Luis Suarez Banned for 8 Premier League Games

I very much doubt Suarez said "Porque tu eres negro", Rioplatense Spanish uses voseo, which means we subsitute the word Tu with Vos and change the conjugation of the second person. Suarez would have said "Porque sos negro", instead.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:I very much doubt Suarez said "Porque tu eres negro", Rioplatense Spanish uses voseo, which means we subsitute the word Tu with Vos and change the conjugation of the second person. Suarez would have said "Porque sos negro", instead.

would it not be "vos" as other sources I've read have said?

It could be either "porque sos negro" or "porque vos sos negro", the vos can sometimes be implicit (tacit), and that's the way it's usually used.

english_jewel wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:Here is the 115 page FA's evidence document summarised:

Key points summarised

- Kenny Dalglish trying to sway Marriner and Dowd from the start by saying “hasn’t he done this before?”. Patrice Evra has never made claims of racism against someone, unfounded or otherwise.

- To add further weight to Dalglish’s point, Dirk Kuyt falsely claimed that Evra was telling people he had only been booked by the referee because he was black. The commission found this to be entirely untrue.

- Dalglish claimed that Suarez had been “taunted” by Evra, suggesting that Suarez’s response of “you are black” was following Evra saying “you are South American.” If this was true, Suarez wasn’t using the word “negro” in a friendly way at all, rather as an insult. Regardless, Suarez confirmed that being called “South American” was not an insult.

- Comoli stressed he knew how serious the allegations were so being fluent in Spanish wanted to make sure they had their story straight on what Suarez had said. After speaking to Suarez, he then went to tell Marriner and Dowd Suarez’s version. There was no mention of Suarez calling Evra “negro” in response to Evra telling him not to touch him though, which is what his defence later hinged on. They initially claimed Suarez said “you are black” then in the next set of interviews, Suarez claimed he said “why not, black?” after Evra told him not to touch him.

- Suarez claimed that he did not call Evra a negro when they were in the goal mouth, rather after the referee had called them over to speak to them and he then touched Evra. However, his version of events contradicts the testimony of Evra and referee. Evra says that as soon as the referee called them over, Evra reported the racial abuse he had just received, and the referee confirmed this.

- Suarez initially claimed that he pinched Evra on the arm to “defuse the situation”. When he was cross examined, he admitted this was not true.

- The first time Suarez claimed that his use of the word “negro” was “conciliatory” was after the reports from the language experts were made available, where they claimed if the word “negro” was used in a “conciliatory” way, it wouldn’t be regarded as racist in Uruguay.

- Suarez’s defence claim that Evra made up Suarez saying he kicked him because he was black and that he didn’t talk to blacks. They claim that because Suarez had kicked Evra in the knee, Evra wanted revenge, so fabricated the whole story. This means they are suggesting that Evra feigned outrage after his exchange with Suarez and lied to the referee, that he lied to Giggs on the pitch when he asked him what was the matter, and that he lied to Valencia, Chichartio, Nani, Anderson and Sir Alex Ferguson in the dressing room immediately after the game. The commission rejected the defence’s suggestion that the accusations were just an elaborate plot for Evra to get revenge on Suarez for being kicked.

- Comolli claimed that after the game Evra went to Canal+ and demanded that he was allowed to report the racial abuse he had just received. The journalist who interviewed Evra confirmed this opposite of this was true, and that Evra knew the journalist well and he could tell that he was upset. Evra told the journalist off the record what had happened, but the journalist confirmed he asked the question when Evra was being filmed regardless.

How Liverpool fans or anyone else can defend this racist scumbag is beyond me.

Didn't Evra say that he didn't think Suarez was racist?

He simply won't accept Evra's word if it doesn't go against Suarez. One incident does not make someone a full-on "racist scumbag."

I dont speak Spanish apart from agua! agua, so please excuse my ignorance on the matter. Here is a post from another form that is worth a read. I see he indeed say "sos"

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 ******". He now says that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".


