

You are demonstrating the calm, bias-free reasoning and logic that other kopites have been famed for in this case.

I dont support Liverpool.

 

[trampie]

Suarez has admitted using the words that he was charged with using, the FA did not believe his reasons for using them.

Very true.

 

[agricola]

I dont support Liverpool.

... and yet here you are parrotting their most idiotic lines for all to see. Have you checked to see whether you are a kopite? Do you have lots of badges on your favourite jacket?

 

[trampie]

This was not a criminal case so why do you keep pointing out that the evidence would not stand up in a court of law?

Because it could have been a criminal case and i dont think Suarez would have been done, lots of people are unaware that the burden of proof in an FA tribunal is next to nothing.

 

[agricola]

Because it could have been a criminal case and i dont think Suarez would have been done, lots of people are unaware that the burden of proof in an FA tribunal is next to nothing.

If Suarez went into a criminal trial, admitted the act that was in question but advanced an excuse that was as bad as the one he advanced at the FA hearing, he would have been found guilty.

 

[trampie]

... and yet here you are parrotting their most idiotic lines for all to see. Have you checked to see whether you are a kopite? Do you have lots of badges on your favourite jacket?

Im not even the same nationality as the people where Liverpool is located, just calling it as i see it as a neutral.

 

[trampie]

If Suarez went into a criminal trial, admitted the act that was in question but advanced an excuse that was as bad as the one he advanced at the FA hearing, he would have been found guilty.

Once Evra withdrew his accusation at the start, Suarez would have been found not guilty, no jury would convict Suarez for what he said if he testified it wasnt meant in a nasty way.

 

[Lo Siento.]

In the sense that I am not going out with someone from Argentina yes you are. But in the sense of anyones elses opinion being inferior to yours because they are not going out with someone from Argentina then no. Argentina's political history and therefore culture is not identical at all.

I wouldn't have brought it up at all if you hadn't originally asked me to "read up on Uruguay". In this particular aspect Argentinian culture and Uruguayan culture and indeed almost identical. In both countries one might use "negro" in a friendly way, as in "pasamela, negro!" (pass me the ball) with a friend in a friendly way, and in both countries it would insulting if used in the context of an argument.

You're not doing Uruguayan or Latin American cultures any favours by suggesting otherwise and arguing that it's perfectable acceptable to append racial epithets to argumentative phrases, btw.

 

[agricola]

Once Evra withdrew his accusation at the start, Suarez would have been found not guilty, no jury would convict Suarez for what he said if he testified it wasnt meant in a nasty way.

When did Evra withdraw his accusation, again?

Or are you trying to argue that him saying one thing about how many times Suarez abused him to Canal+ and another number of times to another person invalidates all of his evidence? As for "no jury would convict Suarez for what he said if he testified it wasnt meant in a nasty way", the point you seem incapable of noticing is that all the evidence fairly conclusively demonstrated that Suarez and Evra had not been acting in the friendly, banterish sort of way that would be required for the use of the language that Suarez admitted to using to be justified. Once that justification was removed, Suarez was guilty.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

A reason the conviction rate is so high might have something to do with the amount of high definition TV cameras at each football match

That's what I thought when I first heard that stat but I don't think it's quite right. As I understand it that covers FA rulings right down the leagues to very low levels. And at the lower levels they probably just go with what the ref said happened and hand out the bans in five minutes. I'm sure it results in some wrong decisions but nobody really cares all that much - no-one is about to get in an expensive lawyer to avoid a month's ban from the Sam's Pies West Staines League Division 2. And at the higher levels then yes there will nearly always be some pretty clear TV evidence. So that will account for the vast majority of those cases, which makes the stat entirely irrelevant in a case like this which has taken 3 days and all the sides have called in very expensive legal advice and representation.

 

[Deareg]

That's what I thought when I first heard that stat but I don't think it's quite right. As I understand it that covers FA rulings right down the leagues to very low levels. And at the lower levels they probably just go with what the ref said happened and hand out the bans in five minutes. I'm sure it results in some wrong decisions but nobody really cares all that much - no-one is about to get in an expensive lawyer to avoid a month's ban from the Sam's Pies West Staines League Division 2. And at the higher levels then yes there will nearly always be some pretty clear TV evidence. So that will account for the vast majority of those cases, which makes the stat entirely irrelevant in a case like this which has taken 3 days and all the sides have called in very expensive legal advice and representation.

You have a good point here, I don't know how it is conducted at grass roots level but doubt very much that anyone using these stats as part of their argument ever even considered this point.

 

[trampie]

When did Evra withdraw his accusation, again?

Or are you trying to argue that him saying one thing about how many times Suarez abused him to Canal+ and another number of times to another person invalidates all of his evidence? As for "no jury would convict Suarez for what he said if he testified it wasnt meant in a nasty way", the point you seem incapable of noticing is that all the evidence fairly conclusively demonstrated that Suarez and Evra had not been acting in the friendly, banterish sort of way that would be required for the use of the language that Suarez admitted to using to be justified. Once that justification was removed, Suarez was guilty.

Late in the day i would guess Evra withdrew his accusations because it forms part of the FA panel report, Suarez denied Evra's accusations of a word everyone accepts is not acceptable but what Suarez admitted to saying he thought it to be fairly harmless, do you think its ok for somebody to say to Suarez 'dont touch me you South American', is that not refering to Suarez ethnic background ?, is that acceptable ?

 

[agricola]

Late in the day i would guess Evra withdrew his accusations because it forms part of the FA panel report, Suarez denied Evra's accusations of a word everyone accepts is not acceptable but what Suarez admitted to saying he thought it to be fairly harmless, do you think its ok for somebody to say to Suarez 'dont touch me you South American', is that not refering to Suarez ethnic background ?, is that acceptable ?

Are you sure you arent a kopite? As for whether "you South American" is acceptable - perhaps not, but since neither Suarez nor the RS themselves have ever made any complaint about it, even though it might have considerably helped their case, one wonders whether ot not it actually happened.

 

[Deareg]

Are you sure you arent a kopite? As for whether "you South American" is acceptable - perhaps not, but since neither Suarez nor the RS themselves have ever made any complaint about it, even though it might have considerably helped their case, one wonders whether ot not it actually happened.

I think Evra admitted saying something along those lines.

 

[agricola]

I think Evra admitted saying something along those lines.

He didnt admit saying that - he admitted saying "Concha de tu hermana" to Suarez at the start of the row, and then threatening to hit Suarez if he kept calling him negro.