Suarez ban

Fitba' crazy, fitba' mad. But mostly mad. And angry
User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 32974
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Suarez ban

Postby Goat Boy » 20 Dec 2011, 22:36

Opinions?
Griff wrote:The notion that Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong vocal proponent of antisemitism, would stand in front of an antisemitic mural and commend it is utterly preposterous.


Copehead wrote:a right wing cretin like Berger....bleating about racism

User avatar
trans-chigley express
Posts: 19238
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 01:50
Location: Asia's WC

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 20 Dec 2011, 22:43

My put mine on the Liverpool thread so I'll repeat myself here:

8 match ban for Saurez! I find this astonishing given the complete lack of any evidence and Evra wrongly claiming there was plenty of TV evidence. They've basically taken Evra's word against Suarez's. I think they were determined to make an example of Suarez regardless.

User avatar
Tapiocahead
Posts: 6981
Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:41
Location: quite literally in your face

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Tapiocahead » 20 Dec 2011, 22:46

It's an independent tribunal and not being privvy to the proceedings so I can't comment on how they reached the conclusion.

I think the length of the ban is fair enough, the fine is almost meaningless
Fishstick selling fuck

User avatar
trans-chigley express
Posts: 19238
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 01:50
Location: Asia's WC

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 20 Dec 2011, 22:55

Worth posting Liverpool's statement:

Liverpool Football Club is very surprised and disappointed with the decision of the Football Association Commission to find Luis Suarez guilty of the charges against him.

We look forward to the publication of the Commission's Judgment. We will study the detailed reasons of the Commission once they become available, but reserve our right to appeal or take any other course of action we feel appropriate with regards to this situation.

We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone when no-one else on the field of play - including Evra's own Manchester United teammates and all the match officials - heard the alleged conversation between the two players in a crowded Kop goalmouth while a corner kick was about to be taken.

The Club takes extremely seriously the fight against all forms of discrimination and has a long and successful track record in work relating to anti-racist activity and social inclusion. We remain committed to this ideal and equality for all, irrespective of a person's background.

LFC considers racism in any form to be unacceptable - without compromise. It is our strong held belief, having gone over the facts of the case, that Luis Suarez did not commit any racist act. It is also our opinion that the accusation by this particular player was not credible - certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations.

It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said 'I don't think that Luis Suarez is racist'. The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suarez was not racist.

Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black. He has been personally involved since the 2010 World Cup in a charitable project which uses sport to encourage solidarity amongst people of different backgrounds with the central theme that the colour of a person's skin does not matter; they can all play together as a team.

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. We do not recognise the way in which Luis Suarez has been characterised.

It appears to us that the FA were determined to bring charges against Luis Suarez, even before interviewing him at the beginning of November. Nothing we have heard in the course of the hearing has changed our view that Luis Suarez is innocent of the charges brought against him and we will provide Luis with whatever support he now needs to clear his name.

We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult.


Some interesting points there including Evra insulting Suarez in Spanish but getting nothing, Suarez being of mixed heritage (though not strictly relevant) and Evra saying that he didn't think Suarez was racist.

If Suarez can get a 8 match ban without a scrap of evidence what the hell will John Terry receive? He must be crapping himself.

User avatar
John_K
driven by lists
Posts: 13315
Joined: 02 Nov 2004, 14:01
Location: The Black Hole of BCB...

Suarez ban

Postby John_K » 20 Dec 2011, 23:19

Can't wait to see what the odious national captain Terry gets...
*doesn't hold breath*

User avatar
the hanging monkey
can't be arsed
Posts: 16721
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 17:05
Location: The cultural mecca that is Huddersfield

Re: Suarez ban

Postby the hanging monkey » 20 Dec 2011, 23:41

John_K wrote:Can't wait to see what the odious national captain Terry gets...


A dry bumming hopefully.
The Dríver wrote:We even have village idiots.

User avatar
John_K
driven by lists
Posts: 13315
Joined: 02 Nov 2004, 14:01
Location: The Black Hole of BCB...

Re: Suarez ban

Postby John_K » 20 Dec 2011, 23:50

the hanging monkey wrote:
John_K wrote:Can't wait to see what the odious national captain Terry gets...


A dry bumming hopefully.



Nothing new there, let off lightly then...

User avatar
trans-chigley express
Posts: 19238
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 01:50
Location: Asia's WC

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 21 Dec 2011, 01:59

Based on the verdict dished out to Suarez the FA must surely give Terry a far more severe ban including all England games. If they don't they will have some serious explaining to do.