I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don't know what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...

What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.

***

That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.

138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him "Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) 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".

“Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.

And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:

141. Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por que negro?". Mr Suarez told Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said."

What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words…

The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:

284 (...) Mr Comolli 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".

It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.

In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.
Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.

***

Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the "negro" word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.

Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:
1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
3) They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means they don't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.

Thanks for posting that ICS. I read it on Twitter a couple hours ago but wasn't home to post it.

The linguistic experts have clearly mentioned the inconsistencies in the language Evra claimed Suarez used on the pitch, which is what aggravates me about this report. There is more than one instance where one can clearly see the FA come to some ridiculous conclusions.

One of the reasons why context is so important in this case is that the language used was Spanish. Furthermore, Evra started the altercation in Spanish.

poolsupporter wrote:Thanks for posting that ICS. I read it on Twitter a couple hours ago but wasn't home to post it.

The linguistic experts have clearly mentioned the inconsistencies in the language Evra claimed Suarez used on the pitch, which is what aggravates me about this report. There is more than one instance where one can clearly see the FA come to some ridiculous conclusions.

One of the reasons why context is so important in this case is that the language used was Spanish. Furthermore, Evra started the altercation in Spanish.

"inconsistencies" don't even start if you get where I'm coming from.

An add on piece written by the same person

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Hispanic_Studies/people/facultypage.php?id=1187272621

181. The experts noted that the use of the verb form "porque tu eres negro" is not the most usual form for Montevidean Spanish, since the form of the verb "ser" most commonly used would be the "vos" form, that is "porque (vos) sos negro". Nevertheless, a small percentage of people from Montevideo do use the "tu" form (in contrast to Buenos Aires, where it is rarely used) or even a mixture of both.

I read and noticed that the panel noticed this. The problem is that they do not make anything out of it. The use of "tu" is very uncommon in Montevideo --basically a few individuals in the highest social layers, or people from the south-east of the country (and Suarez was born in the north-west part of it , and "porque tu eres negro" sounds utterly "literary". Evra makes Suarez to sound like an XIX century writer from Cuba or Mexico. No football player would talk like that, believe me. On the other hand, that is exactly the way Evra or anybody familiar with Spanish from Spain (not from Uruguay or Argentina) would have made the sentence up if he had to invent it.

It is just totally implausible that Suarez used that language. It seems to me that their experts called FA's attention to this key issue, and they just did not weighted it correctly and dismissed it as unimportant. But is is important.


87. Mr Evra and Mr Suarez are agreed that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. Mr Evra said that he is not exactly fluent in Spanish but that he can easily converse in Spanish. For Mr Suarez, Spanish is his native language as a Uruguayan. Mr Evra told us that he began the conversation by saying "Concha de tu hermana". Mr Evra's evidence was that this is a phrase used in Spanish like when you say "******* hell" in English, but the literal translation is "your sister's pussy". Mr Suarez did not hear Mr Evra say this. One of the video clips that we have seen, taken from a close up angle behind the goal, does appear to support Mr Evra's evidence that he started the conversation with this comment.

There is no room for interpretation. "La concha de tu hermana" is a very gruesome insult. It means literally "Your sister's ****", and it is what you would say just before, say, getting in a fist fight with something--because there is no room for more words after such a violent verbal attack.

You LFC fans just won't give up!

Keep on defending that ****. It's making you lot look desperate. Every other fan in England is saying Suarez is guilty and made racist references to Evra, yet you lot are still blinf to the facts.

So carry on with your "injustice" "everyone is against us " bs you'r renowned for.

joke of a club!

I wonder how much Spanish does Evra actually know. He is from senegal and as far as I know has only lived in French and english speaking countries. If he does know spanish, it probably was taught to him academically and nobody teaches rioplatense spanish academically unless you are studying in either Argentina or Uruguay. So, if, non rioplatense native spanish speakers have sometimes troubles understanding the conjugations of the verbs from uruguayans and Argentinians, how would he be able to understand them?

