Suarez ban

Fitba' crazy, fitba' mad. But mostly mad. And angry
User avatar
Butch Manly
Utter Cad
Posts: 51157
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:22
Location: 16 Beasley Street

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Butch Manly » 01 Jan 2012, 11:28

trans-chigley express wrote:tbh I know Suarez can be a bit of a nutter but I find the Evra version quite hard to believe.


Well, the panel spends 115 pages coming to the exact opposite conclusion. Do you really think Suarez pinched Evra's skin (what sort of thing is that to do, by the way?) to defuse the situation and that he used the word "negro" in a conciliatory and friendly manner (a position which, the panel noted, was clearly contradicted by Suarez's hostile body language)?
Goatboy to Belle:

"I suggest you retreat to the safety of your Facebook bubble. Griff has a post he needs you to like."

User avatar
trans-chigley express
Posts: 17481
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 01:50
Location: Asia's WC

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 01 Jan 2012, 11:45

Clint Planet wrote:
trans-chigley express wrote:tbh I know Suarez can be a bit of a nutter but I find the Evra version quite hard to believe.


Well, the panel spends 115 pages coming to the exact opposite conclusion. Do you really think Suarez pinched Evra's skin (what sort of thing is that to do, by the way?) to defuse the situation and that he used the word "negro" in a conciliatory and friendly manner (a position which, the panel noted, was clearly contradicted by Suarez's hostile body language)?


Well, given that we know Evra has previously been regarded as an unreliable witness himself, his original claim that Suarez called him a nigger at least 10 times and is visible on TV coverage has proven to be wrong and that Suarez has no history at all of being a racist or using racist slurs then the obviously racist tirade that Evra claims seems questionable.

I don't think Suarez used the word negro in "conciliatory and friendly manner" at all but I'm also sceptical of Evra's story.

I do think Liverpool would be wise to drop any appeal though.

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

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Thesiger » 01 Jan 2012, 11:52

The fundamental and glaring flaw in this process is the absence of any objective record of the supposed verbal exchange. That's why any verdict will look to be partial.
BCB Cup - R.U. 2010: W 2012

User avatar
Kid P
'scientific' type
Posts: 1158
Joined: 03 May 2011, 10:48
Location: The Cornetto Observation Booth

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Kid P » 01 Jan 2012, 12:16

Can someone provide a link to substantiate the Evra as "unreliable witness" claim?

As far as I know, this is first allegation of this type
God Of Thunder wrote:being a Paul McCartney fan is a bit like being his mom...

User avatar
trans-chigley express
Posts: 17481
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 01:50
Location: Asia's WC

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 01 Jan 2012, 12:52

Kid P wrote:Can someone provide a link to substantiate the Evra as "unreliable witness" claim?

As far as I know, this is first allegation of this type



This report makes reference to it. You can google the details of the story. The FA clearly judged him as unreliable back then.

User avatar
Butch Manly
Utter Cad
Posts: 51157
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:22
Location: 16 Beasley Street

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Butch Manly » 01 Jan 2012, 13:45

Evra made no complaint in that incident because he didn't hear anything said. It was United's backroom staff that complained.

All of which is a moot point since Suarez has admitted using the language. His defence was that he was saying it in a friendly manner, something which was rejected out of hand by the panel.

Liverpool and its fanbase need to stop embarrassing the entire city, accept the ruling, apologise and move on. Fat chance of that, like.
Goatboy to Belle:

"I suggest you retreat to the safety of your Facebook bubble. Griff has a post he needs you to like."

User avatar
PENK
Midnight to Six Man
Posts: 34697
Joined: 07 Aug 2004, 20:12
Location: Stockholm

Re: Suarez ban

Postby PENK » 01 Jan 2012, 13:54

Clint Planet wrote:
The experts [because they did actually employ some, it seems]


Named in the paper this morning as Professor Peter Wade from the Department of Social Anthropology at Manchester University, a specialist in race and ethnicity in Latin America who learnt his Spanish when living in Colombia, and Dr James Scorer, from the university's Department of Latin American Studies, a specialist in urban politics and cultures as well as national and regional identity in Latin American cinema.

So it would seem that they made this judgment based on the opinion of people who actually knew what they were talking about, then. Which is, admittedly, possibly a first for the FA.
Copehead wrote:I have met Gruff Rhys - although he claimed he wasn't and that he couldn't speak Welsh, as I spoke to him in Welsh, but it was him lying bastard.

