Suarez ban

Fitba' crazy, fitba' mad. But mostly mad. And angry
User avatar
Ranking Ted
Posts: 12751
Joined: 03 Feb 2004, 22:13
Location: Northern Britain

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Ranking Ted » 03 Jan 2012, 18:49


User avatar
Minnie the Minx
funky thigh collector
Posts: 33546
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 16:00
Location: In the naughty North and in the sexy South

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Minnie the Minx » 03 Jan 2012, 20:47

trans-chigley express wrote:Twitter attracts pond life. I'm glad I've never gone near it.


:oops:
You come at the Queen, you best not miss.

Dr Markus wrote:
Someone in your line of work usually as their own man cave aka the shed we're they can potter around fixing stuff or something don't they?


Flower wrote:I just did a google search.

User avatar
Geezee
Posts: 12798
Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
Location: Where joy divides into vision

Suarez ban

Postby Geezee » 03 Jan 2012, 21:00

Thesiger wrote:
Clint Planet wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/james-lawton-suarez-row-has-made-clear-to-all-where-line-of-decency-is-drawn-6283931.html


Pilgrim74

There are 2 main concerns/ reservations many people seem to have about this case.

1. A matter of justice - it is simply unjust that a man should be condemned as guilty of whatever crime/sin/offence purely on the basis of one other persons testimony. Even more so if that person (the accuser) could be deemed biased or have vested interests in the outcome.

2. A matter of fairness - It is also apparent that the FA and the media it seems, seems to have elevated racist abuse as the only crime/sin/offence in town. Therefore the fact that Evra can threaten violence is not considered. The fact the Evra can insult close family is irrelevant, and the fact that Evra has been through this before and found to be an UNRELIABLE witness in not considered, unlike in a proper court of law. At the mere possibility of racism, even unproven, will end in severe punishment for the accused.

In any reasonable persons book, this is unjust and unfair and sets a very dangerous precedent for the future.....

To make an example out of a known racist caught in the act with hard evidence would be perfectly acceptable to everyone, but anyone with eyes to see and read, a mind to cut through the media noise and a heart to realise that is not the case here....


Except that Suarez actually admitted to using the word, no? So more than one witness. And his defence that it was said in a "friendly" manner does not seem to hold water, even if you take Evras testimony completely out of the equation.
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Dr Markus » 07 Jan 2012, 18:50

Dr Markus wrote:
Professor in Hispanic Studies dissects the FA’s Suarez report:

The following is written by award-winning Professor in Hispanic Studies at Brown University, Aldo Mazzucchelli.

I will first quote the FA document on the key point:

“90. Mr Evra’s evidence was that, in response to his question “Why did you kick me?”, Mr Suarez replied “Porque tu eres negro”. Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean “Because you are a ******”. He now says that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean “Because you are black”.”
I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn’t use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolli apparently stated), which are grammatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Comolli reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don’t know what Comolli heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong–unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish…

What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said–if at all he said anything– “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound implausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.

That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.

“138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him “Don’t touch me, South American” to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had replied “Por que, tu eres negro?”. (…) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he had used to Mr Evra translated as “Why, because you are black”.”
“Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.

And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:

“141. Mr Suarez’s version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him “Don’t touch me, South American”. Mr Suarez had said “Por que negro?”. Mr Suarez told Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said.”
What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words.

The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:

“284 (…) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said “you are South American” to Mr Suarez who responded with “Tues Negro” which translates as “you are black”.”
It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.

In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.

Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.

Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the “negro” word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.

Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:

1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used –even though they grounded the verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
3) They believe the word “negro” cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion–which means they don’t really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.
A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.

Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the “wild animals” South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey’s famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.

This was taken from "http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/01/professor-in-hispanic-studies-dissects-the-fas-suarez-report/"

I just thought this should be shared with all the fans but also hopefully brought to the attention of LFC.
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Dr Markus » 07 Jan 2012, 18:51

Geezee wrote:
Except that Suarez actually admitted to using the word, no? So more than one witness. And his defence that it was said in a "friendly" manner does not seem to hold water, even if you take Evras testimony completely out of the equation.


Just because he used the word doesn't mean much until you get the context he used it in hence all this trouble. It's a lot more that just using the word.
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

The Modernist

Re: Suarez ban

Postby The Modernist » 07 Jan 2012, 19:52

Dr Markus wrote:
Geezee wrote:
Except that Suarez actually admitted to using the word, no? So more than one witness. And his defence that it was said in a "friendly" manner does not seem to hold water, even if you take Evras testimony completely out of the equation.


