“If cups were awarded for cock-ups then you would not be able to move in City’s boardroom” — Francis Lee
It was appropriate that Liverpool played Manchester City last night, hours after they attempted to draw a line under the Luis Suárez-Patrice Evra incident. The Anfield club may be struggling to keep pace on the pitch with the arrivistes, but the past few weeks have allowed them to usurp the title of cock-up kings.
Their churlish statement underlined this and brings an ugly episode to a gruesome end. Liverpool mishandled the entire case badly, from the referee’s room at Anfield in October to last night’s undignified press release.
The essence of the statement is simple: we’re right but we’ll back off for the greater good. The club’s partisan supporters, who have launched themselves into the defence of the indefensible with characteristic passion, will cheer its belligerence. They will point to the FA’s 115-page verdict — which has something for every conspiracy theorist, nuevo Hispanic linguist and closet racist — to show the inefficiency and muddleheadedness of the ruling body.
They have a point.
The report could have been condensed to its salient facts: Suárez was undone by the evidence of Damien Comolli, the Liverpool director of football, who went to the referee’s room at Anfield after the incident and told the officials that the word “negro” had been used by Suárez in his spat with Evra.
It was a reference to colour — in any language, despite Suárez’s statement — and part of a dialogue that was designed to unsettle and undermine the Manchester United defender. After that, all of Evra and United’s evidence could have been discarded. The only question was how much racism is involved.
The three-man commission was happy to accept Suárez is not a racist, as was Evra. But the charge was proved and the mention of Evra’s colour admitted. All the sound and the fury that followed served only to diminish the status of a great club.
This was a farce from Liverpool’s perspective. The club’s lawyers produced a shambolic display and the lack of direction from Anfield and Boston throws into question whether anyone was paying attention to the realities of the situation.
The only senior figure from Liverpool to comment publicly has been Kenny Dalglish. Comolli’s voice was not heard until his damning evidence in front of the commission. Ian Ayre, the managing director, remained silent, as did the owners.
Yet last night’s statement had a surreal reference to racism in American sports. Is this John Henry, the face of Fenway Sports Group, signalling his support of the club’s stance? If it is, the intervention does not reflect well on him.
For a start, it came too late. Henry is keen to exploit the global markets and this mucky episode will not create new fans. The team have a leader and Dalglish can be trusted to develop the side and reinstall a winning attitude. But this mounting crisis needed direction from the boardroom. Only the most deluded would argue that this was anything less than a public relations disaster.
If the issues were not so big, there would be fine comedy in Liverpool’s approach: from the Ali G-style suggestion that Evra had told Andre Marriner “you’re only booking me because I’m black”, to the T-shirts of support worn before the Wigan Athletic game. But it is not funny that a club who needed to regain some dignity after the chaos of the Gillett and Hicks years should demean themselves in a battle that was questionable and unwinnable.
Liverpool can lambast the FA, which handled the situation badly. The FA can take solace that it has come out of this sordid drama with more credibility than Anfield. The cup for cock-ups has a new home.
I, for one, and very saddened and disappointed at the handling by both the club and the FA on this matter. I am also disappointed at the decision not to appeal or take it higher. For the ban is irrelevant, the sullied name of Suarez is more important.
From what I gather from the report, the witness statements were hearsay. ‘He said he said this’ not ‘I heard him say’. How can they be used as hard evidence? Did anybody take into consideration that what Suarez actually said to Commoli was, ‘He is saying I said I kicked him because he is black’ and not ‘I kicked him because he is black’.. 5 different languages spoken that day, yet no room for crossed wires… Hhhmmmm…
Ok so Suarez, by his own admission, admitted using the word negro. This is the only piece of evidence that should have been used. For me, the ignorance and stupidity of Suarez should have been on trial. Negro has not got the same meaning across the world as n****r. Is wildly accepted in the US as a term for African American. It is the Spanish meaning for the word black. It is a descriptive term in South America. Much like calling a skinny person skinny, or a red head, ginger. That is how they speak to each other. Not the most sensitive of cultures but nonetheless a fact. The FA should have used that in their ruling. It may be something you say at home but cannot be said.on Tue pitch. Evra, being of different culture had every right to be annoyed and angered.
What is making me more angry is the lazy and sloppy journalism that is being spewed out by so called educated journalists. The report is flawed. Just because the FA came to the conclusion that what Evra said ‘probably happened’ does not make it fact. This 7 times (or was it 5 times? No wait 10?!) business needs to stop.. And the mirror is another paper ill never pick up again. In fact I might just give them all a miss!!
