Suarez gets 8 match ban

[manny-p]

It's entirely normal in Latin American culture to use physical characteristics when referring to others.

From experience Latin American culture is extremely racist. Living there it was evident that there is still a caste system and having european blood and looks is seen as better than any other with the majority of people.

 

[butchersapron]

As I said, if he shouted it into his face at the height of the spat it would be a pretty clear case. If he said it as the ref was speaking to them both and the situation had been diffused, then it would be less clear.

Given that the claim is that he used it whilst 'using insulting words' it's pretty odds on that it wasn't during any diffused loving situation but during the original row. This is a very weak defence. I wouldn't allow it in any case involving me. I wonder if Saurez did?

 

[butchersapron]

They haven't made public the evidence and their reasoning, is the point.

Their conduits have been given the story though.

 

[sylvan]

eta: meh

 

[The39thStep]

don't know if it has been mentioned on this thread but a thought provoking article from a correspondent who has good knowledge of Latin American football and its politics:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16262537.stm

 

[agricola]

Given that the claim is that he used it whilst 'using insulting words' it's pretty odds on that it wasn't during any diffused loving situation but during the original row. This is a very weak defence. I wouldn't allow it in any case involving me. I wonder if Saurez did?

This is the most confusing thing about the whole episode - it is that argument (and its evident absurdity) that has condemned him, if he had denied saying anything then he would not have been banned because the FA could never have proved it.

 

[ignatious]

Given that the claim is that he used it whilst 'using insulting words' it's pretty odds on that it wasn't during any diffused loving situation.

We're going round in circles a bit here and this is particularly pedantic of me, but the claim is not that he 'used it whilst using insulting words' as that would imply he used it as part of an abusive diatribe, which would be clear evidence that it was used in an aggressive context. Rather, they just say 'using insulting words' which could mean that it was used on its own or alongside other, non-aggressive or insulting words.

 

[ignatious]

Their conduits have been given the story though.

You mean selected journo's?

 

[butchersapron]

We're going round in circles a bit here and this is particularly pedantic of me, but the claim is not that he 'used it whilst using insulting words' as that would imply he used it as part of an abusive diatribe, which would be clear evidence that it was used in an aggressive context. Rather, they just say 'using insulting words' which could mean that it was used on its own or alongside other, non-aggressive or insulting words.

No - wrong:

1.Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
2.the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);

So thanks,you've established that the claim is that it was used as ' as part of an abusive diatribe'. Are you a lawyer by any chance?

 

[butchersapron]

You mean selected journo's?

Yes. Do you think they're leaking faked up accounts of the issues and debates? If so,why? To what end?

 

[ignatious]

So thanks,you've established that the claim is that it was used as ' as part of an abusive diatribe'.

Except, of course, I haven't.

 

[TruXta]

Interesting opinion piece from a sports lawyer here http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/21/luis-suarez-liverpool-appeal-options

Says "It is important to note that Suárez can only appeal against the level of the sanction not the actual verdict."

 

[butchersapron]

Except, of course, I haven't.

Well you have. You attempted to separate a) a row 'one that would be characterised by 'an abusive diatribe' and b) a peaceful situation. You then attempted to argue that the term was used only in the latter case - the charge is that it was used in the former and thus formed part of 'an abusive diatribe' . Contra your claim that there was no connection between the use of the term and the insulting words.

I've quoted the exact charge at you numerous times now. The connection is there - you helped make it look even worse.

 

[ignatious]

Yes. Do you think they're leaking faked up accounts of the issues and debates? If so,why? To what end?

I couldn't give a fuck if they're leaking the report, or who they're leaking it to. I'll read the full version when it comes out and make my own mind up.

 

[butchersapron]

I couldn't give a fuck if they're leaking the report, or who they're leaking it to. I'll read the full version when it comes out and make my own mind up.

But you suggested the leaking must have some motivation and that that was helped by the choice of journos they leak to.What could be that motivation? Would they leak a fake report of the proceedings do you think?

 

[ignatious]

Well you have. You attempted to separate a) a row 'one that would be characterised by 'an abusive diatribe' and b) a peaceful situation. You then attempted to argue that the term was used only in the latter case - the charge is that it was used in the former and thus formed part of 'an abusive diatribe' . Contra your claim that there was no connection between the use of the term and the insulting words.