And where is the reference to "tues negro"? I refuse to believe someone was careless enough to actually miss write like that in an official report.

Devil-Is-Red wrote:You LFC fans just won't give up!

Keep on defending that ****. It's making you lot look desperate. Every other fan in England is saying Suarez is guilty and made racist references to Evra, yet you lot are still blinf to the facts.

So carry on with your "injustice" "everyone is against us " bs you'r renowned for.

joke of a club!

If you dont have anything constructive to say then *bleep* off. Im sure you yourself realise that this is a joke of a case and Suarez has been stitched up.

Devil-Is-Red wrote:You LFC fans just won't give up!

Keep on defending that ****. It's making you lot look desperate. Every other fan in England is saying Suarez is guilty and made racist references to Evra, yet you lot are still blinf to the facts.

So carry on with your "injustice" "everyone is against us " bs you'r renowned for.

joke of a club!

Attention seeking whore.

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:You LFC fans just won't give up!

Keep on defending that ****. It's making you lot look desperate. Every other fan in England is saying Suarez is guilty and made racist references to Evra, yet you lot are still blinf to the facts.

So carry on with your "injustice" "everyone is against us " bs you'r renowned for.

joke of a club!

If you dont have anything constructive to say then *bleep* off. Im sure you yourself realise that this is a joke of a case and Suarez has been stitched up.

Wah wah wah..it's the FA's fault. Everyone's against us! blah blah blah... from the manager, to the players...to the fans....you're all the same.

Devil-Is-Red wrote:You LFC fans just won't give up!

Keep on defending that ****. It's making you lot look desperate. Every other fan in England is saying Suarez is guilty and made racist references to Evra, yet you lot are still blinf to the facts.

So carry on with your "injustice" "everyone is against us " bs you'r renowned for.I0

joke of a club!

I'm not a liverpool fan and don't even like Suarez, but honestly if what they wrote is true, it's hard to believe from the perspective of someone that speaks spanish and particularly that variant of spanish. Rioplantense people simply do not speak like that (tu eres) .

I honestly don't think Evra understood anything Suarez was telling him (which may perfectly have been offensive if you consider Suarez personality) , but the word negro. Which is only offensive depending of the context and it's mostly used in a non offensive manner.

Evra may think of himself as fluent in spanish but the reports are simply wrong or have been for some reason changed to standard spanish (and apparently incorrect standard spanish) and that signals to a lack of understanding.

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:You LFC fans just won't give up!

Keep on defending that ****. It's making you lot look desperate. Every other fan in England is saying Suarez is guilty and made racist references to Evra, yet you lot are still blinf to the facts.

So carry on with your "injustice" "everyone is against us " bs you'r renowned for.

joke of a club!

If you dont have anything constructive to say then *bleep* off. Im sure you yourself realise that this is a joke of a case and Suarez has been stitched up.

Wah wah wah..it's the FA's fault. Everyone's against us! blah blah blah... from the manager, to the players...to the fans....you're all the same.

Why ask for a truce with me if you are going to break it? Wait I know the answer...its because you are a stupid manc ******.

Answer me this, have you even familiarised yourself with the case or are you just blatantly standing by your man?

With this report now, it is the FA that is looking desperate.

I dont like it when authorities abuse their power, and here it seems like that.

ICS +4 for you there.

Great Post........I never even thought of it that way......Latin American spanish is s weird.

I was wondering what the hell he meant when he said "Porque Negro" but I understand it now.

I don't think in quite possibly 50 posts in this thread that Devil is Red has said one thing of substance.Furthermore basically every post is a repitition of the last.

Kudos for effort.

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:You LFC fans just won't give up!

Keep on defending that ****. It's making you lot look desperate. Every other fan in England is saying Suarez is guilty and made racist references to Evra, yet you lot are still blinf to the facts.