You can see it in Kenny Dalglish that there is more to this than meets the eye.. I wish they had a taken it higher, even privately.
But in any case, peoples minds are made up. Evra could come out, say he lied and people would still label Suarez a racist so what would be the point?
I don’t think that there’s any doubt that Suarez said ‘negro’. He should apologise and take the ban regardless of the intent. He said previously that he would apologise if found guilty. Remember that Evra is the one that felt offended. Dalglish should put up or shut up otherwise he comes off as being bitter.
That ‘negro’ is acceptable in the US or Uruguay is unimportant. Ignorance is no excuse. I can’t really believe that you could go up to a black guy and say ‘what’s your problem negro?’ in the states and get away with it. If you let Suarez off then where do you draw the line? Could you say ‘chinky’ or ‘paki’? – many people in the UK use this in everyday conversation.
But he wasnt speaking in English he was speaking in Spanish. Theres a difference…
Negro does not = N****r
I understand the difference. But why call someone black at all? Why not call him Patrice or Evra? I don’t say ‘how’s it going fatty?’ or ‘what’s your problem black’. Why even point out the differences in people?
What’s acceptable in Uruguay is unimportant IMO. Honour killings are acceptable is some countries but it’s not acceptable here in the UK.
But thats how they speak in South America. What would be seen as insulting here is common practise over there. I believe Suarez possibly said it without even thinking. I agree it should not have been said, and I agree that upon hearing it Evra would take offence. But honestly do you think Suarez would have admitted to saying it if he knew this would be the outcome?!
What this whole report has done is made people think that Evras statement is fact. There is no proof that anything was said, never mind said 5, 7 or 10 times. The only evidence is Suarez’s admission and the FA should have based their findings on that and imposed a ban and fine. And Suarez should have initially apologised for any offence caused. But by basing their findings on ‘probability’ they have turned the man into a racist. Bad handling by all parties involved…
Yep – badly handled by all concerned. I hope that Suarez does apologise and manages to clear his name. Hopefully Evra will acknowledge that no offense was intended. Cue flying pigs :-)
Exactly Ukdavo, why have the association of black police officers, or the association of black solicitors, all this needs to be urgently addressed
Yeah, or “your sisters cunt” maybe,
‘negro’ is widely accepted in the US? Apparently you haven’t spent much time over here.
Go to Compton or Harlem and walk up to the first African-American that you see.. and say “Hey Negro, where can I get something to eat” and see just what happens.
‘Negro’ hasn’t been an acceptable term for about 40 years; and the reason that it’s no longer used is that the people that it referred to found it offensive enough that a cultural change happened.
I’d go so far as to say that the only people in the US that still use ‘negro’ are Racists. And rarely would they actually use it in conversation.
You haven’t seen “The Wire” then
You would absolutely not get away with calling someone “negro” in the USA – I live here and that is a rediculous statement. Some black men will call each other by that name at times but if it were attempted by someone outside their group of friends they would have a fight on their hands. Get your facts strait before spouting off on things you have little experience with please.
I dont mean walking up to someone on the street and just saying ‘hey negro’.. I looked up the word as much as I could and came across the 2010 U.S census form and it had negro as an option on it. The point im making is that the word takes on different meanings in different countries to different people. It is not the same as the world wide known term “n****r’
That’s called discrimination Derek. A word is either unaccectable or it’s not. Can you imagine us white folk having a word that other people were not allowed to use. Don’t think so.
Sorry that should say ‘ It is widely accepted in the US’
Please excuse other typos, my keypad on my phone is very annoying. Tue also = the.
People need to understand that simply because a word is spelt the same in two languages doesn’t mean that it means the same thing. I’m bilingual and fully aware of this kind of thing. Maybe people just don’t want to understand because it suits their own agenda? It’s astonishing that this farce is still going on.
Evra took offence at something that wasn’t meant to be offensive. I don’t buy the 7 times nonsense- look at Evra’s body language and shrug of the shoulders- it’s not the look of someone who has been racially abused 7 times. Also please tell me why De Gea, who was literally standing next to them didn’t hear a word?
His ears are still working when he’s concentrating on the corner. No, I believe the only time Suarez used the word was in the sentence “Porque Negro?”
