FA Suarez documents released

That is a rather bleak, if accurate, view of the role of journalism in our society.

The press should attempt to reflect the truth of events, except when that may upset a few people or when their views of things aren't in keeping with the opinion of the mindless.

It's bleak, but unfortunately, it's very true. The entire field has been overrun by people trying to make money as opposed to people who think journalism has a responsible role in society with the basic tenants of fairness, balance, and objectivity.

Think this sort of justice lowers the bar for british sense of fair play and damages our reputation abroad.We have created a precedent which is a slippery slope, will the language police get increased powers? 

Think this sort of justice lowers the bar for british sense of fair play and damages our reputation abroad.We have created a precedent which is a slippery slope, will the language police get increased powers? 

And then the thought police soon after.

Stinks of Foul play and the video clearly shows a different side a liar and a cheat. I'd be taking that and the whole case Evra and the FA to high court. Has Kenny,Suarez seen the video we should twitter it to them if not and show how were right behind the club. When you walk through a storm..

Now they are saying "Suarez has 'Damaged the image of English football around the world'".

They won't be satisfied until he's hounded out.

The only people damaging the image of English football are the clueless referees and the FA.

I've read through half of the report.

But one inconsistency I picked up on so far which I don't think has been mentioned, is how Evra thought that 'negro' translated into 'n*gger' after the game, and he was telling players and also the ref that he had been called a n*gger. But, during the match when he spoke to the ref and Giggs, he said that he had been called black, also Kuyt heard the word 'black' said, even if the content of what Evra said was different. So it seems Evra, forgot that 'negro' translated into 'black' sometime during the rest of the match.

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 nigger". He now says
that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black". We shall
consider further below Mr Evra's understanding of the Spanish word "negro".

92. Mr Evra said that he followed up Mr Suarez's reply "Because you are black" by saying
"Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada", which means "Say it to me again, I'm going
to punch you". Mr Suarez replied by saying "No hablo con los negros". Mr Evra said that,
at the time, he understood this to mean "I don't speak to niggers", although he now says it
means "I don't speak to blacks".

94. Mr Evra said that after Mr Suarez said "I don't speak to blacks", he (Mr Evra) said "Ahora
te voy a dar realmente una porrada", which means "Okay, now I think I'm going to punch
you". To this he says that Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro...negro...negro". At the time, Mr
Evra understood this to mean "Okay, nigger, nigger, nigger". He now says it means "Okay,
blackie, blackie, blackie". The expert witnesses stated that the phrase "Dale, negro" can be
understood as "Bring it on, blackie" or "do it, blackie" or "go ahead, blackie" (see paragraph
184 below).

123. Nani said that he always sits close to Mr Evra in the dressing room and at the end of the
game when he came into the dressing room, Mr Evra was upset. Nani said:
"I cannot remember exactly what Evra said but he was complaining that Suarez had
said something racist towards him. He said that Suarez had said that he wouldn't
talk to him because he was black. When he said this in English I think he used the
word "nigger" but in Spanish/Portuguese he used the word "negro" or "preto", I
cannot remember exactly which.
Evra was also angry that Suarez had not been booked for saying what he did. Evra
said something like, "This is a joke. How is it possible that the referee does nothing
when he knows what happened?" Evra said that he had told the referee what Suarez
said to him."

125. Mr Evra said in evidence that some of the other players could see that he was upset and
asked him what was wrong. He said that Mr Suarez had called him a nigger and said that
he had kicked him because of that. Mr Evra said that he told the other players that Mr
Suarez had said "porque tu eres negro". We note that Mr Evra did not say in his own
evidence that he had told his team-mates that Mr Suarez had said he would not speak to
him because he was black. However, we accept that Mr Evra did say this to his teammates
after the match because that is what all four of them say in their statements and
their evidence has been accepted in full by Mr Suarez. It is possible that Mr Evra also told
them that Mr Suarez had said he had kicked him "porque tu eres negro", and this was not
recalled by the players.

130. Mr Evra said that he told the referee that Mr Suarez had called him a nigger. According to
Mr Evra, the referee said to him "Oh, that is why you were talking about being called
black", referring back to what Mr Evra had said to the referee on the pitch. Mr Evra said
"Yes."

