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!

ragbirjosh wrote: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.

What surprises me is his second post on the 'inconsistencies' from the LFC side yet fails to address those from Evra.

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

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!

You know it to be true.

poolsupporter wrote:

ragbirjosh wrote: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.

What surprises me is his second post on the 'inconsistencies' from the LFC side yet fails to address those from Evra.

Anyone who conclusiively deems one of them more guilty than the other is a prophet with a time machine and an invisibility cloak cuz they had to be standing 2 metres away and shoul be able to speak perfect Spanish + dialects , French , Senegale etc

O and You shouldn't be suprised,

ragbirjosh wrote: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.

lol ownage

No appeal forthcoming; Saga at its end

thefadotcom TheFA.com
Liverpool will not appeal against Luis Suarez's misconduct charge and his eight match suspension begins tonight

Liverpool released a very strong statement which concluded with:

It is time to put the Luis Suarez matter to rest and for all of us, going forward, to work together to stamp out racism in every form both inside and outside the sport.

It is for this reason that we will not appeal the eight-game suspension of Luis Suarez.

Here's the statement in full:

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/statement-from-liverpool-fc

lol 52 pages, no appeal lol

Liverpool look awfully silly now, lol scouscers time to bring out stanley on the FA

Much different from what their strongly worded initial statement.

Why didn't they appeal if they continue to feel he's innocent?

english_jewel wrote:Much different from what their strongly worded initial statement.

Why didn't they appeal if they continue to feel he's innocent?

Why appeal a 8 game ban, when the fa clearly states there is no way of getting it overturned and the only result is a further ban. Fa wanted to make a example of suarez and no one can stop them, lets just see what terry cops, didnt he racialy abuse a black player aswell?

mr-r34 wrote:

english_jewel wrote:Much different from what their strongly worded initial statement.

Why didn't they appeal if they continue to feel he's innocent?

Why appeal a 8 game ban, when the fa clearly states there is no way of getting it overturned and the only result is a further ban. Fa wanted to make a example of suarez and no one can stop them, lets just see what terry cops, didnt he racialy abuse a black player aswell?

If that's the case then OK.

Terry might get a leeway, since his case involves the court. I don't think the FA would punish him if the court says he's not guilty.

I am disappointed that Liverpool are not pursuing this any further.

Aren't there no legal options for Liverpool to fight the decision by the FA other than appeal with the FA itself?

They are not appealing it because they know they have nothing to back them. The evidence is right there for all to see, they have no choice but to accept it.

Devil-Is-Red wrote:They are not appealing it because they know they have nothing to back them. The evidence is right there for all to see, they have no choice but to accept it.

Lol, have you read the statement? Hell, read the report, there is enough in there to drop any of these charges.

Not my preferred decision from the club, but I guess I can understand why they are doing it. They've taken the moral high ground here. I hope Evra gets a ban as well, considering he has admitted to using offensive language.

Devil-Is-Red wrote:They are not appealing it because they know they have nothing to back them. The evidence is right there for all to see, they have no choice but to accept it.

What evidence? and Where is it for us to see?

................................................................

Anyway I'm very disappointed we are not taking it further.

Look up balance of probabilities before yOu part time scouse lawyers pretend that your view of whether it hOlds up becomes bitter little fact. This isnt columbo, tribunals dont have the accused holding the gun nor do they fool them into confessing. This is embarrassing for all pool supporters. This victim mentality has become a parody, a parody that they just don't get. Heads will roll for this, neither kk or Suarez will start next year at Liverpool and rightly so. Look at the transcript and tell me that's cultural misunderstanding....it's not just 1word he used kids, it's a hostile word used when... He admitted this... He was in the middle of winding evra up. It's not the fa, it's an independent enquiry. Crying bias is the cry of a desperate man

Devil-Is-Red wrote:They are not appealing it because they know they have nothing to back them. The evidence is right there for all to see, they have no choice but to accept it.

lololol. what evidence?

Slosh wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:They are not appealing it because they know they have nothing to back them. The evidence is right there for all to see, they have no choice but to accept it.

lololol. what evidence?

8 posts and already trolling

wtffff 53 pages over this boring news?

Slosh wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:They are not appealing it because they know they have nothing to back them. The evidence is right there for all to see, they have no choice but to accept it.

lololol. what evidence?

You know. The evidence!!!!!!!

I don't want to ruin your conspiracy theory about lack of evidence but Surez did not challenge the validity of what the witnesses said. Couple that with how there was a clear contradiction between what he said happened and what the cameras showed.

I'm a neutral here and from where I'm standing United's story has stayed the same though out this entire saga. Suarez on the other hand has changed stories a few times. That never makes you look good and the second this happens this becomes more than just my word against yours.

Hell even Dirk Kuyt said he heard the word Negro being used so the chances of Suarez being completely innocent seem unlikely to anyone who isn't afraid to call it as they see it.

Liverpool handled this poorly imo. They've let it drag on and they've dug their heels in on this one despite not bothering to even get Suarez's story straight. I personally see nothing wrong with how the report was conducted and the decision made seems very rational based on what was put forward from both sides.

As for the whole "Spanish used by Suarez in the report is different than the Spanish Suarez would actually speak" theory. Well all I have to say is that the report is very clear on what was brought forward and Suarez could have claimed that they were inaccurate but he didn't. His whole case is based on cultural misunderstandings and that has since been proved unlikely (Camera footage, Suarez's extended time in Europe).