At the start of this episode Suarez should have been advised to apologise for any offence TAKEN but unfortunately the club’s ham fisted approach has left his reputation in tatters.
Liverpool’s legal team were shambolic and should be relieved of their duties at the earliest opportunity.The evidence against Suarez was so unsubstantiated that if everyone had kept their heads there would have been no case to answer. To me racism to the exclusion or debarment of a person based on their race or colour it’s not about Jack Smethhurst calling Rudolph Walker ‘Sambo’ or Rudolph Walker calling Jack Smethhurst ‘Honky’
The first thing any legal rep will tell you is keep your mouth shut & say nothing. Obviously either the were incompetent of Luis don’t take direction very well
Hi Tina.
I just wanted to say that if you used the word “negro” in the US today, you’d have heads snap back – and people would either assume, or say, that you were a racist.
Well its on the US 2010 census form so I dunno what to tell you. Again im not saying walking around saying it to people, my point was to say that it means different things in different countries, to different people…
that is not true at all!! I live in the US and use it all the time!!! for example “if some one ask me, have you seen a guy who just enter the store” I saw many people coming in just now, what does it look like? he is yeah tall, he is black etc etc, nothing wrong with that, unless you truly are a racist and don’t want to say it, just in case they realize that you are one, I have no problem saying it, since I don’t have that in my heart!!!! so stop the lies and BS!!!
Ultimately it was probably the right decision for the club to take to take the ban and move on. The media had cozzy’d up to the FA & Utd and the anti-racism groups had rallied around the decision. It appears the FA had decided to make an example of Suarez after the Sepp Blatter incident late last year. However in doing so they chose a case that was so embroiled in mist the clarity of 115 page decision document is somewhat a joke. I doubt any decent lawyer would have any trouble ripping the document and evidence to pieces.
Should the club had taken on the FA through an appeal and court process then the damage PR could have been insurmountable. We have a global following and it’d of been a smooth, skilled operator to navigate the muddy water of race through the courts with the FA and Utd equally using their avenues to influence the decision.
All those new anti-Suarez chants that are coming out of the stands are sickening, more so than the actual case, these people are the same people chanting “Wenger is a peado”
Equally disheartening is press from the likes of Henry Winter, taking the moral high ground in his article today and in some kind of embedded form of racism makes this comment. “Amid the tribalism tainting English football there will be fears of Suárez being driven out of the game in this country, although there can be little sympathy. Evra is the one who has suffered”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8991140/Sorry-still-seems-to-be-the-hardest-word-for-Liverpool-in-Luis-Suarez-affair.html
Where is understanding from Winter for Suarez in that statement, where is his tolerance for other races.
Ultimately what this shows is the farce the environment the FA operate in and the irony of inherent racism in our society as a whole. The merits and holes in the case are there for all to see. For the prawn sandwich press commenting on the case it isn’t whether or not those merits and holes need investigating it’s about protecting livelihoods, access and being on the perceived right side of the fence at all times. The football, sports media world is has its own casualty list. Atkinson, Grey, Keys, McGrath, Colleymore and not many get the chance to comeback.
The irony will come full circle when the police throw the John terry case out for lack of evidence, the FA dismiss it on the grounds the police have and the press cosy up to the England captain in fear of lack of access for Euro 2012.
After Liverpool did what it did when it released its first statement regarding the 8 match ban they couldn’t do whatever the so-called morally immaculate world wants them to.
Liverpool could have and maybe should have said, If Evra has taken any offence, it wasn’t meant to be that. We apologize. But just that. No more.
Because coming up and saying we are really Sorry and Suarez is Sorry would be considered by the same media as an acceptance to have racially abused someone which clearly is not the case. The club clearly understands that Suarez hasn’t done that and that is what they have tried to say.
The whole world as it stands now already thinks Suarez in English, if the club said Sorry in a humble way,they would have enforced that belief.
The club was a little emotional in releasing its first statement, which could have been bettered. But then had they moved back from their stance, which really has no strict grounds according to them, they would have been ridiculed for supporting Suarez knowing he said something abusive.
Thus, the club could have been labelled as supporting racism in the interim of FA’s statement in December to when they backed out.
By saying what they did, they have been consistent and have said they feel they were unfairly treated but they are anti-racism. Which I think makes sense.
As for losing fans etc.. I think the only way to please everybody would be to ban & sell Suarez and not take his story right from after the FA charge. Which would be far more unjust. Because if they kept him, people would still call him a ‘racist’. Most of those people who would call him ‘racist’ then would call him the same now.