All of the paragraphs above from the report talk about Evra saying that he was called a n*gger, because that is what he believed 'negro' translated into, but on the pitch it was a different matter:

112. The evidence of Mr Marriner about this incident was as follows. In the 65th minute of the
game, he had to issue a caution to Mr Evra after he saw him push Mr Kuyt in the chest
following a coming together. Mr Evra was clearly upset and mentioned that he was being
called "black". Mr Marriner did not hear whether Mr Evra said who was calling him
"black" and he did not understand what Mr Evra was referring to at the time. Mr Evra
made no other comment to the referee.

113. Mr Evra described the booking in the following way. Mr Kuyt told him to stop diving so
Mr Evra pushed him away. The referee called Mr Evra over to book him. Mr Evra asked
the referee why he was booking him and the referee said it was because he had pushed Mr
Kuyt. When he was being booked, Mr Evra told the referee again that he had been called
black. Mr Evra added that after booking him, the referee spoke to Ryan Giggs. Mr Giggs
then asked Mr Evra what was wrong and Mr Evra told him that he had been called black.
Mr Giggs told Mr Evra to calm down and not get sent off.

114. Mr Giggs gave evidence before us. He said that he was reasonably close to the referee and
after he had shown Mr Evra the yellow card, Mr Giggs approached the referee and asked
him why he had booked Mr Evra. The referee said to Mr Giggs "just calm Patrice down".
Mr Giggs then moved away from the referee and towards Mr Evra. It was obvious to Mr
Giggs from looking at Mr Evra that he was upset. He said that Mr Evra did not seem quite
with it, you might call it red mist. Mr Giggs said to Mr Evra "what's happened?". Mr Evra
replied "he called me black". Mr Giggs assumed that Mr Evra was speaking about Mr
Kuyt since he had just been booked for some kind of tussle with Mr Kuyt. Mr Giggs said
to Mr Evra "did the ref hear it?", to which Mr Evra replied "I don't think so". Mr Giggs
then told Mr Evra to calm down and not get himself sent off.

115. Mr Kuyt gave a slightly different version from Mr Marriner, Mr Evra and Mr Giggs. He
said that after the goal kick he was close to Mr Evra and said "Come on, let's move on, let's
keep going with the game" and touched Mr Evra just on the arm. According to Mr Kuyt,
Mr Evra reacted aggressively and smashed his arm away and at that point, the referee
having seen the incident, called Mr Evra to him and booked him. Mr Kuyt said that he
was very close to Mr Evra and the referee at this time. He said he was "absolutely certain"
that he heard Mr Evra say that the referee was only booking him because he was black.

116. We found the evidence of Mr Marriner on this point to be credible and plausible. He
recalled Mr Evra telling him that he was being called black. This is consistent with Mr
Evra's evidence of what he told Mr Marriner at that time, and also with Mr Giggs'
evidence of what Mr Evra said to him shortly afterwards. In light of this, we reject Mr
Kuyt's evidence that Mr Evra said that the referee was only booking him because he was
black, however certain Mr Kuyt was that he heard it. Moreover, it would make no sense in
the circumstances for Mr Evra to accuse the referee of only booking him because he was
black. Not only had Mr Evra pushed Mr Kuyt away, which he is likely to have realised
had led to his booking, but his concern at that stage was that he had been called black
(bearing in mind that, at the very least, Mr Suarez admits having called Mr Evra "negro"
by this stage of the game).

The commissioner's trust in Suarez seem's to have been affected with his story changing around the whole pinching incident. Well this for me should effect the trust in Evra too, because it seems he was trying to get Suarez in more trouble after the game by trying to claim he had been called a 'n*gger', when actually he was called 'negro' meaning 'black' as he said during the game.

The only people damaging the image of English football are the clueless referees and the FA.

From what friends in other countries have told me it's the FA and the way they have handled the whole thing that has made every body piss themselves.



Anyway... just read the report.. why do they call sir-drinks-a-lot 'Sir Alex Ferguson' all the way through? surely that's not right? Shouldn't it be Sir Ferguson if they are going to use proper tittles?


All so there are a few comical spelling mistakes in the report and I'm dyslexic so they have to be bad for me to notice!!!

I think journalists are in an awkward position. Now, I'm not defending, because they've been dog sh*te at best during the whole saga, but any journo that seeks to defend Suarez/critique the panel findings faces abuse being hurled at them like LFC, Suarez, and us as LFC supporters have faced. So the ones who take the false "moral high ground" take it to gain PC points through their narrow-minded, culturally oppressive "THIS IS ENGLAND NOT SOUTH AMERICA" approach. The ones that would actually see the issue in shades of grey (like it should be viewed) and use simple, basic logic in breaking down the report and its inconsistencies are probably too scared to come out with it. Or are being censured by editors.