The Modernist

Re: Suarez ban

Postby The Modernist » 21 Dec 2011, 09:11

trans-chigley express wrote:Based on the verdict dished out to Suarez the FA must surely give Terry a far more severe ban including all England games. If they don't they will have some serious explaining to do.


Different case, different context. Let's wait until we know more about what actually happened before we start wading in with our size twelve conspiracy boots.

User avatar
bhoywonder
The Magnificent
Posts: 27391
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:06
Location: Bristol, UK
Contact:

Re: Suarez ban

Postby bhoywonder » 21 Dec 2011, 10:09

TopCat G wrote:Let's wait until we know more about what actually happened before we start wading in with our size twelve conspiracy boots.


It's a novel approach, I'll grant you...

User avatar
Thesiger
Posts: 20156
Joined: 08 Aug 2003, 17:12
Location: Old Meadow

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Thesiger » 21 Dec 2011, 12:50

Clint Planet wrote:Well, given that he admitted calling Evra a "negrito" (a "little black man") I'd say he's guilty as charged. I've seen a few commentators who are familiar with Uruguayan culture ...


I lived in Latin America for over 8 years. Negrito/Negrita is common parlance. And it may sometimes be used pejoratively, and other times affectionately c.f. Hey, Negrita (Jagger - Richards).

The punishment looks ridiculous because (1) the exchange of words was not documented or recorded; (2) Evra admitted insulting Suarez; (3) the imputed 'crime' has been punished out of all proportion to the going rate for violent acts against the person committed on the field.

It's hysterical overreaction like this that makes one almost side with Sepp Blatter.
BCB Cup - R.U. 2010: W 2012

User avatar
echolalia
Posts: 4755
Joined: 21 Jul 2006, 02:23
Location: Way Out West

Re: Suarez ban

Postby echolalia » 21 Dec 2011, 13:43

Thesiger wrote:
Clint Planet wrote:Well, given that he admitted calling Evra a "negrito" (a "little black man") I'd say he's guilty as charged. I've seen a few commentators who are familiar with Uruguayan culture ...


I lived in Latin America for over 8 years. Negrito/Negrita is common parlance. And it may sometimes be used pejoratively, and other times affectionately c.f. Hey, Negrita (Jagger - Richards).

And even when it is used pejoratively, it doesn't carry anywhere near the same negative charge as "nigger". Different histories, different cultures. Generally, in the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking world if you want to grievously insult someone you call into question the virtue of their mother.

So Suarez gets banned for some relatively mild dissing while if he'd said something motherist like chupa mierda hijoputa he would have got away scot-free.

User avatar
Polishgirl
Posts: 9513
Joined: 21 Dec 2009, 22:06

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Polishgirl » 21 Dec 2011, 14:12

I find this a difficult one to call. My thought process is as follows:

What Suarez said was wrong. He should be punished. There is no place for racism. For him, the fine is immaterial, but the ban is important.

Interesting, however, what commentators, and some of our own BCBers have said about it being lost in translation, in that Suarez's words in his own home culture might not be considered racist or offensive.

HOWEVER, on balance, I find it hard to believe that professional footballers who come to play in the UK are somehow oblivious to the potential for offence in race-based comments. Don't they get some sort of induction etc when they sign for UK teams? Wouldn't anybody in the squad, or the team management or his management have gone through the general dos and don'ts associated with playing football over here?

So, overall, I think fair enough, but I do see the complexity of it.
echolalia wrote: I despise Prefab Sprout. It will be decades before “hot dog, jumping frog, Albuquerque” is surpassed as the most terrible lyric in pop history. That fucking bastard ruined all three things for me forever.

User avatar
bhoywonder
The Magnificent
Posts: 27391
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:06
Location: Bristol, UK
Contact:

Re: Suarez ban

Postby bhoywonder » 21 Dec 2011, 14:48

It seems to me to be irrelevant how the comments could be viewed in south American culture as the game took place in England. That excuse is no different in my mind than when el haji diouf was up before the beak for spitting at a fan, where his defence claimed that the fan patted him on the head, which is offensive in his home country of Senegal. The game was played in Scotland, not Senegal, and patting someone on the head in Scotland is not an offensive action. Just as using a derogatory term for someone based on race is, within the culture of English football, racist behaviour. And as such is intolerable, in my book.

