Suarez a racist

[ewerk 30611]

Fucking martyrs.

[Gemmill 44882]

They should increase his ban for that statement. "I'll call people negro if I like. It's fine in Uruguay. We're all enormous racists over there."

[Tooj 17]

LiterallyJamie: LFC team news; Several players out for the reds - Leiva (knee), Gerrard (ankle), Suarez (racist).

[luckyluke 2]

They should increase his ban for that statement. "I'll call people negro if I like. It's fine in Uruguay. We're all enormous racists over there."

 

 

The club are incredibly fortunate if they escape this without a reprimand. Maybe they've been threatened with one so that's why they're not appealing, although I think their continued stance on this should not be a reprieve.

 

"We as a club are accepting this appeal because we fully back the FA's stance on stamping out racism. But our player who by his own admission repeatedly called a black man 'negro' did nothing wrong and is completely innocent."

 

It just doesn't make sense.

[NJS 4386]

How the fuck they can read the bit in the report where in reply to "why did you foul me" and he replied "because you're black" can be construed as anything else but racist wummery is absolutely staggering.

 

If he doesn't "get it" they should keep increasing the ban until he does.

[Barney 0]

Barney Ronay (@barneyronay)

1/3/12 7:10 PM

 

When you find yourself fighting furiously for the right to call another man "negro" you've surely taken a wrong turn somewhere

[hostile_statue 0]

LiterallyJamie: LFC team news; Several players out for the reds - Leiva (knee), Gerrard (ankle), Suarez (racist).

 

[Tooj 17]

William Roache

@kennethdalglish saying FA left things out of their report. The man either has no shame or the rumours about his drinking problem are true.

 

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I read an article in a Black Power magazine discussing what term should be used to refer to 'black' people now (maybe a year ago, US publication). Black was out, because there are many different pigments and not all of them are very dark. African-American was out because you could be a white African from South Africa, for instance. They settled on 'man/woman of colour'. What was interesting is how blacks refer to themselves. Some call themselves negroes (mostly older men), some identify themselves only by 'street' names like Snoop Doggy Dogg, P Diddly, and Fur Q. Racism can sometimes be defined by the context, and it's pretty clear Suarez what Suarez's intent was.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Aeris 0]

suarez should know his own race before picking on others, and that race is called fucking rat and it's probably the worst race ever.

[Lake Bells tits 1]

4 AM New years eve - you`d do him.

[Aeris 0]

I know, how could I say no to strange inverted ears, a cretin hairstyle and nice horizontal teeth after the 3rd bottle of champagne.

[Gemmill 44882]

Honestly, reading the Liverpool and Suarez statements, something should be done about them in terms of further censure for both club and player. They've questioned the victim's credibility, accused the FA of damaging Suarez's reputation, accused them of dismissing Liverpool's testimony and suggested that the FA have basically opened the floodgates for other (in their ridiculous eyes) false accusations of racism to be made.

 

And at the end of it all they've laughably claimed that they're prepared to take it on the chin in the interests of not damaging the fight against racism.

 

And alongside it all you've got the racist little shit issuing a statement that basically says "Yes, I called him a negro, and yes I called him it aggressively, but I honesty don't see what the problem is." And that cunt Dalglish is basically stood alongside him saying "I don't see what's wrong with it either. And the "We love this racist" T-shirts were a fantastic gesture too."

 

There should be a massive stink over this in the press, and the FA should be doing something about it. Not letting the racist have a go at clearing his name (by confirming that he is in fact a racist, but that it's ok where he comes from ), and the racist's employers talking shite about the FA investigation.

 

Has there actually been much criticism in the press about this?

Edited January 4, 2012 by Gemmill

[Gemmill 44882]

From the times. Good shit.

 

A fight for justice. Truly, that is what Liverpool called their defence of Luis Suárez yesterday. One man says "negro" — at least once, perhaps as many as seven times — in an angry row with a black man and he becomes the victim, the martyr. Oh, respected, admired Liverpool FC, how did you get this so terribly wrong?

 

Still we await the acceptance from Anfield that Suárez did anything the slightest bit regrettable in that exchange with Patrice Evra. And what became apparent last night is that we will be waiting a lifetime.