So carry on with your "injustice" "everyone is against us " bs you'r renowned for.

joke of a club!

If you dont have anything constructive to say then *bleep* off. Im sure you yourself realise that this is a joke of a case and Suarez has been stitched up.

Wah wah wah..it's the FA's fault. Everyone's against us! blah blah blah... from the manager, to the players...to the fans....you're all the same.

Why ask for a truce with me if you are going to break it? Wait I know the answer...its because you are a stupid manc ******.

Answer me this, have you even familiarised yourself with the case or are you just blatantly standing by your man?

Did I personally insult you like you are insulting me right now and making it personal?

I attacked the club you support or one of the clubs you support Evidence has been disected and provided, yet you LFC fans still pull this conspiracy "it's a stitch up" bs.

ragbirjosh wrote:ICS +4 for you there.

Great Post........I never even thought of it that way......Latin American spanish is s weird.

I was wondering what the hell he meant when he said "Porque Negro" but I understand it now.

I don't think in quite possibly 50 posts in this thread that Devil is Red has said one thing of substance.Furthermore basically every post is a repitition of the last.

Kudos for effort.

Actually most latin americans speak the same spanish that spaniards use (except for "vosotros" and it's conjugations that is replaced by "ustedes"). As far as I know only people in Argentina and uruguay use "vos" instead of "tu", though I'm not sure why that is.

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:You LFC fans just won't give up!

Keep on defending that ****. It's making you lot look desperate. Every other fan in England is saying Suarez is guilty and made racist references to Evra, yet you lot are still blinf to the facts.

So carry on with your "injustice" "everyone is against us " bs you'r renowned for.

joke of a club!

If you dont have anything constructive to say then *bleep* off. Im sure you yourself realise that this is a joke of a case and Suarez has been stitched up.

Wah wah wah..it's the FA's fault. Everyone's against us! blah blah blah... from the manager, to the players...to the fans....you're all the same.

Why ask for a truce with me if you are going to break it? Wait I know the answer...its because you are a stupid manc ******.

Answer me this, have you even familiarised yourself with the case or are you just blatantly standing by your man?

Did I personally insult you like you are insulting me right now and making it personal?

I attacked the club you support or one of the clubs you support Evidence has been disected and provided, yet you LFC fans still pull this conspiracy "it's a stitch up" bs.

Well I support Liverpool and I am defending Suarez.

You talk about LFC fans as a group and guess what I am part of that group, so yes it is an insult.

Now you still didn't answer my question and I think its fairly obvious to all why you avoided it.

I have gone over it a million times, read all the key points fgs. I posted the key summaries I gathered from another site a couple of pages back, it's all there in black and white and it highlights all the inconsistencies between Suarez's statements and dalglish's + commoli and Kuyt's version of events.

It's all there, a summary from the 115 word document the FA released. I'll post it again.

- Kenny Dalglish trying to sway Marriner and Dowd from the start by saying “hasn’t he done this before?”. Patrice Evra has never made claims of racism against someone, unfounded or otherwise.

- To add further weight to Dalglish’s point, Dirk Kuyt falsely claimed that Evra was telling people he had only been booked by the referee because he was black. The commission found this to be entirely untrue.

- Dalglish claimed that Suarez had been “taunted” by Evra, suggesting that Suarez’s response of “you are black” was following Evra saying “you are South American.” If this was true, Suarez wasn’t using the word “negro” in a friendly way at all, rather as an insult. Regardless, Suarez confirmed that being called “South American” was not an insult.

- Comoli stressed he knew how serious the allegations were so being fluent in Spanish wanted to make sure they had their story straight on what Suarez had said. After speaking to Suarez, he then went to tell Marriner and Dowd Suarez’s version. There was no mention of Suarez calling Evra “negro” in response to Evra telling him not to touch him though, which is what his defence later hinged on. They initially claimed Suarez said “you are black” then in the next set of interviews, Suarez claimed he said “why not, black?” after Evra told him not to touch him.

