Suarez: written reasons

Laurencio I have read a fair amount of the report and I didn't get that impression at all.

Firstly, Evra doesn't have to be some mastermind. As you have stated, he falsely thought that Suarez was being racist as he misinterpreted what Suarez said to him. Due to this.....he is extremely angry and every one of his witnesses can see this. No lying is needed....he genuinely believes that he has been racially abused and that Suarez was racist. All the Utd player's have done is state how Evra felt. He does not have to lie.....but this does not necessarily make Suarez guilty.

Both Evra and Suarez have changed their testimony....and from your post specifically I cannot see any contradictions between Suarez, Dalglish and Comolli. "Negro" and "You are black" have the potential to be mixed up...and the exact translation could be revised without it being too controversial. Neither of Dalglish or Comolli are Spanish.....yet alone Uruguayan, and I haven't checked /I'm not sure it's mentioned...but the circumstances under which Marriner was informed are uncertain to me. Was it done on the day? Why would they ask Dalglish or Comolli anyway....and not Suarez?...or a translator who was with Suarez who could properly and professionally translate?

Another explanation is that due the nature of the investigation....Liverpool and it's legal team have done certain things. I am sure that Evra had a lot of legal help as well......but..despite the Commission saying that the burden of proof was more on Evra/The FA than Suarez/Liverpool.....maybe they felt that they had to stretch the truth as you said. Again....this doesn't particularly mean that Suarez is guilty.

You can come up with countless explanations....but you have to look at it from a neutral perspective. In this case, the things which have lead to Suarez being found guilty do not prove that Suarez is guilty...and could be explained in other ways. You could see that as "finding any possible way to make Suarez innocent".....or you could see it as "having an open mind and not taking opinions into consideration" i.e. Suarez being found guilty doesn't even mean that he probably is.

Lux wrote:Laurencio I have read a fair amount of the report and I didn't get that impression at all.

Firstly, Evra doesn't have to be some mastermind. As you have stated, he falsely thought that Suarez was being racist as he misinterpreted what Suarez said to him. Due to this.....he is extremely angry and every one of his witnesses can see this. No lying is needed....he genuinely believes that he has been racially abused and that Suarez was racist. All the Utd player's have done is state how Evra felt. He does not have to lie.....but this does not necessarily make Suarez guilty.

Both Evra and Suarez have changed their testimony....and from your post specifically I cannot see any contradictions between Suarez, Dalglish and Comolli. "Negro" and "You are black" have the potential to be mixed up...and the exact translation could be revised without it being too controversial. Neither of Dalglish or Comolli are Spanish.....yet alone Uruguayan, and I haven't checked /I'm not sure it's mentioned...but the circumstances under which Marriner was informed are uncertain to me. Was it done on the day? Why would they ask Dalglish or Comolli anyway....and not Suarez?...or a translator who was with Suarez who could properly and professionally translate?

Another explanation is that due the nature of the investigation....Liverpool and it's legal team have done certain things. I am sure that Evra had a lot of legal help as well......but..despite the Commission saying that the burden of proof was more on Evra/The FA than Suarez/Liverpool.....maybe they felt that they had to stretch the truth as you said. Again....this doesn't particularly mean that Suarez is guilty.

You can come up with countless explanations....but you have to look at it from a neutral perspective. In this case, the things which have lead to Suarez being found guilty do not prove that Suarez is guilty...and could be explained in other ways. You could see that as "finding any possible way to make Suarez innocent".....or you could see it as "having an open mind and not taking opinions into consideration" i.e. Suarez being found guilty doesn't even mean that he probably is.

Liverpools legal team said that Evra knew it would end up in a hearing and that he was pushing for it from day one.

Comolli is fluent in spanish, he would not mistake "Tu es Negro" with "Por Que Negro". The story served up by both Dalglish and Commoli to Mariner, and later to the FA comission do not match Suarez' story. Granted they heard it fron Suarez, but why on earth would they make the same mistake twice?

Evra was never directly involved other as a witness. I can not stress this enough. This was never Evra vs Suarez, it has always been the FA vs Suarez, Evra's position is more or less the same as Mariner, Comolli, Dalglish and Ryan Giggs. While Suarez had lawyers and club directors etc present with him, Evra only had a translator and a friend. Anyone who makes it out to be Evra vs Suarez is making this tribal...