There is no definitive evidence therein of a 'diatribe', merely that words (plural) were used. Maybe he called him a 'cunt' on 35 mins and a 'negrito' on 42 mins. Maybe he called him a 'negrito cunt' on 40 mins. We don't know, and without knowing the exact wording of FA rules E3(1) and E3(2), and the transcript of the row, we can't know!

You are assuming that 'words' in line 2 means 'sentence' or 'in series', no?

 

[butchersapron]

There is no definitive evidence therein of a 'diatribe', merely that words (plural) were used. Maybe he called him a 'cunt' on 35 mins and a 'negrito' on 42 mins. Maybe he called him a 'negrito cunt' on 40 mins. We don't know, and without knowing the exact wording of FA rules E3(1) and E3(2), and the transcript of the row, we can't know!

You are assuming that 'words' in line 2 means 'sentence' or 'in series', no?

Your claim though was

We're going round in circles a bit here and this is particularly pedantic of me, but the claim is not that he 'used it whilst using insulting words' as that would imply he used it as part of an abusive diatribe, which would be clear evidence that it was used in an aggressive context. Rather, they just say 'using insulting words' which could mean that it was used on its own or alongside other, non-aggressive or insulting words.

There is no separation of claim whatsoever. The claim is that the word was used as part of the insulting words that occasioned the charges.

No way out down this avenue.

 

[ignatious]

But you suggested the leaking must have some motivation and that that was helped by the choice of journos they leak to.What could be that motivation? Would they leak a fake report of the proceedings do you think?

I would imagine they're briefing their favoured hacks because they're less than certain of their case and it's helpful in such situations to have some mud slinging around.Mud which said hacks are more than willing to sling, naturally.

What 'fake' report are you referring to, and which paper is it in?

 

[butchersapron]

I would imagine they're briefing their favoured hacks because they're less than certain of their case and it's helpful in such situations to have some mud slinging around.Mud which said hacks are more than willing to sling, naturally.

What 'fake' report are you referring to, and which paper is it in?

What are they briefing them with? What mud slinging?

I'm suggesting the various reports across the papers of the deliberations are accurate.You're suggesting something else. What?

 

[Lo Siento.]

From experience Latin American culture is extremely racist. Living there it was evident that there is still a caste system and having european blood and looks is seen as better than any other with the majority of people.

Generalise about an entire continent and all its people much?

 

[TruXta]

Generalise about an entire continent and all its people much?

All Spanish people are racist. FACT

 

[editor]

Yes. But what does Lorro think?

 

[ignatious]

Your claim though was

There is no separation of claim whatsoever. The claim is that the word was used as part of the insulting words that occasioned the charges.

No way out down this avenue.

So 'negrito' is enough for you?

 

[butchersapron]

So 'negrito' is enough for you?

??

Were you talking about the claim

We're going round in circles a bit here and this is particularly pedantic of me, but the claim is not that he 'used it whilst using insulting words' as that would imply he used it as part of an abusive diatribe, which would be clear evidence that it was used in an aggressive context. Rather, they just say 'using insulting words' which could mean that it was used on its own or alongside other, non-aggressive or insulting words.

Or not? You seem to have rather lost hold of what you're arguing.

 

[ignatious]

What are they briefing them with? What mud slinging?

I'm suggesting the various reports across the papers of the deliberations are accurate.You're suggesting something else. What?

I'm suggesting the papers haven't actually seen an accurate account of the deliberations and are content to accept the verdict without seeing the evidence for themselves. They (and you) have far more faith in the 3 wise men than many others (myself included) do.

 

[ignatious]

??

Were you talking about the claim

Or not? You seem to have rather lost hold of what you're arguing.

I was taking issue with your insertion of the word 'whilst'.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm suggesting the papers haven't actually seen an accurate account of the deliberations and are content to accept the verdict without seeing the evidence for themselves. They (and you) have far more faith in the 3 wise men than many others (myself included) do.

I'm not talking about the verdict, i'm talking about the way that the deliberations went, what was under discussion. That's all that's been leaked. Please, please catch up.

 

[butchersapron]

I was taking issue with your insertion of the word 'whilst'.

Wrongly as now shown definitively.

 

[DRINK?]

From LFC statement .....my best mate etc etc

Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black. He has played with black players and mixed with their families whilst with the Uruguay national side and was Captain at Ajax Amsterdam of a team with a proud multi-cultural profile, many of whom became good friends. It seems incredible to us that a player of mixed heritage should be accused and found guilty in the way he has based on the evidence presented.

 

[TruXta]

TBH that statement was a massive own goal. If things stand as they are Evra might have a case for libel.