Suarez: written reasons

Jord wrote:

InGlennyWeTrust wrote:

You're tearing me apart Lisa!

Oh hi Mark.

If the first part is true, then he deserves the ban.

The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to
each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the
foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because
you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch
you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr
Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr
Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie".
As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr
Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to
him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he
just called me a fucking black".

But where the fuck is the evidence for this? Evra's word and his word alone?

Evra should get some punishment for his threats and use of Sudaco still though.

Jordi wrote:

Jord wrote:You're tearing me apart Lisa!

Oh hi Mark.

Shut up. Everwan betried me. I'm fed UP with this wowerld.

In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to
each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the
foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because
you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch
you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr
Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr
Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie"

I don't need to be South American to know that what Suarez said was racist and was meant to piss off Evra. Who the hell says "Because you are black" or "I don't speak to blacks" and tries to act like it's okay in South America? Suarez fully deserves his punishment based on that.

I don't agree with the way in which the Commission have gone about their ruling. They have decided that it is a question of whether the words are offensive or not, and the intention of the words to be offensive or not are not necessary.

Part of the reasons for them deciding that was in this quote

Secondly, it would be highly surprising if the subjective test applied to some of the other
types of behaviour prohibited by Rule E3(1). For example, it can be said with some force
that whether a player has used violent conduct should not depend on whether he
intended his conduct to be violent. Likewise, whether a player is guilty of serious foul
play does not generally, and should not in the context of Rule E3(1), depend on his
intention.
60. Mr McCormick accepted the principle of this point, namely that the objective test applies
to some of the prohibited behaviour in Rule E3(1). But, he submitted, not to all. He
accepted the logic of his argument was that, in deciding whether Rule E3(1) has been 21
breached, the objective test applies to some of the prohibited conduct (intention is not
required), and the subjective test applies to the rest (intention is required). The objective
test applies, he submitted, to violent conduct and serious foul play. The subjective test
applies, he submitted, to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. He
thought "indecent" words or behaviour could be between the two.
61. In our judgment, if would be an odd conclusion to reach that the drafters of Rule E3(1)
intended a different test to apply to different parts of the same Rule. All the more so if
they left it up to those responsible for complying with, and those applying, the Rules to
decide which test applied to which parts without any guidance. These problems are
avoided if the objective test applies to Rule E3(1) as a whole

Whilst the Commission decide that, to avoid "problems", all three offences should be judged in the same way. So violent conduct, serious foul play and threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour should all be judged the in the same way i.e. it doesn't matter what the intention was.

I would disagree, and say that it should be at least partially reliant on the intent. To not do so opens a massive legal gateway in which any player who believes they have been abused or insulted can follow the same process as Evra. Evra refers to racism but, the rule itself does not specify racism as the only offence. I think we all know that a lot of abuse happens on the football pitch....so in theory hundreds of thousands of players could be fined and banned for using abusive or insulting words/behaviour. Intent comes into question here because, this means that someone can be charged without actually meaning to be abusive or insulting, yet alone people who do actually intend to be abusive or insulting. So......this means that almost anyone can be fined or banned, should they use words or behaviour which could be insulting or abusive in someone else's eyes. Albeit, it has to be insulting or abusive in the eyes of a person who it is directed at or hears/is affected by it....as well as an Independent Commission who will decide for themselves whether it is abusive or insulting themselves.....but in my opinion...this Commission is made of a very small amount of people. The decision as to whether it is offensive or not relies on the opinions of these people, who especially in cases which involve foreign players, will rule based on their cultural opinion.

Whilst all of the above is still not so bad with Suarez....as Negro can be considered abusive or insulting and it's not the most controversial word (in the context of whether it is abusive or insulting...as generally speaking it is)....there are other cases where it may be abused. If someone says "Cunt"...and I report that as abuse...I can argue that as I have been brought up, that is the worst and most vile insult, and I would be most offended by that, especially more so than racial abuse. The person who said it may say "I say it all the time and mean no real harm by it, it is said all the time on the football pitch". In the end, if we apply the same logic that the Commission have used in Suarez's case, then the word "Cunt" is obviously abusive and insulting, that is it's common and only use in the English language. So.......the person should be banned and fined similarly to what Suarez has been. Some people will argue "Negro is more offensive than cunt as it's racist".....well I will say no it's not, and I think almost any white person in England would be more offended by being called a "Cunt" than being called an "Icecream" or any other racial slur towards a white or British person. The FA's rule is that relation to ethnic origin, race or colour can increase the length of a ban, so without these it would be perhaps a smaller ban or fine, but it would still be an offence.

So, with that point in hand...the most important thing for me is consistency. If you are going to punish people for abusive or insulting behaviour, then don't just do it because it involves a black person believing that he has been racially abused. To be honest, I think it would be far to punish all abuse, so if you want to be consistent you shouldn't punish at all? Again..that seems too far, especially in a scenario where the abuse is more obvious than in Suarez's case....but it's something to think about. It doesn't especially rely on whether someone has been offended or not...which for some may be the most important thing...but like I said....there is a lot of abuse on the football pitch..if you just assume that people should get on with it because it's not racism against a minority, then that's what they will do.....and the inconsistency will continue.

