Suarez a racist

[toonotl 2916]

In his defence, a lot of other people would also probably act like little upstart cunts, who don't think the rules apply to them, if they could knowingly act like a racist slug and be supported to the hilt by those around them.

[JonGoodwyn 1]

Got another ban for misconduct, so he's suspended for our game.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16148570.stm

[Tooj 17]

Flipping the bird is how you say hello in Uruguay.

[toonotl 2916]

 

And defecating on a glass coffee table while your host lies underneath is how you say, 'thanks for dinner'.

[Guest CabayeAye]

In S America it is the epitome of politeness to call someone a f****** b**** c*** when first meeting them. Maybe Terry should go and spend the twighlight of his career over there, a post playing career of punditry in Uruguay surely becons for him.

[Tooj 17]

 

Probably late to the party, but this is unreal.

[Park Life 71]

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx

[Monroe Transfer 0]

The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to

each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the

foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because

you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch

you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr

Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr

Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie".

As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr

Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to

him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he

just called me a fucking black".

 

Just a bit of Uruguayan banter.

[Kid Dynamite 6964]

Bit rich coming from a halfy himself

[Lake Bells tits 1]

Thats Evras version.

[Aeris 0]

Imagine if the opposite had happened

 

[Fiction]

 

The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Suarez and Mr Evra spoke to

each other in Spanish. Mr Suarez asked Mr Evra why he had kicked him, referring to the

foul five minutes previously. Mr Evra replied "Porque tu eres blanco", meaning "Because

you are white". Mr Suarez then said to Mr Evra “say it to me again, I’m going to punch

you”. Mr Evra replied "No hablo con los blancos", meaning "I don't speak to crackers". Mr

Suarez continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Evra. Mr

Evra replied "Dale, blanco, blanco, blanco", which meant "okay, whitey, whitey, whitey".

As Mr Evra said this, he reached out to touch Mr Suarez's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr

Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to

him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Suarez said to the referee "ref, ref, he

just called me a fucking white".

[hostile_statue 0]

So I guess you two Norwegian headcases are on Suarez's side then?

[Aeris 0]

So I guess you two Norwegian headcases are on Suarez's side then?

 

no, but I'm very dissapointed his racism didn't help us win the match yesterday...

[Park Life 71]

Here's the summary. All you need to read really:

IX Summary

452. The length of these Reasons reflects the complexity of this case, the detailed arguments

that have been put before us, and the entitlement of those involved to know why we

reached the decision that we did.

453. It may be helpful if we summarise our Reasons, which we do as follows:

 

 

(1) Whether a player has used abusive or insulting words or behaviour is a matter

for us to decide as a Regulatory Commission, having regard to all the

circumstances of the case. These circumstances include the fact that many players

playing in England come from overseas, with a different language and culture.

However, we apply the standards that we consider appropriate to games played

in England under the FA Rules. Whether the words or behaviour are abusive or

insulting is an objective matter; it does not depend on whether the alleged

offender intended his words to be abusive or insulting (paragraphs 50 to 73

above).

 

(2) The burden of proof in this case is on the FA. The standard of proof is the flexible

civil standard of the balance of probability. The more serious the allegation,

taking into account the nature of the misconduct alleged and the content of the

case, the greater the burden of evidence required to prove the matter. The FA

accepted that the allegation against Mr Suarez was serious, as do we (paragraphs

74 to 80 above).

 

(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 (paragraphs 162 to 202 above).

 

(4) Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and

clear way. It was, for the most part, consistent, although both he and Mr Suarez

were understandably unable to remember every detail of the exchanges between

them (paragraphs 229 to 234 above).

 

 

(5) Mr Suarez's evidence was unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance.

It was, in part, inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence, especially the

video footage. For example, Mr Suarez said that he pinched Mr Evra's skin in an

attempt to defuse the situation. He also said that his use of the word "negro" to

address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence. To

describe his own behaviour in that way was unsustainable and simply incredible

given that the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument. That this was

put forward by Mr Suarez was surprising and seriously undermined the

reliability of his evidence on other matters (paragraphs 235 to 267 above). There

were also inconsistencies between his accounts given at different times as to

what happened (paragraphs 282 to 318).

 

(6) It was argued for Mr Suarez that Mr Evra invented the allegations to exact

vengeance for Mr Suarez's refusal to apologise for the foul on Mr Evra; that he

did so knowing that the allegations were false and that the complaint, if upheld,

would be damaging to a fellow professional, who Mr Evra did not think was a

racist. We rejected this argument as implausible and inconsistent with our

assessment of Mr Evra as a witness. No alternative explanation was suggested to

us as to why Mr Evra would make the allegations if untrue (paragraphs 323 to

337).