So true. Not just for this case but throughout journalism. With mortgages, bills to pay and families to support, journalists are forced to toe the party line.

The journalists who take the moral high ground against Luis to gain PC points are the ones I really despise.

One news report last night told us that effectively, pressure was building on Liverpool to back down on this. Frankly I can't see that happening.

The wider media, should be aware that at LFC and in the city generally, there is a long tradition of fighting glaring, outrageous injustices, and the people don't do "back down". So there's plenty of fighting still to be done on this one.

I actually think the argument here is bigger than purely a football one, it's a question of natural justice and a mans reputation. To my mind, being labelled a racist is just about the worst thing you can be called, and whether or not Luis gets 8 games or 4 games is not as important I don't think as the tarnish on his reputation which has been unfairly meted out. If this were David Beckham and he was being labelled a racist at Paris St Germain and then being questioned about it and judged in French, there'd be uproar, questions in the house and the like.

 It's not good enough to say "probably" when we are talking about an allegation as serious as this. We aren't talking about a bloke nicking a loaf of bread from Nisa, this is a mans reputation and standing in the World which is at stake. "Probably" is bollocks, he's either PROVEN to be a racist or there is insufficient proof and we therefore make the assumption that he's "probably" innocent.
 

A very precise comment which paradoxically points to the fact that the same quality is totally devoid in the Suarez "guilty" decision by the lynch mob that is known as the Football Association.

This is not a matter that can be considered by a body that has no legal parameters or qualification, indeed a great amount of the so called evidence is not legally admissible and would be labelled 'hearsay' in a court of law.

Take the case of Ferguson labelling the player a "cheat" to all and sundry after the drawn game at Anfield and what can only be described as a conspiracy or a campaign to discredit Suarez and deprive a rival of a vital ingredient, culminating with the FA, Evra, Ferguson forming the main players in the aforementioned lynch mob.

As indicated this matter has by it's very nature, profound legal and moral implications which are above and beyond the Alice In Wonderland make believe court that is deemed suitable by the FA, the only fitting arena for this case is a court of law.

I've had a good look through and in purely linear terms there's clearly no more "evidence" that Evra is truthful re what was said that Luis. Indeed - based on the actual physical behaviour of participants I do find Luis version more compelling. It does appear that Luis lack of comfort in English has hurt him here in front of the panel - in terms of context and explaining (not referring to use of the term).

We either stand by the principle (that as a club and a fanbase - LFC believe Luis) or back away and accept the ban. For me - simply burning a man because the subject matter (racism / racist behaviour) is too complicated / difficult is not the right way.

Ultimately there's absolutely nothing in this (very) long report that takes this away from being one man word v the other. To me Evra seems to be the aggressor throughout on the footage (pinching apart!).

I don't understand how no one heard Suarez mention the word if he has said it 7 times.

Then why the F**k would Evra claim Suarez is not racist when what he said is indeed, racist?

I don't understand how no one heard Suarez mention the word if he has said it 7 times.

Then why the f**k would Evra claim Suarez is not racist when what he said is indeed, racist?

Adryan - the only part that's consistent is the inconsistency. You couldn't make it up

I don't understand how no one heard Suarez mention the word if he has said it 7 times.

Then why the F**k would Evra claim Suarez is not racist when what he said is indeed, racist?

As posted earlier Ad, precise and legally acceptable evidence should only be considered in such a profound matter as this.

Here's something i've just picked up on, still reading through this f**ker.

Mr Suarez's background as described by him in his statement raised doubts in our minds,
in the first instance, as to whether he would ever make the alleged comments. We
recognised that Mr Suarez's background together with the seriousness of the Charge,
meant that a greater burden of evidence was required to prove the Charge. We formed the
view that, overall, the preponderance of the evidence favoured the FA's case.


Greater burden of Evidence ?

So after 115 pages it all came down to one mans word against another, with no one witness's co-oberating either of Suarez's or Evra's version of events.

So where's this Greater burden of Evidence ?

All I see is 3 men making a decision based on he said - she said and delivering a verdict on the probability of events.

Is correct Daz and as you point out it is hearsay and not admissible in a court of law, the "greater burden of evidence" is noticeable by it's absence.
There is someway to go in the appeal process and if sense does not prevail (I deliberately avoid the word justice) it is not inconceivable that some legal action is instigated.