Another point is that the FA's rule is stricter than the Public Order Act 1986. A section of this act reads:

"A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he intends his words or
behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening,
abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting or
(as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or is aware that it may be
disorderly."

You would think that, with the abuse that is on the football pitch that is mostly tolerated and left on the pitch......that the rules of the FA would be less strict than the actual law of the UK. As is required in this act, you need to intend your words or behaviour to be abusive, insulting or threatening. But....this is not included in the FA's rules, and so the Commission decided that this was not good enough evidence. For me, there is a fair amount of hypocrisy there. More abuse is allowed on a football pitch than in general public, but to be found guilty on the football pitch no intention is required, when it is in general public.

Another point, which is perhaps quite important.....is that Suarez's case is different to John Terry's in that one is a criminal case, the other is not. I will quote this extract to explain why this is important:

77. There are two different standards of proof which can apply in legal cases. One is the
criminal standard which applies in criminal cases. The jury must be satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt, or as it is sometimes put, so that it is sure, that the accused committed
the alleged crime.
78. The other standard is the civil standard on the balance of probability. This is enshrined in
Regulation 7.3 set out above, and applies to this case. It is a lower standard than the
criminal standard. It is for the FA to satisfy us on the balance of probability that Mr Suarez
breached the Rules. Alternative formulations for the civil standard are sometimes used,
such as more likely than not to be correct, or probably correct

So basically, in Suarez's case, "beyond reasonable doubt proof" is NOT required. All that is required is for the Commission to believe that Suarez probably breached the rules. This differs to Terry in that, he must be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" that he is guilty for any criminal charges to take place. This in effect means that it is easier for Suarez to be found guilty, though of course the repercussions are smaller for Suarez....but it is a big possibility that the FA/Evra/Manchester Utd thought that it would not be possible to prove Suarez guilty in a criminal case, so to avoid the controversy that would occur should Suarez be found not guilty in a criminal court, but guilty under an Independent Commission..it would be best to just go for the civil case. John Terry will probably face FA charges too, but if he is found not guilty in a criminal court then it would be controversial for him to be charged by the FA.....but it would also be controversial if he wasn't, taking into account that generally people think Terry is more guilty.

I have only read up to page 24 and it's quite long to read, but I'm going out now...so I might bring up a few more points and discuss my general feelings more tomorrow. I guess some further points may contradict what I have said or might change my mind...so understand that I have not read any further.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Suarez admitted calling Evra negro, and Evra said that, among other things, is what he heard. There's no need for any more factual evidence, the only real point of contention is the intent behind that phrase, which is why the Independent Commission used experts to ascertain what he meant by it.

I thought your stance before was "It doesn't matter what the intent is, he said it and we're in England where it's offensive"?

"In all the circumstances, we preferred the evidence of Mr Evra. His account was clear and
consistent in all material respects. There is no basis for saying that he lied or was mistaken
in what he heard.

The words which follow (below) were either Mr Evra's
exact words or close approximations to them.

Mr Evra said to Mr Suarez "Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste un golpe?", meaning "fucking hell, why did you kick me?". Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you're black". Mr Evra then said
"Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada", which means "Say it to me again, I'm going
to kick you". Mr Suarez responded "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to
blacks". Mr Evra then said "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada", meaning "Okay,
now I think I'm going to punch you". Mr Suarez responded "Dale, negro, negro, negro",
meaning "Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie." This meant that Mr Suarez used the word
"negro" five times in the goalmouth. This was the number that Sir Alex Ferguson reported
to the referee after the game, and which Sir Alex probably learned from Mr Evra. The "five
times" reported to the referee straight after the game corroborates Mr Evra's evidence that
the word was used five times in the goalmouth.


Absoulutely disgraceful from Suarez. How anyone can defend him now after conclusive analysis and evidence from the regulatory commission. This took months of thought and reasoning from some of the most professional and intelligent people in the UK. To defend Suarez after this would simply be moronic and I would firmly expect anyone that did so to be forever mocked if they think that their simple and basic approach to this matter is superior to people that do this for a living in a highly demanding and taxing job.

LiamB_14 wrote:Absoulutely disgraceful from Suarez. How anyone can defend him now after conclusive analysis and evidence from the regulatory commission. This took months of thought and reasoning from some of the most professional and intelligent people in the UK. To defend Suarez after this would simply be moronic and I would firmly expect anyone that did so to be forever mocked if they think that their simple and basic approach to this matter is superior to people that do this for a living in a highly demanding and taxing job.

Because some people apparently will defend a player no matter what as long as they are one of their best players.

Reading the account of the incidence I'm quite shocked at what Suarez is supposed to have said. There's not even any room for a missunderstanding in this case.

Laurencio wrote:Reading the account of the incidence I'm quite shocked at what Suarez is supposed to have said. There's not even any room for a missunderstanding in this case.

Im exactly the same if he is supposed to have said this, its fucking shocking and he deserves to be banned. And if it is true i would be gutted and he better sort himself out.

Ban both of them for life.. Evra is shit anyway.