User avatar
Butch Manly
Utter Cad
Posts: 51157
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:22
Location: 16 Beasley Street

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Butch Manly » 01 Jan 2012, 14:36

trans-chigley express wrote:
This report makes reference to it. You can google the details of the story. The FA clearly judged him as unreliable back then.


http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2011/12/de ... -evra.html

As this website points out, Liverpool Football Club itself is guilty of perpetuating the myth that Evra is a serial victim.
Goatboy to Belle:

"I suggest you retreat to the safety of your Facebook bubble. Griff has a post he needs you to like."

User avatar
trans-chigley express
Posts: 17481
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 01:50
Location: Asia's WC

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 01 Jan 2012, 16:01

Clint Planet wrote:
trans-chigley express wrote:
This report makes reference to it. You can google the details of the story. The FA clearly judged him as unreliable back then.


http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2011/12/de ... -evra.html

As this website points out, Liverpool Football Club itself is guilty of perpetuating the myth that Evra is a serial victim.


I make no claim that he was a serial victim, nor does anyone else on this thread, I was merely pointing out that the FA had previously deemed his evidence unreliable as Kid P seemed unaware of it.

User avatar
Butch Manly
Utter Cad
Posts: 51157
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:22
Location: 16 Beasley Street

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Butch Manly » 02 Jan 2012, 01:45

trans-chigley express wrote:I make no claim that he was a serial victim, nor does anyone else on this thread, I was merely pointing out that the FA had previously deemed his evidence unreliable as Kid P seemed unaware of it.


He was asking for evidence of this and yet you have provided none so far. I've had a look online and can find nothing but am willing to concede if someone can just prove what is being spouted by Liverpool fans so freely. Otherwise, we have the absurd situation of someone who's been praised by the FA for their transparency being vilified by the masses (and a lot of what is being said about Evra by otherwise seemingly sane people on FB is really quite vile) and someone who has been pointedly called unreliable in a 115 page report who is being defended unquestioningly to the hilt.
Goatboy to Belle:

"I suggest you retreat to the safety of your Facebook bubble. Griff has a post he needs you to like."

User avatar
Butch Manly
Utter Cad
Posts: 51157
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:22
Location: 16 Beasley Street

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Butch Manly » 02 Jan 2012, 01:50

Goatboy to Belle:

"I suggest you retreat to the safety of your Facebook bubble. Griff has a post he needs you to like."

User avatar
trans-chigley express
Posts: 17481
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 01:50
Location: Asia's WC

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 02 Jan 2012, 04:39

Clint Planet wrote:
trans-chigley express wrote:I make no claim that he was a serial victim, nor does anyone else on this thread, I was merely pointing out that the FA had previously deemed his evidence unreliable as Kid P seemed unaware of it.


He was asking for evidence of this and yet you have provided none so far.



this is the full FA report which states the FA's opinion of Evra's testimony. It is the FA opinion in that particular case where there is a lot more evidence than this one. Evra was not involved in any race issue with that case though and for anyone to suggest otherwise, including Liverpool FC, is plain wrong and you are quite right to call on them for that.

Personally I don't go near FB, twitter, football club forums or anywhere else that attracts morons (except perhaps nextdoorland!)

IMO Liverpool should drop any appeal even if they still feel they have grounds for it but that doesn't stop me harboring any doubts about Evra's actual version of events. The word negro was used regardless so it's not really relevant and just a matter of opinion without any conclusive evidence either way.

User avatar
Butch Manly
Utter Cad
Posts: 51157
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:22
Location: 16 Beasley Street

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Butch Manly » 02 Jan 2012, 13:13

Goatboy to Belle:

"I suggest you retreat to the safety of your Facebook bubble. Griff has a post he needs you to like."

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

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Thesiger » 02 Jan 2012, 16:40

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....
BCB Cup - R.U. 2010: W 2012

User avatar
trans-chigley express
Posts: 17481
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 01:50
Location: Asia's WC

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 03 Jan 2012, 00:18

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

This is interesting:
James Lawton wrote:Not when you have been found, irrefutably, to have said, without the interruption of any other word, "black, black, black..."

Any links?

User avatar
Ranking Ted
Posts: 12310
Joined: 03 Feb 2004, 22:13
Location: Northern Britain

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Ranking Ted » 03 Jan 2012, 18:49


User avatar
Nick?? Dougie??
funky thigh collector
Posts: 29498
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 16:00
Location: In the naughty North and in the sexy South

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Nick?? Dougie?? » 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?

User avatar
Geezee
Posts: 12332
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
Butch Manly
Utter Cad
Posts: 51157
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:22
Location: 16 Beasley Street

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Butch Manly » 06 Jan 2012, 20:27

Except that Suarez actually admitted to using the word, no?


A mere detail.
Goatboy to Belle:

"I suggest you retreat to the safety of your Facebook bubble. Griff has a post he needs you to like."

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