Suarez ban

Fitba' crazy, fitba' mad. But mostly mad. And angry
User avatar
Thesiger
Posts: 20156
Joined: 08 Aug 2003, 17:12
Location: Old Meadow

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Thesiger » 29 Dec 2011, 18:36

Owen wrote: i doubt if the FA has a list of acceptable and unacceptable words, any reference to someones skin colour on the field of play that gets reported (and admitted to by suarez) is bound to be breaking the rules and under their jurisdiction.


Law 12 (Sendings Off) includes offensive, insulting or abusive language/gestures. There's nothing specifically about references to race or colour.
BCB Cup - R.U. 2010: W 2012

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

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 30 Dec 2011, 00:47

Is it known for sure that Suarez got his ban for "negrito"? As far as I know that was what he admitted to saying but isn't it possible that Evra maintains he said something else that hasn't been made public? The full 50 page (50!!) FA report should be made public soon which may make things clearer. Or not.

The worst outcome of this case is not the ban at all but the fact Suarez will be permanently tainted with the racist tag which must hurt. It's one thing being disliked for being a bit of a nutter and a cheater but quite another being branded a racist.

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 » 30 Dec 2011, 07:38

trans-chigley express wrote:The worst outcome of this case is not the ban at all but the fact Suarez will be permanently tainted with the racist tag which must hurt. It's one thing being disliked for being a bit of a nutter and a cheater but quite another being branded a racist.



I guess the answer is not to use terms that could be construed as racist, then.

Hopefully he, and others, will learn that using the colour of a persons skin - whether in jest, 'affectionately', or just in an outright racist fashion - to make any point, will not and should not be condoned. It is a harsh sentence, maybe, but the point has been made.

Now let's hope the FA are as draconian when it comes to the England captain......
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine

User avatar
The Prof
Trading coffee in Abyssinia
Posts: 46392
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:32
Location: A Metropolis of Discontent

Re: Suarez ban

Postby The Prof » 30 Dec 2011, 12:00

Rated B wrote:Good to see Liverpool fans at their usual high level of classy behaviour...

http://twitter.com/#!/StanCollymore/favorites

Cunts.


Fucking hell - is that what people do on Twitter?

Jeez - I despair.

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

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 30 Dec 2011, 12:42

Twitter attracts pond life. I'm glad I've never gone near it.

User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 4118
Joined: 02 Jun 2008, 12:43
Location: The north side of my town faces east, and the east faces south

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Rorschach » 31 Dec 2011, 11:50

I guess if you live in one country all your life then it's going to be difficult to see past the attitudes you've been brought up with.

Owen wrote:
Clint Planet wrote:Was there any need to make reference to the colour of his skin at all? Would it have been okay for Carragher, for example, to repeatedly refer to him as "black lad"? After all, "black" is not a racist word in itself and "lad" is often a term of affection in Liverpool.

Suarez knew what he was doing.


Exactly,

i doubt if the FA has a list of acceptable and unacceptable words, any reference to someones skin colour on the field of play that gets reported (and admitted to by suarez) is bound to be breaking the rules and under their jurisdiction.

whether the south american comments are just as bad or worse neither Suarez or an official made a complaint about them. You could argue that if in the course of the hearing it was established they were said then maybe evra needs a ban as well but suarez still doesn't have a leg to stand on


I think we can all agree that, in Britain, it is not considered acceptable to refer to someone by their race or sking colour in the way that Suárez did. Indeed, as I suggested before, the FA should have a rule about it and then there would be no excuses and everyone should know what is not allowed and what punishment they can expect if they break the rule. However, they didn't have that rule in place and still don't. They just made up a crime and a punishment. A bit like Owen's first sentence.

A year is nowhere near long enough to fully take on board the cultural mores of a society and bear in mind that I speak from experience as opposed to those who say that it is enough time. For all we or the FA know, Suárez may have considered his way of speaking completely normal and not felt that referring to someone's skin colour was a bad thing.
If there were a rule or a law to say otherwise then he should be punished because it's his business to find out about these things but there isn't.
Bugger off.