 

 

(7) Mr Suarez fouled Mr Evra in the 58th minute of the game. In the 63rd minute, Mr

Evra challenged Mr Suarez about the foul. Mr Evra used an offensive phrase,

which did not have any racial element and which Mr Suarez did not hear. An

acrimonious argument ensued in which both players had a go at each other. In

the course of this confrontation, Mr Suarez used the words "negro" or "negros"

seven times. He did so both before and after the referee had spoken to them and

told them to calm down. Mr Suarez addressed Mr Evra as "negro". He also made

other derogatory comments using the word. In the course of the argument, Mr

Suarez also pinched Mr Evra's skin (which was not in itself insulting behaviour

nor did it refer to Mr Evra's colour) and put his hand on the back of his head,

which were part of Mr Suarez's attempts to wind up Mr Evra (paragraphs 346 to

384 above).

 

 

(8) Mr Suarez's comments were made in the heat of the moment in response to being

confronted by Mr Evra about the foul. He did not use the word "negro" in a way

that could reasonably be translated as "nigger". He used the word “negro”

because Mr Evra is black (paragraphs 383, 274 above).

 

(9) Mr Suarez's words, which included a reference to Mr Evra's colour, were

insulting. The use of insulting words which include a reference to another

person's colour on a football pitch are wholly unacceptable (paragraphs 385 to

399 above).

(10) Had Mr Suarez been sent off for using insulting words (not including reference

to a person's colour), he would have received an automatic two-match

suspension. The guidance in the FA Rules suggested that our starting-point

should be to double that sanction, ie a four-match suspension. However, we

were entitled to increase or reduce the penalty further. We took account of

various aggravating and mitigating factors. As for the aggravating factors, Mr

Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros" seven times, in the course of an

acrimonious argument, and went beyond simply addressing Mr Evra as "negro".

Mr Suarez knew or ought to have known that these words were unacceptable,

particularly in view of the FA-supported campaigns against all forms of racism

in football. The words were targeted directly at Mr Evra, as part of Mr Suarez's

attempts to wind him up. As for the mitigating factors, Mr Suarez had a clean

record in relations to charges of this type. Mr Evra started the confrontation in

the goalmouth, in response to which Mr Suarez used the insulting words. Mr

Suarez is likely to suffer personal embarrassment as a result of his behaviour

coming to light through this decision. He has in the past supported, and

continues to support, a charitable project in South Africa designed to promote

multi-racial football. He is likely to have learned a lesson through the experience

of these proceedings, and said that he would not use the word "negro" on a

football pitch in England in the future (paragraphs 401 to 440 above).

 

 

(11) Balancing all these factors, we imposed an eight-match ban, a £40,000 fine and

gave Mr Suarez a warning as to his future conduct. We considered this to be an

appropriate and proportionate penalty in all the circumstances (paragraphs 441

to 446 above).

 

**Nicked from Dave on NO.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Park Life

[Park Life 71]

suarez basically dropped himself in it then saying he did say it but in a none offensive way,

 

if he'd just denied it the fa wouldn't have anything other than evra's evidence to go on and then not bring charges.

 

What a gimp.

[Andrew 4713]

to be fair to suarez he cant say anything without a sneer when theres one permanently etched on his face

[NJS 4355]

The bottom line for me was always the intent - it was obvious it was "sledging" ie wind-up talk so in that context claiming that using a phrase which translates as "my little black friend" was not intended to cause offence was bollocks.

[Gemmill 44112]

Makes the LFC reaction look even more ridiculous.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

More odious than ridiculous, truly unpleasant. I suspect Dalgish is an unparalleled cunt of a bloke.

[Ally 0]

I bet they won't be wearing those tshirts again.

[Tom 14011]

What a truly dispicable club.

 

It all constantly adds up...

[Andrew 4713]

and despite it all Sky were giving them the usual love in last night

 

Gerrard MOTM for fucks sake, should've gone to no one but Bellamy

 

Redknapp and Cole the pundits...thats what you call fair and unbiased coverage and redknapps half time analysis was basically "the game will be better if liverpool improve and win"

 

absolute joke

[Tom 14011]

Yeh that's exactly what is was like.

 

''If Liverpool destroy Newcastle, that'll be good''

[DEADMAN 0]

rednapp is always the same hes a scouser i think or londoner i hate him

[ewerk 30167]

The FA report makes reference to the fact that Suarez's evidence is inconsistent with video evidence which leads me to believe that they have him banged to rights.

 

I doubt very much that Liverpool's lawyers were unaware of this and the club were in full knowledge of the facts when they put out their statement and issued their Suarez tshirts.

 

What a bunch of complete and utter cunts.