And if the punishment is out of line with other punishments for racism then those punishments should be brought in line with this one, not the other way around. Racism is not acceptable in this country or this sport.

User avatar
Thesiger
Posts: 20156
Joined: 08 Aug 2003, 17:12
Location: Old Meadow

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Thesiger » 21 Dec 2011, 15:27

bhoywonder wrote:And if the punishment is out of line with other punishments for racism then those punishments should be brought in line with this one, not the other way around.


The fetishisation of racism seems to know no rational bounds.

Should not Evra, by your logic, have been suspended by his use of the word, sudaca? Even if no one here knows its meaning?
BCB Cup - R.U. 2010: W 2012

The Modernist

Re: Suarez ban

Postby The Modernist » 21 Dec 2011, 15:30

As has already been said, it's a difficult one because of the etymological complexity of the way it is used in South American culture. However it can be used as an insulting term alongside it's other uses. I think the FA should be applauded here for the strong message that it is completely unacceptable to use someone's skin colour as a way of insulting them. Suerez was indulging in "sledging", to use a cricketing term, and used ethnicity as a way of doing it. One could argue because of its commonality in South American culture that he was not fully aware of the implications of this, however the fact he used the term repeatedly suggests he must have had some intent of winding up Evra.

I found comments made in the Liverpool press statement, and on this thread, that it was not documented independently therefore not proven very odd given that Suerez admitted using the word a number of times. The Liverpool press statement was very disappointing, they need to take some responsibility.
The FA were going to be damned whatever they did, but I support them on this one.

User avatar
bhoywonder
The Magnificent
Posts: 27391
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:06
Location: Bristol, UK
Contact:

Re: Suarez ban

Postby bhoywonder » 21 Dec 2011, 15:32

Thesiger wrote:
bhoywonder wrote:And if the punishment is out of line with other punishments for racism then those punishments should be brought in line with this one, not the other way around.


The fetishisation of racism seems to know no rational bounds.

Should not Evra, by your logic, have been suspended by his use of the word, sudaca? Even if no one here knows its meaning?


I have no idea about what he said or what Suarez said. I wasn't talkin about them specifically, just my thoughts on the logic of using that defence. There are contexts within which the use of the N word is acceptable - I'm sure you've been to new York and heard it north of 110th street like I have.

User avatar
Thesiger
Posts: 20156
Joined: 08 Aug 2003, 17:12
Location: Old Meadow

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Thesiger » 21 Dec 2011, 15:34

TopCat G wrote: I found comments made in the Liverpool press statement, and on this thread, that it was not documented independently therefore not proven very odd given that Suerez admitted using the word a number of times.


Suarez admitted using negrito and Evra apparently admitted using sudaca, but where's the recording or transcription of the exchange?
BCB Cup - R.U. 2010: W 2012

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 32974
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Goat Boy » 21 Dec 2011, 15:41

Polishmybaubles wrote:I find this a difficult one to call. My thought process is as follows:

What Suarez said was wrong. He should be punished. There is no place for racism. For him, the fine is immaterial, but the ban is important.

Interesting, however, what commentators, and some of our own BCBers have said about it being lost in translation, in that Suarez's words in his own home culture might not be considered racist or offensive.

HOWEVER, on balance, I find it hard to believe that professional footballers who come to play in the UK are somehow oblivious to the potential for offence in race-based comments. Don't they get some sort of induction etc when they sign for UK teams? Wouldn't anybody in the squad, or the team management or his management have gone through the general dos and don'ts associated with playing football over here?

So, overall, I think fair enough, but I do see the complexity of it.


I'd go along with this. I don't necessarily think Suarez is racist but what he said is unacceptable in England.

I want consistency though.
Griff wrote:The notion that Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong vocal proponent of antisemitism, would stand in front of an antisemitic mural and commend it is utterly preposterous.


Copehead wrote:a right wing cretin like Berger....bleating about racism

User avatar
Thesiger
Posts: 20156
Joined: 08 Aug 2003, 17:12
Location: Old Meadow

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Thesiger » 21 Dec 2011, 15:46

Goat Boy wrote: what he said is unacceptable in England.


Since when have the words negrito and sudaca been unacceptable in England?
Last edited by Thesiger on 21 Dec 2011, 16:30, edited 1 time in total.
BCB Cup - R.U. 2010: W 2012


Return to “Sporting Life”