I don't even like Evra but from where I'm standing he has the stronger case and you can't just ignore that and say that the decision was wrong. For me at least the decision that was reached was more than fair based on the two cases.

Zealous wrote:I don't want to ruin your conspiracy theory about lack of evidence but Surez did not challenge the validity of what the witnesses said. Couple that with how there was a clear contradiction between what he said happened and what the cameras showed.

Suarez didn’t challenge them because the evidence moved by them wasn’t about proving his guilt.They were presenting he used the word “negro” which he didn’t deny.

I'm a neutral here and from where I'm standing United's story has stayed the same though out this entire saga. Suarez on the other hand has changed stories a few times. That never makes you look good and the second this happens this becomes more than just my word against yours.

No United’s story didn’t stay same throughout the saga.First Evra said Suarez used the “Nigger” word 10 times and then changed his stance and said he only used it 5 times.
Also there is complete contradiction btw what Evra says and what the evidence submitted by United (Anderson and others ) have said as Evra said.

All 4 players (Nani, Valencia, Hernandez, Anderson) give evidence that Evra was angry and complained that Suarez had said that Suarez wouldn’t speak to Evra because Evra was black. None of them say that Evra complained that Suarez said that he had kicked Evra because he was black. None of them say that Evra alleged that Suarez had said “Dale negro, negro, negro”. Evra’s evidence is different to that of all 4 team mates. PE’s statement does not claim that he said that LS had said that he, LS, wouldn’t speak to PE because PE was black. PE’s statement DOES claim that he told his teammates that Suarez kicked him because he was black.

Isnt this huge contradiction.But unlike Suarez’s pinching statement contradiction they have waved Evra’s as negligible stuff.

Hell even Dirk Kuyt said he heard the word Negro being used so the chances of Suarez being completely innocent seem unlikely to anyone who isn't afraid to call it as they see it.

No Kuyt didn’t say he heard Suarez using the word negro.He said Suarez said to him after the match Suarez used the word Negro.Either way Suarez has admitted to using the word Negro but claimed it was linguistic difference.

Also Evra claimed Suarez used the word Nigger and Suarez claimed to have used the word Negro.Yet the committee haven’t mentioned about this contradiction.Not sure why.

Liverpool handled this poorly imo. They've let it drag on and they've dug their heels in on this one despite not bothering to even get Suarez's story straight. I personally see nothing wrong with how the report was conducted and the decision made seems very rational based on what was put forward from both sides.

So judgements should be made based on statements put forth by both sides which are highly likely to be biased.Not based on solid evidence?

As for the whole "Spanish used by Suarez in the report is different than the Spanish Suarez would actually speak" theory. Well all I have to say is that the report is very clear on what was brought forward and Suarez could have claimed that they were inaccurate but he didn't. His whole case is based on cultural misunderstandings and that has since been proved unlikely (Camera footage, Suarez's extended time in Europe).

I don’t know Spanish and I am not sure what that was about.But I am not mistaken the translation experts accepted both the scenarios presented (Suarez and Evra) are possible and it depends only on circumstances which way to interpret.And the committee concluded that since Evra is more reliablehis circumstances are likely to have happened.

Also Evra is the one who initiated the argument and he started it in Spanish.So there is a strong argument that Suarez believed he wasn’t using an offensive term as he was only continuing the argument and the word negro isn’t (apparently) offensive in Spanish used in Uruguay.

I don't even like Evra but from where I'm standing he has the stronger case and you can't just ignore that and say that the decision was wrong. For me at least the decision that was reached was more than fair based on the two cases.

Again what are the evidence u are referring to apart from Evra’s statements.They basically arrived at the decision based on Evra’s word against Suarez’s word and decided which is more probable.

Mind u my initial gut feel was that Suarez is more likely to be guilty thats why u wont find me supporting Suarez anywhere on this forum ever since the news broke out.But u would have thought FA would have come to the conclusion based on video footage or atleast 3rd party (referee etc) evidence.But basing ur decision solely based on probabilitry is laughable.

Based on my experience in law enforment in India (which is also based on British law) this probalility logic used by FA would be laughed out of court. Courts demand accused to be proven beyond reasonable doubt not make judgements using law of probability.


Also a couple of questions if u have read the full report:

1.How come both FA and Evra came to the conclusion that Suarez is not a racist despite their findings.If they believe Suarez used the racist words with intent how can someone using these racial slur be not a racist.Can u explain me the logic.

2.How is Evra left scot free despite him admitting abusing Suarez family and his nationality (South American) without any provocation.

3.Also the FA committe met Evra 3 times before the enquiry started and never informed this to Liverpool or Suarez until they appeared before the comission.How is this fair trail when u meet one party personally without informing the other party.

Professor in Hispanic Studies dissects the FA’s Suarez report:

The following is written by award-winning Professor in Hispanic Studies at Brown University, Aldo Mazzucchelli.

I will first quote the FA document on the key point:

“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 Comolli apparently stated), which are grammatically 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 Comolli 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 Comolli 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 implausible. 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 the 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.
A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.

Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the “wild animals” South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey’s famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.

This was taken from "http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/01/professor-in-hispanic-studies-dissects-the-fas-suarez-report/"