From the document it's obvious that the comission took the incident seriously. The decision was not made soley based on Evra's testimony (which certain liverpool supporters and the club itself have claimed) but is the result of looking at the subtleties of the spanish language, the context it was being used, reactions to questions, the way the witnesses explained themselves and using the video footage to understand the general atmosphere of the event.

I struggle to see how something that is this thorough would be overruled.

I'm kinda hoping we don't appeal, i can't be bothered with this, it's dragged on for too long now

Cam wrote:I'm kinda hoping we don't appeal, i can't be bothered with this, it's dragged on for too long now

From what I can tell an appeal wouldn't matter. Besides, this McCormick lawyer of yours seems to have focused far too much on "Evra is part of a conspiracy to get Suarez banned". I mean he litteraly says that Evra knew from the time he told Ryan Giggs on the pitch that he was being called black, and went to the referee that they would end up in a hearing, and that this was his goal all along.

@Laurencio, I still haven't seen any evidence of what the report claimed.

Lu❣s Suarez wrote:@Laurencio, I still haven't seen any evidence of what the report claimed.

So you haven't read it then?

I couldn't be bothered to read the whole report, I only read a few pages. If any video or audio evidence to support the claims are present in the parts I have missed, please link me.

Lu❣s Suarez wrote:@Laurencio, I still haven't seen any evidence of what the report claimed.

What are you expecting?... A voice recording of Suarez saying it? Really it is just one testimony against another and Evra's is a lot more likely to happen. Suarez's defense just seems stupid... Such as "Don't touch me, South American." Does he really expect people to believe Evra was being racist to him because he is South American even though 2/4 of his witnesses are from South America.

Jorlung wrote:

Lu❣s Suarez wrote:@Laurencio, I still haven't seen any evidence of what the report claimed.

What are you expecting?... A voice recording of Suarez saying it? Really it is just one testimony against another and Evra's is a lot more likely to happen. Suarez's defense just seems stupid... Such as "Don't touch me, South American." Does he really expect people to believe Evra was being racist to him because he is South American even though 2/4 of his witnesses are from South America.

A testimonial by a biased party isn't proof.

Lus Suarez wrote:I couldn't be bothered to read the whole report, I only read a few pages. If any video or audio evidence to support the claims are present in the parts I have missed, please link me.

There is no smoking gun, this case is far more complex than that. However, If you read the report you'd see exactly why they concluded as they did. Considering it's far too extensive to fully explain I can't really do the comission or the report justice in a few short sentences.

Lus Suarez wrote:

Jorlung wrote:What
are you expecting?... A voice recording of Suarez saying it? Really it
is just one testimony against another and Evra's is a lot more likely to
happen. Suarez's defense just seems stupid... Such as "Don't touch me,
South American." Does he really expect people to believe Evra was being
racist to him because he is South American even though 2/4 of his
witnesses are from South America.

A testimonial by a biased party
isn't proof.

Read the report before you start slating the decision and assume their basis of conclusion.

I can see why they've concluded as they have, that's not the point though.

If they are going to do this without any solid evidence, then the ban should be significantly reduced, or the ban of Terry or any future cases with solid evidence, be considerably higher.

Lu❣s Suarez wrote:I can see why they've concluded as they have, that's not the point though.

If they are going to do this without any solid evidence, then the ban should be significantly reduced, or the ban of Terry or any future cases with solid evidence, be considerably higher.

Clearly you don't. Not only are you wrong about the "evidence" you are wrong about the severity of it. The charge was considerably reduced by the comission during the hearing. Which you would have known had you read the report.

For the sake of continuing this discussion, link me the parts of the report you are referring to.

Lu❣s Suarez wrote:For the sake of continuing this discussion, link me the parts of the report you are referring to.

There's at least about 50 pages covering it in detail. Considering the report is the summary of the case and the decision, it is quite impossible to refer to only a small "section" of the report.

The testimonial of Luis Suarez is enough for him to be guilty. It's not a case of one man's word against another, as Liverpool try to paint this, it is the words of Suarez being tantamount to a confession.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:The testimonial of Luis Suarez is enough for him to be guilty. It's not a case of one man's word against another, as Liverpool try to paint this, it is the words of Suarez being tantamount to a confession.

Your sig is fantastic.

Robyn van Persie wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:The testimonial of Luis Suarez is enough for him to be guilty. It's not a case of one man's word against another, as Liverpool try to paint this, it is the words of Suarez being tantamount to a confession.

Your sig is fantastic.

Typical Robyn

Why did they ask Damien Comolli for a statement?

BladeGunner wrote:Why did they ask Damien Comolli for a statement?

Because he was one of the myriad Liverpool employees who backed Suarez's account.

BladeGunner wrote:Why did they ask Damien Comolli for a statement?

Good question. Unless he was supposed to provide an example of how a Frenchman would interpret Spanish insults, I really have no clue.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

BladeGunner wrote:Why did they ask Damien Comolli for a statement?

Because he was one of the myriad Liverpool employees who backed Suarez's account.

What does he offer though? Was he just there to blindly back Suarez's words despite not even being on the football pitch?