There is a saying for that ” Those who try to please everybody,please nobody”.
Ah, the When in Rome (but really cuturally imperialist) argument.
So the host culture is always right then? Or just when its values coincide with yours? You’re on very dodgy ground here.
And I’m a “conspiracy theorist, nuevo Hispanic linguist and closet racist” am I, for questioning this ludicrous judgement?
Disappointing.
“The whole world as it stands now already thinks Suarez spoke in English, if the club said Sorry in a humble way,they would have enforced that belief.” is what i wanted to say.
This will make difficult reading for some Liverpool fans, some find it hard to admit the club is anything but perfect. Whats is clear from the recent weeks and Tony evans nails it in his article is Liverpool are far from perfect. They have handled the Suarez and Evra situation incredibly badly.
The silence coming for Henry, Werner, Comolli et al. is deafening.
Great coverage from TAW, keep up the good work.
I couldn’t disagree more with Tony on the use of the word Negro. I think you would greatly benefit from a through reading of the hypocracy of the Engliah race by Rory Smith on this site as this article is full of it.
While I agree that the club has at times handles the situation extremely poorly. No one on the media with the honourable exception of Ben Thornly in the local press has noticed that if the case was the other way around with the FA trying to prove on the balance of probabilities that Evra lied they would have succeeded as him testimony does not stand up to the evidence presented.
No wonder the club are furious, a man have been convicted of saying something it it very likely he didn’t say. Another man who knows that ‘your sista is a cunt’ or words to that effect knows that it isn’t meant to be translated literally but doesn;t know the difference between negro and nigger has sullied a man’s reputation in a most spurious and horrible fashion.
All the while the xenophobic British media gloat about their moral superiority over our club and player.
Re “defending the indefensible”, it’s a fair point in many cases. But notwithstanding that, there’s nothing wrong in expressing disdain at the way the Commission’s work was conducted.
He deserved a ban – the admission on his part took care of that. But to attempt to clothe the decision in half-assed legal construction in what was, we have to be honest here, a quasi-criminal matter, was pretty disgusting.
That’s given license to tag Suarez a racist, regardless of token claims to the contrary, and (by any properly applied standard) regardless of the evidence presented. The fact the FA Commissioners suggested corroboration on the part of Ferguson and Evra’s team mates was nothing short of disgusting, whatever one’s views on Suarez. A person can’t corroborate their own story. Corroboration involves an independent confirmation of the actual event itself, not a second hand account of the accusor’s words.
That a QC was prepared to put his name to that calls the entire process into question, and I’d respectfully suggest the FA’s ineptitude dwarfs that of Liverpool FC in this case. They’ve now arguably deprived themselves of the moral ground to challenge murkiness in the decision making of FIFA and UEFA bodies, but that won’t prevent their future indignation, or hypocrisy.
We all await the handling of Terry’s case with baited breath.
I find it astounding that for much of the report the FA use the phrase ‘Mr. Evra’s evidence’ yet refer to ‘Mr. Suarez’ account’. This smacks of bias to begin with.
Additionallythe language used and admitted to by Evra was foul and his somment regarding Suarez sister was up there with Zidane and Materazzi but goes unpunished.
I agree as a club we may have been able to handle it slightly better, but these are serious allegations and only one instance of the use of the word has been corroborated. The rest is hearsay so should be dismissed. The crux then lies in the fact that the word has different connotations based on language and custom. Go to Australia and it is quite the thing to be called a little bastard as a term of endearment. Not so here.
In my opinion the FA had prejudged this to make an example and this clearly is evident. The same FA that defended thuggery so as Rooney would lessen his ban for Euro 12.
At last – a died-in-the-wool and fully paid up Scouser who sees sense. Well put Mr Evans. I couldn’t agree more with your comments.
IMO, it’s a sad state of affairs that the language and terminology used by Suarez is deemed acceptable in his country.
If nothing else, this episode has highlighted that the FA (for once) have done the ‘right thing’ when making it clear that racism will not be tolerated in English football.
Relations between United and Liverpool have never been good on the terraces, and you do worry what the implications will be in due course… not good I fear.
Nonetheless, the sort of language used by Suarez should not be accepted and so the FA is right to ban him.
