Given how the club has handled this situation, most probably.BladeGunner wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote: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?
BladeGunner wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote: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?
Cam wrote:Robyn van Persie wrote:
Your sig is fantastic.
Typical Robyn
shit son, that horse has had that dildo up his arse so much he's laying down in agony, why post this fucked up shit you horrible muslim.SBSP wrote:
ResurrectionRooney wrote:BladeGunner wrote:
What does he offer though? Was he just there to blindly back Suarez's words despite not even being on the football pitch?
He was one of the people who spoke to the referee following the game. Several Manchester United players who didn't hear the initial incident also gave evidence, talking about how Evra was unusually angry after the game. It probably wouldn't be given all that much weight.
Alan wrote: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.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.
ResurrectionRooney wrote:Lux, you're a massive racist though, it's not surprising you'd side with Suarez.
Oh no doubt he was being racist if what was said in the report is true.Viva Ronaldo 7 wrote:Sorry if already mentioned.
According to the language experts who helped the FA, Suarez said negro atleast 7times during the 2 minute period.. they also said that it would be considered racist in Uruguay or any Latin country because of the context in which he used it..
Lu❣s Suarez wrote:Oh no doubt he was being racist if what was said in the report is true.Viva Ronaldo 7 wrote:Sorry if already mentioned.
According to the language experts who helped the FA, Suarez said negro atleast 7times during the 2 minute period.. they also said that it would be considered racist in Uruguay or any Latin country because of the context in which he used it..
I however am not going to believe it until there is evidence besides Evra's testimonial.
lvrpl4life wrote:This shit's gettin' old. Evra is black, I wouldn't give a flying fuck if someone called me a white bastard, or a white supremisist or whatever.
But one word against another is not sufficient enough grounds to ban Mr Suarez.
lvrpl4life wrote:This shit's gettin' old. Evra is black, I wouldn't give a flying fuck if someone called me a white bastard, or a white supremisist or whatever.
But one word against another is not sufficient enough grounds to ban Mr Suarez.
BladeGunner wrote:I don't really get the rationale of people saying that we can't take the verdict seriously because it's just Evra's word against Suarez's. They've basically arranged a legal trial here and they've had both parties present their cases. Or is it that you guys completely disagree with the judiciary system in its entirety and feel we are never entitled to convict someone with clear cut, conclusive evidence?
Lux wrote:BladeGunner wrote:I don't really get the rationale of people saying that we can't take the verdict seriously because it's just Evra's word against Suarez's. They've basically arranged a legal trial here and they've had both parties present their cases. Or is it that you guys completely disagree with the judiciary system in its entirety and feel we are never entitled to convict someone with clear cut, conclusive evidence?
Where is this clear cut, conclusive evidence?
ResurrectionRooney wrote:There doesn't need to be clear cut, conclusive evidence because IT'S NOT A FUCKING CRIMINAL TRIAL. It is decided on the balance of probabilities.
BladeGunner wrote:Apologies, I meant to say without.
Cam wrote:Only people defending Suarez anymore are Lux and Polska.
Lux wrote:ResurrectionRooney wrote:There doesn't need to be clear cut, conclusive evidence because IT'S NOT A FUCKING CRIMINAL TRIAL. It is decided on the balance of probabilities.
Lol, I already went over this point and I don't care.
People want evidence, it doesn't matter what kind of trial it is....they can find Suarez guilty....it makes no difference.
The FA can come to their decision based on no conclusive evidence, but I think I'll hold back my judgement thanks.
BladeGunner wrote:But it's a trial. They've had witnesses, lawyers and experts, and the conclusion they've reached is that he is guilty. This is not unreasonable by the FA. It is unreasonable to want conclusive evidence for something like this.