Just because he used the word doesn't mean much until you get the context he used it in hence all this trouble. It's a lot more that just using the word.


I think the FA were fully aware of the contextual issues hence why it took so long to investigate and their use of a number of experts in South American culture and linguistics. They didn't simply make a knee-jerk decision.
Really good to see you back though Mark!

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Dr Markus » 07 Jan 2012, 20:24

TopCat G wrote:
I think the FA were fully aware of the contextual issues hence why it took so long to investigate and their use of a number of experts in South American culture and linguistics. They didn't simply make a knee-jerk decision.



There is a university lecturer in the US who is just as if not more qualified as the two the experts the fa got in, to speak on this matter who says Luis is innocent. I posted it on here if you choose to read it.
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Diamond Dog » 09 Jan 2012, 11:26

Clint Planet wrote:
Dr Markus wrote:There is a university lecturer in the US who is just as if not more qualified as the two the experts the fa got in, to speak on this matter who says Luis is innocent. I posted it on here if you choose to read it.


He can say what he wants but he proves nothing because he rambles on about grammar (somewhat bemusingly and repetitively) and sideskips the massive issue of the pejorative use of the word. The word can be (and is) used in a racist way in Uruguay. The panel rejected out of hand any possibility of it being used in any way other than the pejorative sense.


The idea that Suarez would repeatedly use that phrase, in any other way than pejoratively, is so absurd that only a Liverpool fan and/or an idiot could believe otherwise.

Or both.
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

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

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 09 Jan 2012, 11:35

Diamond Dog wrote:
The idea that Suarez would repeatedly use that phrase, in any other way than pejoratively, is so absurd that only a Liverpool fan and/or an idiot could believe otherwise.


You're quite correct but the crucial thing is that Liverpool fans don't believe he used it repeatedly. The FA said that the single use of the word in Suarez's version of events is not necessarily pejorative but the repeated use certainly is. It's all down to which version you believe.
Last edited by trans-chigley express on 09 Jan 2012, 12:06, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Diamond Dog » 09 Jan 2012, 11:56

trans-chigley express wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:
The idea that Suarez would repeatedly use that phrase, in any other way than pejoratively, is so absurd that only a Liverpool fan and/or an idiot could believe otherwise.


You're quite correct but the crucial thing is that Liverpool fans don't believe he used it repeatedly. The FA said that the single use of the word in Suarez's version of events is not necessarily pejorative but the repeated use certainly is. It's all down to which version you believe.


I think the important thing is your qualifier necessarily - of course, the singular use could be used other than pejoratively.

And, if my aunt had bollocks, she'd be my uncle. But she hasn't, and she isn't.

But she could be, I suppose.
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

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

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 09 Jan 2012, 12:03

Diamond Dog wrote:
I think the important thing is your qualifier necessarily - of course, the singular use could be used other than pejoratively.


My mistake. The FA's actual wording is:

the use of "negro" as described here by Mr Suarez would not be offensive. Indeed, it is possible that the term was intended as an attempt at conciliation and/or to establish rapport


so no need for the qualifier.

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

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 09 Jan 2012, 12:03

double post

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

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 09 Jan 2012, 12:04

bollocks.

triple post. What's going on here?

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Dr Markus » 09 Jan 2012, 12:15

The fa has also set the minium of 8 match ban for any future similar type incidents. If they lower this they will get some big heat.
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Diamond Dog » 14 Aug 2012, 14:37

Not wanting to prolong this but I've resurrected it so the Liverpool thread doesn't get weighed down by it.
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

User avatar
doctorlouie
AKA Number 16 Bus Shelter
Posts: 23160
Joined: 03 Oct 2004, 18:24
Location: In a library, probly.
Contact:

Re: Suarez ban

Postby doctorlouie » 14 Aug 2012, 14:39

The Liverpool thread is the silliest thread hereabouts. Can't Liverpool fans remember surnames?

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Diamond Dog » 14 Aug 2012, 14:41

brotherlouie wrote:The Liverpool thread is the silliest thread hereabouts. Can't Liverpool fans remember surnames?


One of them can't. Unless it's Hodgson.
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Dr Markus » 14 Aug 2012, 14:53

Dry your eyes ladies, don’t make a mountain out of a molehill over nothing.
Last edited by Dr Markus on 14 Aug 2012, 15:02, edited 1 time in total.
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69577
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Diamond Dog » 14 Aug 2012, 14:58

Molehole?
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Dr Markus » 14 Aug 2012, 15:01

Diamond Dog wrote:Molehole?



Molehill, stil my comment stands by itself in meaning.
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model


Return to “Sporting Life”