 

A word of contrition? A phrase of remorse? No, just more self-pity from Suárez and conspiracy theories from Kenny Dalglish, who used his post-match conference to spread the idea that the FA was out to nail someone, anyone, for racism. Why Suárez? "Maybe wrong place, wrong time," Dalglish said.

It was a performance of defiance, but what else could we expect from a club who have compounded one man's mistake (to phrase it charitably) with collective, corporate pig-headed stubbornness — not to mention confused submissions, shoddy legal support, idiotic T-shirts and, with yesterday's statement, a large helping of paranoia.

 

We learnt yesterday that Suárez was effectively framed by a combination of malicious fantasy from Evra and FA vindictiveness. The governing body was out to nail Suárez, "one of the Premier League's best players", as if that should make the slightest difference. We are not told why except that the FA panel was "subjective".

There was, of course, no mention that Liverpool's own statements to the panel were, by the club's own admission, badly framed, requiring many clarifications, revisions and at least one significant retreat. A pedantic point, perhaps, but the same sloppiness was there last night in the odd claim that Suárez is "banned for perhaps a quarter of the season". Accuracy has not been Liverpool's strength.

 

Dalglish believes in his man sufficiently to have pulled on one of those T-shirts, a move he still refuses to accept was mistaken. "I think it's a fabulous statement to make for a guy who is endeared in the dressing room," he said.

 

And it got worse as Dalglish declined to accept the single, important aspect: that even if Suárez's only mistake was only a cultural misunderstanding, to react with indignation against Evra and no contrition whatsoever was dreadfully misjudged.

 

Perhaps it was because the charge came from Manchester United that Liverpool instantly took such a defensive stance. And still they cannot see, not for a moment, how that looks to the outside world. Suárez and Liverpool have stuck resolutely to their line that "negro" is a word commonly used back home in Uruguay. "His wife calls him that," Dalglish said.

But say you visited a foreign country and, unaccustomed to the social mores, caused offence. We would surely all apologise for a mistake, however inadvertent.

Not at Anfield. They keep digging and now their position has become a mass of contradictions. Suárez accepts that he should never use "negro" on a pitch in England, but refuses to accept that Evra could reasonably be offended.

 

Liverpool stand vigorously behind the player and yet accept an eight-match ban, trying to claim the high ground as they do so. They might have had a case for appealing the length of the ban had they not made such a hash of the initial defence but even with their reserves of righteousness, they knew they could not fight on.

 

They tried to dress up the reluctance to appeal as mistrust in the FA's processes, but it is their own internal workings which must be subject to urgent review now that, whether they accept it or not, there has been so much damage to the club's wider reputation.

 

They must also learn to do without Suárez for these eight matches although, in the circumstances of another extraordinary day, the club's place in the Barclays Premier League did not seem their most pressing concern.

 

Last night they had the first taste of life without Suárez, and it was not encouraging as they slumped to defeat at Manchester City.

 

Coping without Suárez will test Dalglish's squad. But while this supposed tale of injustice may provide plenty of motivational fuel around Anfield, the rest of the world will not be taken in by the idea of Suárez as a man wronged. A racist he may not be, but he is the clumsiest of provocateurs.

 

We wondered how Liverpool might frame their apology given the extraordinarily combative stance they have taken throughout the Suárez saga. Yesterday we found out. They will not accept the slightest guilt, not ever. Truly they have convinced themselves, somehow, that Suárez did nothing wrong.

[MattM4 0]

It's just infuriating. Really hope the FA don't go along with Liverpool's attitude of just wanting to put an end to the issue.

 

Still can't believe the amount of bullshit and spin that has come from them over the last few weeks. It's like we've slipped in a different dimension.

 

It's a fucked up world where everything said in that Times article isn't a unanimous opinion.

[wykikitoon 20149]

It's just infuriating. Really hope the FA don't go along with Liverpool's attitude of just wanting to put an end to the issue.

 

Still can't believe the amount of bullshit and spin that has come from them over the last few weeks. It's like we've slipped in a different dimension.

