Liverpool Message Board
How is it that Unitedes own Wayne Rooney can have his ban turned over with the full support of the FA in regards to his blatant kick at another player during that euro 2012 qualifyer and another Manchester United player this times Patrice Evra words taken over Luis Suarezs and given enough credence to get Suarez banned for eight games if this isnt a complete farce I really dont know what is, I really hope uruguays government get involed here and put this straight with the FA because this is blatant favoritism
I had a feeling this may get political.. The F.A chose to make it that by banning him for 8 games..
You're quite right how can Rooney get away with it.. and Evra trying and succedding in getting our best player banned..
Evra allegedly has cried wolf before.. I'd love to know what concrete evidence they have against Suarez other than him saying he called him a "negrito" which according to Google isn't even a racist term.. ok it mentions colour as the term.. but Evra is black is he not? So he's only stating the obvious..
- 2 Replies to LFC_Armchair_Supporter
Get your facts right. Discipline issues aren`t judged by the FA but by an independent panel. Both United AND Liverpool approved the makeup of the 3 man panel, one of whom is a QC. Any appeal will be hard by an independent panel. All the FA does is uphold the final decision. As several newspaper articles have pointed out the accusation that Evra has played the race card before is inaccurate. And finally its not what google thinks `negrito` means but what black people think it means and it is way to close to another word beginning with `n` for them not to think that it is about more than the colour of their skin.
Would appear "negrita , negrito" is another way of saying "negro" but in spanish.. is that racist?
It's like calling someone caucascian isn't it? Is that racist ? To me it's just definining races.. but no insult intended.. just stating facts..
Oh dear, where have you been the last few decades?
You think it's just fine and dandy to walk up to a black person on the street and say "Hey, negro"?
"Oi, whaddya hit me for? I was just stating facts."
If Evra felt that Suarez abused him contrary to the FA rules (and general decency) then he has every right to "point an accusatory finger". The panel agreed with Evra's accusation, and they have much more evidence available to them than Ian bloody Wright has.
""it sets a dangerous precedent " if black sports persons just idily go around accusing non blacks of being racist without 3rd party impartial evidence"
You do not need third party impartial evidence if the offender admits it and several of his countrymen also make comments that establish his guilt in the use of certain words. The evidence against Suarez was provided by Suarez himself. If he'd have kept his mouth shut he would not have been banned.
Robert, I'm not making up theories on how he's innocent, I'm making the case of why the club and his fellow players believe he's not guilty. I personally have no idea whether he said something or not, and if he did whether that is racial abuse or not. All I can go on is what has made it into the public domain, although the club, which is who I am trying to second guess, has much more information than either of us.
The press seems to be convinced he has admitted to saying a particular word, which on the face of it I don't find particularly offensive, and it seems nor do those who keep repeating and printing the same word. Basically having the book thrown at him for saying a word that is questionably racist on its own s a bit troubling to me.
On the other hand the club based on its statement seems to suggest it came down to just Evra's testimony which told his version of events but is uncorroborated as no-one else seems to have heard what was said. If this is the case I am troubled by the book being thrown at him based on basically one man's word against another’s.
Of course the report may, we hope, throw a bit more light on things, as neither of these basic explanations warrants the sentence he's been handed imo, so I'm trying to reserve personal judgment until that report is made public.
To be honest this would be much easier if Suarez admitted to saying something but felt it was not racist. I'd hope in that case on appeal, while ignorance of the rules cannot be an excuse, the Mackie precedent would almost force the FA to reduce the ban so long as Suarez demonstrated he did not mean to cause offense and was willing to apologize if he did.
But I just don't see that being likely based on the clubs response. Unless they are being extremely cynical thinking they can fight the FA to victory (highly unlikely imo) or are being extremely stupid (we can all have a moment of passion or insanity, but with so many lawyers and others intelligent people running football clubs surely someone would step in) I have to assume they truly believe that Suarez has gotten rough justice.
The sad thing is if the latter is the case this is not likely to end soon. I'm curious why the report has taken so long to be published, although lets say the holiday season slows down the process - btw I asked this before but does anyone know if Suarez has 14 days from the decision or from the publishing of the full report to appeal? - but I assume they are trying to dot every i and cross every T on what they know is going to be a contested decision.
But even after appeal, if LFC is determined to clear the players name, and not just a reduction in the ban, I can see this getting appealed further. I'm not sure what rights the player has at that point, but I assume the next step if he wanted would be the court of arbitration for sport. I'm not sure what their view on uncorroborated testimony, or even subjective language for that matter.
Your defences of Suarez become more bizarre.
How about the word "black". I don't notice people writing it as "b****". Do you? So are we to conclude it's not racially offensive to use the word when insulting someone from Africa? If Suarez had repeatedly called Evra a "black bastard" would that be okay because the two words don't get bleeped out in text?
I use the definition as described by Google..it suggests it's not an offensive word.. So thats good enough for me..
If others choose to believe it's a racist term thats up to them..
Tim, you may think its clutching at straws, but surely the common use definition is what is important, as the formal definition is Spanish and as I understand not offensive. And where better to understand common usage than social media.
btw, I agree with you context is key, but do you or I know the context without seeing how the panel came to their conclusions? All we know is the press claim they know the word, and Suarez has not denied it, which is not the same as admitting he used it. I would be surprised if he deny or confirm as he’s been told not to talk about the case publically.
Alex ferguson manipulates and influences all he touches. The overkill on the suarez 8 game suspension is just the latest in an endless list of rubbish decisions manipulated by ferguson. While his own rooney gets a free pass , any opposition player must be crucified for offenses far less harmful than rooney's. And mouthpiece yapping buffoons like buttkissing paul parker preach their biased diatribe from on high. But ferguson the dinosaur will die off soon enough. Pleasant thought that. Keep manipulating , baconface , how's the heart , have another scotch.
You manUres wonder why you are the most hated side in England. Use your tiny brains , it may come to you.
- View More Messages