McLewis wrote:Well....finally got through all 45 pages.

Lord Spencer did an excellent job with his post. Doc, jibers and THC as well. I share their sentiments completely on this matter so I don't really have much to add.

I am rather disappointed with what I've read here...especially from some normally mild-tempered posters. I know this incident hits home for some of you, on both sides of the issue, but we need to be rational here. Absolutely no reason for insults and mud-slinging. As seen with Devil-Is-Red....we WILL come down hard on such actions.

McLewis wrote:Well....finally got through all 45 pages.

Lord Spencer did an excellent job with his post. Doc and THC as well. I share their sentiments completely on this matter so I don't really have much to add.

I am rather disappointed with what I've read here...especially from some normally mild-tempered posters. I know this incident hits home for some of you, on both sides of the issue, but we need to be rational here. Absolutely no reason for insults and mud-slinging. As seen with Devil-Is-Red....we WILL come down hard on such actions.

Lord Spencer wrote:

McLewis wrote:Well....finally got through all 45 pages.

Lord Spencer did an excellent job with his post. Doc and THC as well. I share their sentiments completely on this matter so I don't really have much to add.

I am rather disappointed with what I've read here...especially from some normally mild-tempered posters. I know this incident hits home for some of you, on both sides of the issue, but we need to be rational here. Absolutely no reason for insults and mud-slinging. As seen with Devil-Is-Red....we WILL come down hard on such actions.

I feel really sorry for you man, your time would have been better used reading a book or playing video games.

I feel for you though.

Devil-Is-Red wrote:Stan Collymore Exposes Racist Tweets

Disgraceful, scumbag fans.

McLewis wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:Stan Collymore Exposes Racist Tweets

Disgraceful, scumbag fans.

Shocking stuff, but you can't paint the entire Liverpool fanbase based on the tweets of a few morons.

Every club has a section of "fans" like the ones in that link.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Nice catch red, but I don't think anyone doubts that it's not racist to say that in Argentina & Uruguay.

RedOranje wrote:Before a match just after Fernando Caceres was shot. The flag's meaning is,
"Be strong, friend."

http://www.que.es/deportes/futbol/fotos/6035/20091114/49199-espana-argentina.html

FA's case:
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 *bleep* black".

LFC case:
Mr Suarez denied the Charge. His case, in short, was as follows. He agreed with Mr Evra that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. When Mr Evra asked why he had kicked him, Mr Suarez replied that it was a normal foul and shrugged his shoulders. Mr Evra then said that he was going to kick Mr Suarez, to which Mr Suarez told him to shut up. As Mr Kuyt was approaching, Mr Suarez touched Mr Evra's left arm in a pinching style movement. According to Mr Suarez, at no point in the goalmouth did he use the word "negro". When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra spoke to Mr Suarez and said (in English) "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez replied "Por que, negro?". He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar from his upbringing in Uruguay. In this sense, Mr Suarez claimed, it is used as a noun and as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned (or even just black- haired). Thus, it meant "Why, black?" Mr Suarez maintained that when he said "Por que, negro?" to Mr Evra, it was intended in a conciliatory and friendly way. Mr Suarez said this was the only time that he used the word “negro” in his exchanges with Mr Evra during the match.

1. "Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black" (PG. 38) which subsequently was changed to "Por que, negro?" by Suarez later on.

2. They also cited Evra as a more consistent and 'impressive' witness, as his story has remained constant and generally flow with the video footage, plus he admitted the fact that started the argument by an offensive abuse (he used "Concha de tu hermana"), even though Suarez did not hear it and it went against his case. So, he was deemed more honest in that sense I guess. Suarez did himself no favour, as this line shows "Having said in his witness statement that he was trying to defuse the situation when he touched Mr Evra's left arm in a "pinching type movement", Mr Suarez eventually answered, after persistent questioning, that he was not trying to calm down the situation by doing so" ... He lied on stand about the nature of the pinch (which Evra claimed referred to his skin colour, while Suarez as above).

3. "The suggestion that he behaved towards Mr Evra at this time in a conciliatory and friendly way, or intended to do so in using the word "negro", is, in our judgment, simply not credible. His evidence is again inconsistent with the video footage", I guess the problem here was that the word was uttered after a particularly aggressive situation, thus being quite hard to accept that he used to word as a friendly form especially when they do not have a friendship to begin with.

4. The referee's report submitted on that day also stated that Mr Comolli (who speaks fluent Spanish)... said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as "you are black", which went against Suarez's insistence that he did not used "tu es" (because you are in Spanish, I think).

5. Subsequently, Kuyt's statement also supported Comolli's when he mentioend that * Mr Suarez speaks Dutch very well and so they always speak to each other in Dutch and that Mr Suarez said to him that he had touched Mr Evra on the head and he (Mr Evra) said something along the lines of "get away from me South American", to which Mr Suarez replied "because you're black can't...why can't I touch you then"*

6. He also changed his story to include the fact that Evra started it by saying "Don't touch me, sudamericano" yet this was not present in the earlier reports submitted by the referee, only subsequently after Suarez have viewed the game highlights and have to be interviewed by the FA. This looked like he is changing his story to suit his actions and it does not dwell well on him.