 

It's a fucked up world where everything said in that Times article isn't a unanimous opinion.

 

Football is full of corruption, you shouldnt be suprised.

 

The FA are scared of Man Ure, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal and now, Man City. They have too much money and too much power.

[ewerk 30611]

It's just infuriating. Really hope the FA don't go along with Liverpool's attitude of just wanting to put an end to the issue.

 

Still can't believe the amount of bullshit and spin that has come from them over the last few weeks. It's like we've slipped in a different dimension.

 

It's a fucked up world where everything said in that Times article isn't a unanimous opinion.

 

Football is full of corruption, you shouldnt be suprised.

 

The FA are scared of Man Ure, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal and now, Man City. They have too much money and too much power.

 

Any evidence of that? The FA have handed down a fitting ban, to drag it on further would be unprofessional by the FA.

[wykikitoon 20149]

It's just infuriating. Really hope the FA don't go along with Liverpool's attitude of just wanting to put an end to the issue.

 

Still can't believe the amount of bullshit and spin that has come from them over the last few weeks. It's like we've slipped in a different dimension.

 

It's a fucked up world where everything said in that Times article isn't a unanimous opinion.

 

Football is full of corruption, you shouldnt be suprised.

 

The FA are scared of Man Ure, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal and now, Man City. They have too much money and too much power.

 

Any evidence of that? The FA have handed down a fitting ban, to drag it on further would be unprofessional by the FA.

 

 

How many times have the managers of these teams got away with murder or nothing happend to their team when they crowed the ref and scream at him etc? OR When stupid appeals go in when a player has done something and nothing is done.

 

I agree, the FA will want to put an end to it, but Liverpool shouldnt be able to get away with the "stunt" they pulled.

[ewerk 30611]

It would set a dangerous precedent though, it's basically saying that FA decisions are not open to question at all, which would be a ridiculous situation.

 

You can't ban a club's right to protest just because you don't agree with it.

[wykikitoon 20149]

It would set a dangerous precedent though, it's basically saying that FA decisions are not open to question at all, which would be a ridiculous situation.

 

You can't ban a club's right to protest just because you don't agree with it.

 

I suppose not.

 

It was terrible timing I suppose on Liverpool's side. If they had waited to read what the FA had investigated and then disagreed with it, THEN did what they did.

[toonotl 2979]

They could be brought up on new charges for bringing the game into disrepute for the stupidity of their statement. And they should be imo.

[MattM4 0]

You can't ban a club's right to protest just because you don't agree with it.

 

Of course not, no one would suggest otherwise and they should of course be allowed to get to the bottom of things. The way they went about it though is what is being criticised. They're the ones who made a mockery of the whole thing.

 

If everything that has come from them (t shirts and all) since the 8 game ban was mentioned isn't "bringing the game into disrepute" then I don't know what is.

[Gemmill 44882]

Aye, when a manager can get fined for next to nowt in a post match interview for bringing the game into disrepute, there's certainly scope for that here. I'm trying to think whether it would be more likely to happen if it was a different club, but honestly I can't imagine any club but the self-pity experts doing this.

[wykikitoon 20149]

Im suprised not to hear anything much from "Kick it out" about this tbh.

[ewerk 30611]

You can't ban a club's right to protest just because you don't agree with it.

 

Of course not, no one would suggest otherwise and they should of course be allowed to get to the bottom of things. The way they went about it though is what is being criticised. They're the ones who made a mockery of the whole thing.

 

If everything that has come from them (t shirts and all) since the 8 game ban was mentioned isn't "bringing the game into disrepute" then I don't know what is.

 

There is no doubt that the way Liverpool have handled this will be a case study in how not to do PR for many years to come but I don't think they have done anything that the FA could actually get them on. They're a laughing stock and that's good enough for me.

 

What does piss me off is their blatant misrepresentation of the facts such as Dalglish coming out with "If you get into asking a linguistic expert, which certainly I am not, they will tell you that the part of the country in Uruguay where he [suarez] comes from, it is perfectly acceptable", despite the fact that a linguistic expert already dismissed this claim during the hearing.

 

Anyway, I'm just happy that the whole world can now see them for what they are.