- Suarez claimed that he did not call Evra a negro when they were in the goal mouth, rather after the referee had called them over to speak to them and he then touched Evra. However, his version of events contradicts the testimony of Evra and referee. Evra says that as soon as the referee called them over, Evra reported the racial abuse he had just received, and the referee confirmed this.

- Suarez initially claimed that he pinched Evra on the arm to “defuse the situation”. When he was cross examined, he admitted this was not true.

- The first time Suarez claimed that his use of the word “negro” was “conciliatory” was after the reports from the language experts were made available, where they claimed if the word “negro” was used in a “conciliatory” way, it wouldn’t be regarded as racist in Uruguay.

- Suarez’s defence claim that Evra made up Suarez saying he kicked him because he was black and that he didn’t talk to blacks. They claim that because Suarez had kicked Evra in the knee, Evra wanted revenge, so fabricated the whole story. This means they are suggesting that Evra feigned outrage after his exchange with Suarez and lied to the referee, that he lied to Giggs on the pitch when he asked him what was the matter, and that he lied to Valencia, Chichartio, Nani, Anderson and Sir Alex Ferguson in the dressing room immediately after the game. The commission rejected the defence’s suggestion that the accusations were just an elaborate plot for Evra to get revenge on Suarez for being kicked.

- Comolli claimed that after the game Evra went to Canal+ and demanded that he was allowed to report the racial abuse he had just received. The journalist who interviewed Evra confirmed this opposite of this was true, and that Evra knew the journalist well and he could tell that he was upset. Evra told the journalist off the record what had happened, but the journalist confirmed he asked the question when Evra was being filmed regardless.

Devil-Is-Red wrote:[Did I personally insult you like you are insulting me right now and making it personal?

I attacked the club you support or one of the clubs you support Evidence has been disected and provided, yet you LFC fans still pull this conspiracy "it's a stitch up" bs.

Really are a Manc.

Your obsession with LFC is astonishing. And your conspiracy bullshit is nothing short of laughable based on knobs on redcafe...

Also... what "evidence" is there? It's Evra's word against Suarez' word and one of them cannot speak English.

Devil-Is-Red wrote:I have gone over it a million times, read all the key points fgs. I posted the key summaries I gathered from another site a couple of pages back, it's all there in black and white and it highlights all the inconsistencies between Suarez's statements and dalglish's + commoli and Kuyt's version of events.

It's all there, a summary from the 115 word document the FA released. I'll post it again.

- Kenny Dalglish trying to sway Marriner and Dowd from the start by saying “hasn’t he done this before?”. Patrice Evra has never made claims of racism against someone, unfounded or otherwise.

- To add further weight to Dalglish’s point, Dirk Kuyt falsely claimed that Evra was telling people he had only been booked by the referee because he was black. The commission found this to be entirely untrue.

- Dalglish claimed that Suarez had been “taunted” by Evra, suggesting that Suarez’s response of “you are black” was following Evra saying “you are South American.” If this was true, Suarez wasn’t using the word “negro” in a friendly way at all, rather as an insult. Regardless, Suarez confirmed that being called “South American” was not an insult.

- Comoli stressed he knew how serious the allegations were so being fluent in Spanish wanted to make sure they had their story straight on what Suarez had said. After speaking to Suarez, he then went to tell Marriner and Dowd Suarez’s version. There was no mention of Suarez calling Evra “negro” in response to Evra telling him not to touch him though, which is what his defence later hinged on. They initially claimed Suarez said “you are black” then in the next set of interviews, Suarez claimed he said “why not, black?” after Evra told him not to touch him.

- Suarez claimed that he did not call Evra a negro when they were in the goal mouth, rather after the referee had called them over to speak to them and he then touched Evra. However, his version of events contradicts the testimony of Evra and referee. Evra says that as soon as the referee called them over, Evra reported the racial abuse he had just received, and the referee confirmed this.

