Manchester United Message Board
LONDON (AP) -Newly published evidence from the Football Association says that Liverpool striker Luis Suarez called Manchester United's Patrice Evra a "negro'' seven times in the incident that led to him being banned for eight matches.
The report by an independent commission says when Evra asked Suarez during the October match why he had been kicked, the striker replied in Spanish: "Porque tu eres negro,'' which translates as "because you are black.''
Evra said he would punch Suarez if he repeated the comment to which Suarez said: "No hablo con los negros'' - "I don't speak to blacks.''
Linguistic experts were used by the FA to assess how abusive Suarez's language was.
The FA says Suarez has pledged "he will not use the word 'negro' on a football pitch in England in the future.''
Whats amazed me is the nerve Liverpool fans have had in supporting this racist. Is anyone surprised though?
Blimey Jim, I'm not sure I fully understand what "pseudo-intellectual post rationalisation" means - I'm not that clever ;-).
I'm not trying to dismiss/deny/justify. I was genuinely interested in the point about the TV footage and so posted the above - hope that's ok with you?
Gotta say that after reading the report and the press comments is not just Suarez that comes out of the report in a bad light, Kuyt doesn`t come out of it well either. He was apparently the spreader of the lie that Evra said to Marriner that he was only booking him because he was black - a comment the ref said never happened. And Kuyt and Damien Comolli, Liverpool`s director of football, changed the original statements they made to the ref - that Suarez had told them that he kicked Evra because he was black - to fit in with Suarez`s testimony. They told the panel that all Suarez had told them he said was "why? black" Gotta say the more you read of the report the less savory liverpool`s initial statement looks. They knew when they made a big play of it being just one player`s word against another that at one stage some of Evra`s claims had been supported by 2 people within the club. Yet they chose to question Evra`s credibility and imply that he was always playing the race card. If they had a shred of decency they would know apologise to Evra for that statement.
For all we know the cameras picked up the odd word here and there that might have help decide whose account was more accurate but because it wasn`t more than a couple of words, was in Spanish and didn`t include the `n` word there was no incentive to show it to the wider public. With the Terry incident the offending sentence can be seen and his case rest on the assertion that the words were said as part of a denial and that first part of his comment wasn`t in the footage because it was obscured by Cole`s head.
I didn't mean to imply it was suspicious, more intriguing.
When you say there was no incentive to show it then I guess it depends on how damning it is. If it was damning then surely it would be on the news/sports media - given the coverage of this issue over the last few months I can't believe that it wouldn't be.
I guess the answer is as you suggest - it doesn't show what was said but rather that a conversation took place. In which case I agree that the TV coys might not bother to pay to air it.
You think? Well then thats pretty well ironclad guaranteed as the only possible truth , huh , bob?
You think? Seen no evidence of that.
You point fingers and speculate , seen plenty of evidence of that.
Keep romancing manUre's rectum , bob , no doubt they'll let you in soon.
Reckon that since Chelsea has fallen off a bit you've transplanted your tongue to manUre's rectum , bob? Good luck with that , you brave brave little Chelsea lass.
I'm not sure the video evidence thing is suspicious. there are plainly many more cameras taking video of matches than gets published. There is a cost to video companies in publishing video and they probably think that if they don't get paid for it there's no incentive. I 'm not at all sure but I think both sky and canal+ had cameras there. And again, i'm not at all sure but I think both sky and canal+ had cameras running at Chelsea after the match which recorded the previous Evra affair and which was used in evidence then.
In this case the video evidence shows in detail how the players moved in relation to each other and Suarez twice touching Evra, and Evra's reaction to something suarez said to him. It isn't possible Ito tell from the video evidence exactly what is said. the video evidence seems to do two things: first to help create a timed narrative of what happened and second to demonstrate that when Suarez claims to have been trying to defuse the situation there is some doubt about his testimony.
It does indeed. From memory, I think my point of view in the discussion was that you shouldn't judge someones guilt in as serious a charge as this based only on who you think might be more likely to be telling the truth. That is still my position.
Another thought ... I think you mentioned that the FA report talks about video evidence. They must have some as they refer to it but it seems very odd to me that they have it but no-one else has published it yet - any thoughts?
It's paragraphs 323 to 337. One of the more interesting bits in my view. It relates to the question of probability as to who is telling the truth. If one is telling the truth and one is lying then the commission needed to look into whose evidence was more plausible.
I seem to remember a tiny eansy weansy bit of discussion about this question between me, you and Dave on the Liverpool board at the time. Dare I say that the FA commission seems to have concluded what I said was my gut instinct about the situation?
I agree very much with the last point you make unless they choose to question the evidence presented.
I agree with you about the lawyer on Evra's motivation - surely the right answer is - 'I have no idea, you should ask him'.
It does seem a really odd thing for the board to ask him though - regardless of what the lawyer answers how does that have any bearing on things? I mean, asking a third party to suggest a motive he can only guess at and then judging his guess as implausible seems irrelevant to the guilt of Suarez to me.
- View More Messages