Liverpool have been led badly on this issue and that’s from the top downwards. It has been nothing short of embarrassing. The club could start to undo some of the damage by making a full apology.
Evra is a nasty little gobshite who unnecessarily instigated a verbal exchange with Suarez using a phrase designed to offend, wound and elicit an angry response, which was not forthcoming. The little shit bag lost his rag and everything has gone from there. Evra then lied to (or was encouraged to lie by) that Scots cunt who saw an opportunity to harm LFC. I can’t believe that Tony Evans has bought into this.
It’s this kind of reaction which is isolating us from the rest of the footballing community.
Yes, Evra is seemingly a nasty piece of work as highlighted by an earlier transgression recorded by Canal + during his time at Monaco (See 101greatgoals.com) but I doubt, despite the rivalry, that any senior Manchester United officals including Ferguson could risk the club reputation on a lie.
The Comolli testimony was damning and there was clearly no coming back to get a not guilty verdict. It’s wise to accept the ban as it could have easily been increased if the FA had deemed it ‘frivolous’ – the whole episode has been gravely mishandled but I don’t believe it was dealt with in a fair manner from the outset.
It’s time to move on and do everything we can to regain credibility in the football community, media and global audience.
The word negro was only used by Suarez after Evra said ‘your sisters pussy’ to Suarez and Suarez touched Evra who said ‘dont touch me’ and Suarez may have said ‘why,because you are black?’ and that is the one and only time it may have been used.
Neg-ro means black in Spanish,Black dress,black car etc and not nee-gro used in English as a derogatory term for a black person.
An eight game ban for this shows how terrified the mention of anybody’s colour the clowns at the FA are.
That said LFC’s hispanic ‘expert’ was obviously nothing of the sort.
I’m glad this is finally over with, the whole thing has been sloppily handled by all parties, including Liverpool, the FA and Evra.
As an aside, does anyone else find it strange that there had been no incidents of players racially abusing each other for years, then there were 2 very high profile cases within a week of each other and none since?
Trevor Benjamin would beg to differ.
liverpool fans at first claimed suarez had said nothing to evra as that is what the player initially claimed. then after their man himself admitted to negrito in a newspaper article they unconditionally believed his claims that it was used affectionately. now it transpires that actually he referred to evra as a negro and the fans claim it’s a descriptive term and not offensive. seriously, i would be ashamed if my club afc wimbledon and its fans ever engaged in such semantics. suarez repeatedly referred to evra’s race. this is a fact. evra was offended. this is a fact. instead of an apology we have weasle words from all but a tiny minority of liverpool fans. shameful.
It’s immaterial how the word negro is used in everyday conversation in Latin America. What matters is how it was used in the setting of an acrimonious exchange between two specific participants. I don’t think Suarez is a racist but I do think he used a pejorative language to provoke a notoriously short-tempered opponent in the midst of a crucial game. The kind of misjudgement the player has made before. He should’ve apologised and moved on.
The club appears to have handled it badly, but to ask a man to apologise for using a spanish word which has a different meaning to an english word, spelt the same, is ridiculous…Evra admits and denies to using certain words yet noone asks him to apologise to Suarez. Everyone has their own agenda and beliefs so will align themselves with any side of the argument that suits it…
The ‘when in Rome’ argument only works when its our country of course. When its another country we are quite happy to call them ‘backward’ or ask for ‘common sense to prevail’
The issue was handled badly by the club. Luis was silly for making any reference to colour. Luis deserved a ban.
8 matches is an over the top reaction. Evra could be found guilty under the same rules Luis was, but hasn’t. The whole report does smack of bias (they choose to disbelieve Kuyt’s version of events even though he was certain).
Lessons to be learned? Hire a lawyer who knows what he’s doing and push for a fully independent, fully transparent commission to look into cases such as this: secrecy has not helped the FA here.
Look at us all divided on this matter.
Ferguson’s insidious Machiavellian ways have beat us.
He didn’t say negro ( as in knee) he said negro (as in egg) which is not a racist word as numerous top Hispanic language professors have explained
http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/fotomon/ciacha/f640x640/06/05/59a19d7135.jpg
I’m not sure why you’ve published this piece from Evans on the site.
It doesn’t add to the debate and simply reinforces that which the mainstream media is already pushing.
Suarez wsn’t undone by the evidence of Comolli, he was undone by a panel that wanted to believe everything bad about a player the mainstream media have vilified as a cheat and a diver for months.
Now they can brand him a racist too.