- Suarez initially claimed that he pinched Evra on the arm to “defuse the situation”. When he was cross examined, he admitted this was not true.

- The first time Suarez claimed that his use of the word “negro” was “conciliatory” was after the reports from the language experts were made available, where they claimed if the word “negro” was used in a “conciliatory” way, it wouldn’t be regarded as racist in Uruguay.

- Suarez’s defence claim that Evra made up Suarez saying he kicked him because he was black and that he didn’t talk to blacks. They claim that because Suarez had kicked Evra in the knee, Evra wanted revenge, so fabricated the whole story. This means they are suggesting that Evra feigned outrage after his exchange with Suarez and lied to the referee, that he lied to Giggs on the pitch when he asked him what was the matter, and that he lied to Valencia, Chichartio, Nani, Anderson and Sir Alex Ferguson in the dressing room immediately after the game. The commission rejected the defence’s suggestion that the accusations were just an elaborate plot for Evra to get revenge on Suarez for being kicked.

- Comolli claimed that after the game Evra went to Canal+ and demanded that he was allowed to report the racial abuse he had just received. The journalist who interviewed Evra confirmed this opposite of this was true, and that Evra knew the journalist well and he could tell that he was upset. Evra told the journalist off the record what had happened, but the journalist confirmed he asked the question when Evra was being filmed regardless.

Haha, not surprised tbh. You've not even read the report for yourself. You've let some other site come up with key points for you.

Where is your response to my previous reply? If you are so for the rules why are you not saying anything about Evra getting a ban and fine for breaking the first rule Suarez is charged for?

I believe every LFC fan here will fall back and admit they were wrong if something concrete came out.

But because Evra plays for the team you support he can do no wrong, right? Everything he says is gospel and any claims from Suarez are dumbfounded because of his slightly tarnished history. (Not that Evra's is that clean)

What conspiracy son?

No one has cried or shouted conspiracy in this thread.All Liverpool fan's have clearly outlined the injustice inherent in the action's of the F.A. , we have provided simple and luminous evidence to back up our claims and out varying points off views and after the period of understandable disgust at such hefty and rushed action being taken against perhaps our most important player, we have tried to do so in a tranquil manner.

Evidence has been disected and provided? Sure it has.......so why complain when further evidence is given that dosen't comply consumately and entirely with your views.Because in reality that's all we've posted.But no, our analysis...stemming from a range of users operating out of varying geopolitical ethnical and lingual backgrounds is not good enough.Our comments are invalid...Why? because the inherently stoic and indefaghtegable F.A has made it's decision

The evidence it's used to come to that decision is amusing at worst and unable to stand up in court at best.As RedOranje clearly put it they went into this with their decision in mind.....and scrapred together whatever they could to justify it....although they haven't done a particularly good job.

Finally you have emphasized on numerous occasions throughout this thread that Suarez is a "racist scumbag".There is no more embarassing opinion on GoalLegacy than this.....0 players share your opinion, 0 managers and even more noteworthy hardly any posters have fallen for your propoganda.It's sad really how one can be so delusional as to drift from eveything being said, even by those on his own side to make claims as ridiculous as this.

Jog it on bro.....but keep your eyes open while doing so, maybe, just maybe you'll see the light.

@LFC fans in this thread - You guys are my friends so please keep it civil. It's a tough case for all of us to digest, so don't let your emotions get out of control.

ynwa wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:[Did I personally insult you like you are insulting me right now and making it personal?

I attacked the club you support or one of the clubs you support Evidence has been disected and provided, yet you LFC fans still pull this conspiracy "it's a stitch up" bs.

Really are a Manc.

Your obsession with LFC is astonishing. And your conspiracy bullshit is nothing short of laughable based on knobs on redcafe...

Also... what "evidence" is there? It's Evra's word against Suarez' word and one of them cannot speak English.

"obsessed"? gtfoh!