User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 4118
Joined: 02 Jun 2008, 12:43
Location: The north side of my town faces east, and the east faces south

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Rorschach » 31 Dec 2011, 11:56

Geezee wrote:
...and regardless of whether the FA or incompetent or not, i sincerely doubt that they would come to this decision in a vacuum without consulting a variety of authorities first. Rorschach makes the common mistake as well of just assuming that the N word in English is a "bad word" - when its original meaning was not (eg. Nigger of Narcissus etc), and it has since been taken over by black people in a positive way...and i sincerely doubt if it was used in that latter context that anyone would have a problem with it (though it still makes me uncomfortable).


I know you're not a native speaker so I'll just explain that not competent to do something doesn't mean incompetent. It means not having the means or knowledge to do something.

And the original meaning of nigger is irrrelevant as is the current, positive use by, mainly, African Americans. In the context everyone, including you, understood what I meant.
Bugger off.

The Modernist

Re: Suarez ban

Postby The Modernist » 31 Dec 2011, 13:12

But they did have the knowledge. They were aware that the word 'negrita' has multiple usages and can carry many different associations in South America. That's why the case took so long to investigate. However they concluded that Suarez was using ethnicity to wind up Evra, and it can be used in a pejorative way along with its many other uses. I don't see why such a conclusion was unsound.

User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 4118
Joined: 02 Jun 2008, 12:43
Location: The north side of my town faces east, and the east faces south

Re: Suarez ban

Postby Rorschach » 31 Dec 2011, 18:20

Clint Planet wrote:So do you think he was using it affectionately or pejoratively, Tym?


My guess would be that he was using it perjoratively but, like you and the FA, I don't know. The fact that he so readily admitted to what he'd said even though it couldn't otherwise have been proven makes me wonder.

So, I would say (again) that as we don't know for sure what he intended and there was no rule to cover the situation he shouldn't have been punished. This was an opportunity for the FA to clear up the whole issue to avoid future cases but instead they've just made an arbitrary stop-gap decision.
Bugger off.

User avatar
andymacandy
"Liberal Airhead"
Posts: 30035
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 18:26
Location: MacAndys Farm

Re: Suarez ban

Postby andymacandy » 31 Dec 2011, 18:42

Rorschach wrote: The fact that he so readily admitted to what he'd said even though it couldn't otherwise have been proven makes me wonder.


A very good point.

I wonder if Liverpool are holding the appeal pending Terry's case.
Puts the FA in the position of having to treat them on an "equal" standing,
which Im sure they don't really like.
Not (I suspect) that the FA like having to take any kind of firm action.
Bless the weather.......Image

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

Re: Suarez ban

Postby trans-chigley express » 01 Jan 2012, 00:21

I'd pointed out earlier that no one really knew for sure if the word "negrito" was what Suarez said. I think the word "Negro" makes a big difference even if Suarez never meant it as a racial slur and the fact that he openly admitted to it when he could easily have denied it given the lack of evidence other than what Evra claims, supports this. I can't make judgements on what is considered racist in other countries; I sometimes get referred to by a local term that relates directly to my skin colour in a completely non-racist way.

There are certainly big differences between the two versions of events and If Evra's version is true Suarez deserves the ban, if Suarez's version is true then it's harsh. It's still very much one word against another and it boils down to the FA believing Evra's version:

Evra's version of events
Evra: Why did you kick me?
Suarez: Because you are black.
Evra: Say that to me again. I'm going to punch you.
Suarez: I don't speak to blacks.
Evra: I'm going to punch you.
Suarez: OK, blackie, blackie, blackie. Suarez then touched Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin.
Evra: Ref, ref, he just called me a fucking black.

Suarez's version of events
Evra: Why did you kick me?
Suarez (shrugging): It was a normal foul.
Evra: I'm going to kick you.
Suarez: Shut up. (Suarez then touched Evra's arm in a pinching-style movement).
Evra: Don't touch me, South American.
Suarez: Por que, negro (Why, black?)

tbh I know Suarez can be a bit of a nutter but I find the Evra version quite hard to believe.



115 pages!

User avatar
trans-chigley express
Posts: 19238
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: 1164
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: 19238
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
Penk!
Midnight to Six Man
Posts: 35784
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.
fange wrote:One of the things i really dislike in this life is people raising their voices in German.

User avatar
trans-chigley express
Posts: 19238
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
trans-chigley express
Posts: 19238
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
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: 19238
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?


Return to “Sporting Life”