7. We accepted Mr Evra's account of these exchanges. The principal reasons for doing so were the following. First, Mr Evra was a credible witness whose evidence was not seriously undermined in any material respect, as explained above. Secondly, we found Mr Suarez, in contrast, to be an unreliable witness on critical parts of his evidence. His evidence was inconsistent with contemporaneous evidence in the form of video footage, especially with regard to his claims of pinching as an attempt to defuse the situation, and using the word "negro" in a conciliatory and friendly way. He changed his account over time in a number of respects. This all combined to cast grave doubt on the reliability of the remainder of his evidence on the main factual disputes.

tl;dr: Suarez was found to be a less reliable witness compared to Evra due to his recollection of events, inconsistency with his account of events when compared with those submitted by Evra, the ref, Comolli, Dalglish and Kuyt, as well as being suspected of inventing a pseudo event that was only reported after he viewed the video and saw the gaps in his story

Evidence used - Statements by Evra, Suarez, Ferguson, Dalglish, Comolli, Kuyt, Marriner, Giggs, Dowd, Valencia, Hernandez, Nani, Anderson, Riley and Stephane Guy (Canal +, the French TV station). Video footage of the incidents. Spanish language experts.

-----(1) In response to Mr Evra's question "Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in golpe" ("*bleep* hell, why did you kick me"), Mr Suarez said "Porque tu eres negro" ("Because you are black").
(2) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada" ("say it to me again, I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "No hablo con los negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").
(3) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada" ("okay, now I think I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "Dale, negro, negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).
(4) When the referee blew his whistle to stop the corner being taken, Mr Suarez used the word "negro" to Mr Evra.
(5) After the referee had spoken to the players for a second time, and Mr Evra had said that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him, Mr Suarez said "Por que, negro?"----

Witness credibility - Evra was said to be more credible than Suarez. His account was consistent. Suarez's account was said to be inconsistent, and did not match what Dalglish, Comolli and Kuyt said in their statements.

379. We accepted Mr Evra's account of these exchanges. The principal reasons for doing so were the following. First, Mr Evra was a credible witness whose evidence was not seriously undermined in any material respect, as explained above. Secondly, we found Mr Suarez, in contrast, to be an unreliable witness on critical parts of his evidence. His evidence was inconsistent with contemporaneous evidence in the form of video footage, especially with regard to his claims of pinching as an attempt to defuse the situation, and using the word "negro" in a conciliatory and friendly way. He changed his account over time in a number of respects. This all combined to cast grave doubt on the reliability of the remainder of his evidence on the main factual disputes.

Use of ''negro" - The word used by Suarez was "negro" and not "negrito" as was commonly believed. The report says they believe that the word was used 7 times in total, including 5 times in the goalmouth scuffle. The report's "Finding of facts" is in the reply to this comment.

Penalty - A dismissal for abusive language would incur a two-match suspension. A reference to color doubles that sanction. This would have made it a 4-match ban. The FA wanted to make this a deterrent to make their stand against racism clear. The use of the offending word more than once also warranted a stronger punishment.

28. The FA wished to cross-examine Mr Suarez, Mr Kuyt, Mr Comolli and Mr Dalglish who were witnesses for Mr Suarez. This meant that the FA accepted in full the evidence of Mr Haughan, Mr Mick McDonough, Mr Scott Ledger, both assistant referees, Mr David Horlick, the match assessor, Mr John Bramhall of the PFA and Mr David De Gea, the Manchester United goalkeeper.

29. Mr McCormick wished to cross-examine Mr Evra, Mr Marriner and Mr Giggs. This meant that Mr Suarez accepted in full the evidence of Mr Dowd, Valencia, Hernandez, Nani, Anderson, Sir Alex Ferguson, Mr Mike Riley and Mr Stephane Guy of Canal +, the French TV station. (Emphasis mine) There was one caveat to this which was that Mr Greaney invited the Commission to attach no weight to paragraph 8 of Hernandez's statement, which largely contained a statement of his opinion on the use of the Spanish language (on the basis that a witness may generally only give evidence of facts, not opinion unless he is called as an expert, here in the Spanish language, which Hernandez was not). In addition, even though

(1) In response to Mr Evra's question "Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in golpe" ("****ing hell, why did you kick me"), Mr Suarez said "Porque tu eres negro" ("Because you are black").

(2) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada" ("say it to me again, I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "No hablo con los negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").

(3) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada" ("okay, now I think I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "Dale, negro, negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).

(4) When the referee blew his whistle to stop the corner being taken, Mr Suarez used the word "negro" to Mr Evra.

(5) After the referee had spoken to the players for a second time, and Mr Evra had said that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him, Mr Suarez said "Por que, negro?

EarlyPrototype wrote:At first I thought they shouldn't have banned Suarez, but after reading that I can see why they banned him. Even if Suarez was not racist he f*cked it up for himself.

GyansDancingBoots wrote: Liverpool fans have gone quiet

or are they still not back from their klan meetings yet

halamadrid2 wrote:Meanwhile in spain.......