The fact that the story changes as it does, that McComrmick's tactic was to attack a witness and that as the hearing progressed inconsistencies popped up for McCormick gives a logical conclusion that they are hiding something. If Suarez was innocent in this case then he had fairly incompetent lawyers who chose these tactics. In a case such as this proof can be established by first hand experience if deemed reliable enough. Which it was.

Who benefits from lying?Evra does not. He has no previous beef with Suarez, in fact Suarez is brand new in the country. If he was going to lie about someone he would lie about someone he doesn't like really. He certainly wouldn't excuse Suarez inthe way he did to the hearing. Either way this hearing went he would be hated by parts of the population. He gains nothing by lying. While Suarez and Liverpool can avoid a lengthy ban and a fine.

You will never, or at least rarely, have proof that can establish without a shaddow of a doubt guilt or innocence in a case like this. There is no audio or video evidence to be presented, all that can be used is reliability, consistency, and accuracy of the statements. On all three accounts Suarez simply doesn't hold up.

What they had to establish:

Was Evra, from his standpoint racially abused? Yes
What were the words used? "Tu es negro", confirmed by three different sources, and written black on white in Mariners report.
Are these word racially abusive? Yes.
Does Suarez admitt to having used these words? Partially.
Is there any reason to doubt the credibility of the witnesses Evra, Mariner and Comolli? No.


Conclusion, the words said were racially abusive. Only a handful can be directly proven, but it is enough to come to a conclusion.

Lux wrote:Laurencio I have read a fair amount of the report and I didn't get that impression at all.

Firstly, Evra doesn't have to be some mastermind. As you have stated, he falsely thought that Suarez was being racist as he misinterpreted what Suarez said to him. Due to this.....he is extremely angry and every one of his witnesses can see this. No lying is needed....he genuinely believes that he has been racially abused and that Suarez was racist. All the Utd player's have done is state how Evra felt. He does not have to lie.....but this does not necessarily make Suarez guilty.

Both Evra and Suarez have changed their testimony....and from your post specifically I cannot see any contradictions between Suarez, Dalglish and Comolli. "Negro" and "You are black" have the potential to be mixed up...and the exact translation could be revised without it being too controversial. Neither of Dalglish or Comolli are Spanish.....yet alone Uruguayan, and I haven't checked /I'm not sure it's mentioned...but the circumstances under which Marriner was informed are uncertain to me. Was it done on the day? Why would they ask Dalglish or Comolli anyway....and not Suarez?...or a translator who was with Suarez who could properly and professionally translate?

Another explanation is that due the nature of the investigation....Liverpool and it's legal team have done certain things. I am sure that Evra had a lot of legal help as well......but..despite the Commission saying that the burden of proof was more on Evra/The FA than Suarez/Liverpool.....maybe they felt that they had to stretch the truth as you said. Again....this doesn't particularly mean that Suarez is guilty.

You can come up with countless explanations....but you have to look at it from a neutral perspective. In this case, the things which have lead to Suarez being found guilty do not prove that Suarez is guilty...and could be explained in other ways. You could see that as "finding any possible way to make Suarez innocent".....or you could see it as "having an open mind and not taking opinions into consideration" i.e. Suarez being found guilty doesn't even mean that he probably is.

So you're saying the only way someone is ever going to be convicted of racism is if there is more or less an audio recording of them doing it?... That would more or less mean that no one will ever be convicted then seeing how no player, not even Suarez, is going to be stupid enough to shout a racial slur within earshot of any camera or microphone.

Jorlung wrote:So you're saying the only way someone is ever going to be convicted of racism is if there is more or less an audio recording of them doing it?... That would more or less mean that no one will ever be convicted then seeing how no player, not even Suarez, is going to be stupid enough to shout a racial slur within earshot of any camera or microphone.

Not necessarily. But there is no conclusive visual evidence either, and no one else on the pitch heard what was said.

In the case of John Terry, there is evidence as he can be seen on camera saying it clearly, and it can be interpreted.

But if it's one persons word against another then I think there is too much room for mistakes and controversy.

Heard somewhere that the police might bring a criminal charge against Suarez now.....don't see how this case would stand in court.

kyro7 wrote:

The top two comments:

"Suarez said he aint racist because his auntie's friends cousin sister has a black cat! Haha!

This video brilliant, fair play to whoever created it.

Any Liverpool fan with a brain would see the funny side of it."

""Any Liverpool fan with a brain would see the funny side of it." ---- therein lies the problem. "