The Daily Mirror were particularly funny the other day in suggesting Suarez own mother had used the phrase ‘went to town’ in respect of the FA’s treatment of her son.
Are we to believe she said, in spanish “El FA, fueron a la ciudad” so as to translate it directly? Clearly the Mirror have found meaning in her words first and translated it thereafter.
Perhaps if Evans piece had addressed the issues within the media that had already led to Suarez being booed at every ground then it could have added to the debate.
Perhaps if it had addressed issues of inherent xenophobia and racism within the press I could have imagined some otherwise unsuspected morality actually existed in the press.
Instead we have a not particularly enlightening rehash of the failures outside the sports pages.
I’m sure there’ll be yet more revelations in the days to come.
I suspect one of them will reveal an editorial agenda within certain papers to create certain types of news rather than behave as actual journalists.
Frankly I don’t know why this piece is here.
To whom did Liverpool FC have to “regain dignity”? If supporting one of your own in the face of adversity embarasses you then I suggest you’re supporting the wrong club. Is Suarez a racist? No. Does an innocent man deserve the support of his club and his friends? Yes. “De Oppresso Liber”
If Suarez had used the word `sustantivo` during the conversation then this is clearly racist and he should be thrown out of the club.
In English sustantivo means nothing in Spanish its n****r
Had Suarez wanted to racially abuse Evra then he would have used this word or something as nasty instead of `negro`. To English ears negro sounds far worse than sustantivo but it is not.
If a conversation takes place in Spanish then an understanding of the context and other possible words that could be used needs to be applied.
Had Suarez said ` Porque sustantivo` then thats racist, it does not sound it to my english ears but `Porque negro` does because of the negro bit that sounds a bit like english.
Liverpool with a very strong Spanish and South American contingent obviously know and understand the difference. Damien Comolli, the Liverpool director of football, who went to the referee’s room at Anfield after the incident and told the officials that the word “negro” had been used by Suárez in his spat with Evra probably meant it in the above context.
When translated into English, (Evra)`he called me a n****r`, no, (Comolli) he said `you were black` in English this still sounds bad,
In Spanish `negro` can be descriptive and had Suarez wanted to use a more racist spanish word to upset Evra then there are plenty more to choose from.
This I assume is why the club are standing behind Suarez because they do not feel that he said anything racist but feel that what was said has been taken out of context and because in English it sounds racist everybody has jumped on the band wagon. Most people have no idea about the culture and context of language as any one that has listened to talk `xenophobic` sport will testify.
The club may not look very good but how is it supposed to react at having been bounced through a kangaroo court that acted as judge and jury. I am pleased the club has come out fighting because it feels it has something to fight for, in many ways, it would be easy for the club to play the PR game, it could have made a stand and hung Suarez out to dry and it would have been cheered to the rafters by all anti-race bodies, the FA and anybody else.
However, if the club think a player has been wrongly accused, then I would expect them to stand together and fight their corner and if people in the media are uncomfortable about this then hard luck. The club may have made a horlicks of it, but the message that they have given is that the whole process has been a load of bollocks and they fundamentaly disagree with everything that has taken place, they have stuck two fingers up at the FA and their kangaroo court and I don`t see anything wrong with that.
The whole saga has set very poor precedents that will later come back and bite the FA and will cause all manner of problems the next time, and their will be a next time because of the way this case has been handled, you are asking for trouble to write a 115 page document with no witnesses to prove the guilt of one player. Hardly looking at the big picture and rather than eradicating racism it will increase it, perhaps not on the pitch but certainly off it and i fear a lot of the progress that has been made will be lost.
I couldn’t agree more!!!
So LFC’s legal team were shambolic, (drakerichard) well so they should have when they got to know about a lot or maybe i should rephrase “important evidence” that they recieved from the FA and had just 24 hour’s to to study it and probably prepare a better defense, they (LFC) where stitched up by the FA no problem.
Evra said he believes that Suarez is not racist (Luis’s granddad is black) but all the media here in the UK believe he is racist.
I think the issue here is the whole legality of the hearing and subsequent punishment of the player (Suarez) and being branded a racist, if this fiasco went to a court of law (in most countries) it would have been laughed at and thrown out for lack of evidence.
I dont condone racist in any form whatsoever, i am more intelligent than that, and i also know a stitch-up when i see one.
All the FA have done is tell the world that “yes the prem does have racist issues but we are dealing with it on a “he said/she said basis”, laughable.