The FA are idiots to suggest that whilst he is not a racist he used racist language as far as the media are concerned they dont get past the word racist. This for me is about damaging Suarez as a person and as a footballer. The PFA have washed their hands of Suarez all becuase the FA wanted to make apoint.

Just F***ing 'probably'.

'Probably'!

For anyone thinking about reading it, save yourself 115 pages and just note that they have said Patrice Evra's version of events is 'probably' what happened. That is an absolutely ridiculous, ludicrous and biased basis to make a decision that a guy is a racist and give him an 8 match ban.

What I find funny is, this doument was supposed to be created to make the whole case unappealable, but there is more holes and inconsitenties in it than anything else.

After reading the whole thing and digesting it, I still feel the shoulder shrugging incident is our strongest point of appeal, if we show Evra to be lying about Suarez's response right there, the whole case falls apart as the rest of his statement can not be taken as serious evidence.

I think there may well be some sort of dealing going on with the FA. They know if it goes anywhere were proof is required they are fu**ed and will look silly. They should have come up with a decision that both parties would accept and if common sense would have prevailed an apology form Luis to Evra for using inapropriate languge  would probably have been acceptable to Evra as it is now they have brandished Luis as an Evil racist and expect him just to say ok I can live with that.Typically the FA have fu**ed up again. Do they think that if Luis had accepted this ban that once served everything would be ok NO!!! he will be tarnished forever as a racist and his career will be greatly tarnished.
The decision leavesLuis and the club no alternative than to appeal or possibly go further and go straight to a higher authority that requires evidence to produce a verdict.

What I find funny is, this doument was supposed to be created to make the whole case unappealable, but there is more holes and inconsitenties in it than anything else.

After reading the whole thing and digesting it, I still feel the shoulder shrugging incident is our strongest point of appeal, if we show Evra to be lying about Suarez's response right there, the whole case falls apart as the rest of his statement can not be taken as serious evidence.

Yes, but according to the FA rules (and those are the ones that matter on this), Luis is screwed. They made sure he is. From a legal point of view the ruling is so ambivalent they will punish him either way.
All he can do now is push charges against the FA for difamation to clear his name, but I dont think he will ever shake this one of

I think if LFC appealed, the FA would increase the ban by 1 match simply out of principle. We might as well bypass the FA and send it to the High Court. See what they make out of the ban because Evra's account is "probably" what happened. Without evidence, the FA haven't got a F***ing leg to stand on.

Yes, but according to the FA rules (and those are the ones that matter on this), Luis is screwed. They made sure he is. From a legal point of view the ruling is so ambivalent they will punish him either way.
All he can do now is push charges against the FA for difamation to clear his name, but I dont think he will ever shake this one of

Not at all mate, heres something I've just posted on twitter.

Looking at the whole 115 pages of the FA document regarding Suarez and Patrice Evra, I feel our strongest area of appeal comes down to the first exchange in the box between Evra and Suarez.

Bearing in mind at the time Evra was very much the aggressor, opening the exchanges with the comment "your sisters pussy", although Suarez did not hear that comment, Evra followed up and said something else to which Suarez replied "what did you say?"

Evra then replied "why did you kick me?", now the following events is where I believe Evra's version of events fall short, Evra's version of events has Suarez replying "because you are black" followed by Suarez's shrugging of his shoulders.

Now think about it if Suarez had indeed replied "because you are black" in the context of that conversation, a shrug of the shoulders has no place in the sequence of events following such a bold and certain statement.

Now look at it in the context of Suarez's version of events where he replied "it was a normal foul" followed with Suarez sgrugging his shoulders, it fits as the shrug of the shoulders intimates it was a normal foul, what are you on about ?

If Liverpool football club can discredit Patrice Evra's version of events in this instance, bearing in mind he was the aggressor at the time, then the rest of his statement becomes unreliable.

For Liverpool FC and Luis Suarez to win an appeal then they need to attack and dsicredit the evidence that Suarez was found guilty on and having read and digested 115 pages of probability and maybe, that one instance in the goal mouth shows a massive inconsitency in Evra's version of events.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now if we can attack Evra's evidence and discredit it as I've suggested there, we would win an appeal and the ban would be over turned in my opinion as Evra would be shown to be an unreliable witness.

 Did Evra actually admit to saying "your sisters pussy"?