From the charge into the refs dressing room through to the conclusion of the investigation this has been a biased, favoured stitch up.
Evra who’s fluent in Spanish and is aware of the word negro (black) suddenly thinks it translates to n1gger so runs of to the ref’s room with Ferg. I guess that should get the FA’s attention and give them the excuse to mould the whole thing into something that suits a need in the process.
With the amount of obvious and logical inconstancies in the investigation from the so called reliable side I’m disappointed the investigation conclusion is not being challenged. It’s full of holes, strange angles and doesn’t appear to be the levellest of surfaces.
The problem nowadays is image can be tarnished by set up and even when its blatantly that. Most of the lemming politically correct emotionally unstable populous know that but quite happily with that providing it doesn’t impact them personally.
Look at the massively biased and opportunist media reaction. It doesnt take a wizard to spot the two sides to the investigation but for some reason fair and equal reporting in the media is like rocking horse pooh.
I’m surprised that people aren’t picking up on the “Go away you South American” remark that Evra apparently made to Suarez. The word he used was, apparently, “sudaca”. To quote from wiktionary:
“A Spanish colloquial term used most typically in Spain to denote people from Latin America in a derogatory or pejorative way. The term is associated with immigrants from Latin America with Amerindian physical features and who speak with accented Spanish of varied origins and is believed to have originated during the popular Movida madrileña (Madrid Movement) in the 1980s as a result of Latin American Immigration. Due to the rapid influx of Latin American immigrants to Spain from the early 1990s to present, the word has evolved into a common, yet highly offensive ethnic slur.”
I wonder why Evra hasn’t been charged for using this word? I also wonder why the press have reported it as “you South American”, when it’s a word more akin to “Paki”, it seems.
Diff’rent strokes…
Christ on a cracker. Just because a reference to skin colour isn’t allowed within the laws of the country here doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make an exception when someone is clearly unaware of the laws surrounding the issue.
We have a system of legal precedents and if we take Tony Evans’ moronic viewpoint shared here then the system would never advance because his viewpoint assumes that the current legal regulation must be followed because it exists. IF this were true then you could have defended the law which prohibited homosexuality on the grounds that it was the law of the land – what if the law is wrong?
I believe you must consider the intent behind the act, there must be
significant mens rea. I agree with some of the comments above; if Tony Evans is just going to write horse rectal tissue with no originality – don’t publish it on TAW.
I’ll leave with an absurd quote from the Gordon Taylor;
“Referring to someone’s skin colour has got to be offensive – it’s self-evident.”
No it hasn’t, you bag of wank.
Oh well Tony, if its a cup of cock up we won, you shouldn’t be too unhappy as you always reminds us that we should be winning trophies!
I have no problem with Mr Evans, or any other journalist, expressing their point of view on the guilt or otherwise of Luis Suarez.
I do, however, have a serious problem with the snide commment, that the report has something for every conspiracy theorist, nuevo Hispanic linguist and closet racist.
Do you have to be one of the above, to ask how a man alleged, by ” a credible witness”, to have used a word five times, could possibly be found to have, “on the balance of probabilities”, said it seven times?
Would a reasonable person with even a morsel of common sense not ask the same question?
Mr Evans reference to “closet racist” is despicable. Its a sly inference that expressing disagreement with the report, raises the possibility that you are a closet racist, or alternatively a sinister threat that you could be considered one.
Senator MaCarthy would be very impressed.
If, as many suggest, the report was riddled with holes and the investigation unfair & biased LFC would’ve contested it would they not ?.
Seems strange taking something that’s so wrong and incorrect on the chin. Where I come from if your innocent your innocent if your guilty your guilty. If your found guilty but your innocent you take it to the highest.
LFC have ample money & resource to take it to the highest and prove the opposite or expose a few things. Why have they not ?.
Guilty food for thought even for the most impartial.
Tony Evans and Brian Reade should hang their heads in shame at they way they’ve responded to this attack on Liverpool football club. Battle lines were drawn – media one side – Liverpool supporters on the other..and both showed firmly what side they are on. Its ok playing to the gallery (and profiting) with their professional LFC fan schtick but when the press closed ranks against us they were happy to go along with the rest of their discredited profession and stick the boot in. Unforgiveable.
Coming shortly to a charity shop near you: ’43 Years With The Same Bird’….irrevocably divorced.