Handshakes, Apologies and Storm in Teacups

"Reading Twitter, it seems that Liverpool FC is pretty hated right now. I’d imagine that it’s even worse in the mass media, but I do my best to avoid chip wrappings and rent-a-gob TV.

Maybe a lot of Liverpool fans don’t care – and a siege mentality rarely hurts a football club – but I feel we’re being seriously misunderstood right now.

(Then again, Joey Barton and Mario Balotelli probably feel the same, and they don’t get cut a lot of slack either. Sometimes they deserve criticism, other times it’s just a bandwagon of condemnation.)

In PR terms, the club, and Luis Suarez, had little option but to apologise for the absence of a handshake. I can see why it didn’t look good to outsiders, but when Sky’s Martin Tyler joins a list of people saying that Evra appeared to avoid the handshake too, it’s sad to see it all about the evils of Luis Suarez.

Suarez had his hand out, but with Evra looking non-committal, he hurried past. If he grabs Evra’s hand, he’s forcing the United man to accept it. Both men were put in an awkward position, and yet again Britain gets into a lather about a handshake.



(The handshake being the storm in a teacup, not the issue of racism.)

Septicemia

If games against Chelsea summed up Rafa Benítez’s reign – Mourinho winning the early league games, the Reds winning the big cup clashes – then Dalglish’s second tenure at Liverpool is defined by games against Manchester United.

First, he returned – so unexpectedly – to the hot-seat the weekend the Reds went to Old Trafford, and lost. Next, the Reds blew away United at Anfield, with Kuyt scoring a hat-trick and Suarez embarrassing the United defence. A couple of weeks ago, Liverpool won in the FA Cup thanks to a dramatic late Dirk Kuyt goal, but a few months before that came the 1-1 draw at Anfield, with the infamous Suarez/Evra affair. That game affected this weekend’s encounter, and will affect many more to come, it seems. Bad blood has turned septic.

If you’re an LFC fan vehemently opposed to racism but not convinced of Suarez’s guilt, you’re pretty much damned right now. If Suarez has indeed been guilty all along, then he’s got a lot to apologise for. But if he has been innocent, he’s been given an unimaginably tough time.

Life would be simpler for us now had Luis Suarez shook Patrice Evra’s hand, although anyone saying his refusal was “pre-meditated” is a mind reader. The apologies help put the issue to bed, and hopefully the world moves on. The hysteria has been exhausting.

My view before the match was that Suarez should have been left out, to give the goading Old Trafford a sense of anticlimax, and no-one at whom to aim its ire. After all, did United playing Evra the other week help them?

In truth, Suarez actually performed with a lot of self-control, and scored a goal, but United were hyped up by his presence. Evra, in trying to clatter Suarez after 30 seconds, instead almost put Rio Ferdinand in hospital. At the end, Suarez left the pitch in a dignified manner, unlike his accuser.

Of course, leaving Suarez out could be seen as another sign of his guilt over the racism issue. It’s therefore a call I’m glad I didn’t have to make. But in being seen to have refused Evra’s handshake, Suarez sealed his reputation as the most hated footballer in England right now.

I’ve seen numerous angles of the handshake in video clips, and Evra’s hand stays low, and Suarez’s hand hurries past. Neither man seems to be holding a hand ‘out’ to the other. Evra escalates the situation by grabbing Suarez, making sure that everyone saw.

(The same Evra who kissed his United badge to the Kop when supposedly “in shock” at being kicked by Suarez in October, as if a footballer had never been accidentally caught thousands of times in his life before. The same Evra who was in a rage over losing the coin toss in October. The same Evra who started the row in October by saying, in Suarez’s language and not his own, the phrase “your sister’s *bleep*”. The same Evra who celebrated victory at the weekend in an undignified manner. The same Evra who was called a “liar and a man of low character” by his own FA in 2010, and “unreliable” by our own FA five years ago.

In other words, not a calm, placid, likeable man like Antonio Valencia, whose word, as someone who appears to just get on with the game, I’d be far happier to accept – even if a man’s word is in itself evidence of nothing but an ability to speak. In cases of one word against the other, you have to consider the character of the accuser, and not just the accused. We know that the neutrals don’t trust Suarez with many of his antics – he certainly exaggerates contacts on fouls, and will seek to gain an advantage in a number of ways – but why trust Evra, either?)

If – and I mean if – Suarez feels that he was harshly punished due to Evra lying about him, then he has a right to feel very aggrieved and refuse a handshake. Yes, he let Liverpool FC down if he’d promised to shake hands, but in the heat of the moment, perhaps he felt differently when confronted with the situation.

It’s time to make handshakes voluntary. The FA spared John Terry the ignominy at QPR, but here, only Luis Suarez was going to look bad if a handshake was refused.

John Barnes, whose views of racism have been enlightened, found the whole thing farcical:

“We’re making a mountain out of a molehill. We are not the custodians of moral value in the world, we think we are but we’re not. There’s worse things happening in the world, worse things happening in the country, everything should not be laid at footballers’ doors.”

Alex Ferguson had his say. “Disgraceful,” screamed the headlines, as if he’d written them himself (which, of course, in his own way he had). Suarez should be sold; he should never play for Liverpool again.

Who the hell is he to tell Liverpool Football Club how to conduct its business? Of course he wants to drive Suarez out of England and Liverpool, just as he did with Benítez, against whom his English LMA cronies ganged up. Of course he doesn’t want Dalglish in charge of Liverpool. He was happiest when Roy Hodgson was around, and the Reds were in the bottom half of the table. (The same Hodgson who refused to condemn Ferguson when he called Fernando Torres, who had clearly been fouled, a “cheat”.)

The same Ferguson who stood by Peter Schmeichel over claims of racial abuse aimed at Ian Wright (basically saying that Schmeichel couldn’t be racist, as he’d visited South Africa with United two years earlier). He stood by Roy Keane, who admitted purposely injuring Alfe Inge Haaland, with a horrific career-ending tackle. He stood by players who refused to shake Patrick Vieira’s hand. The same Ferguson who stuck by Rio Ferdinand after he failed to turn up for a drug’s test, which therefore meant he could have been hiding something (not that I necessarily think he was). The same Ferguson who took on Eric Cantona, who’d already attacked a referee in France, and then happily welcomed him back after a kung-fu kick on some idiot in the crowd.

“Indefensible!”, is what I keep getting told by random Tweeps. Yet Suarez was found guilty on the balance of probabilities, without evidence or corroboration, by process that finds 0.5% of people innocent. Following it up by not shaking hands is “indefensible”?

“Indefensible” suggests a very serious crime, committed by someone caught in the act, with no doubt whatsoever about their guilt. Banged to rights. Fingerprints all over the scene. Gun still smoking. Someone like Edmund Kemper, perhaps, who admitted to engaging in oral sex – or at least trying to – with the decapitated heads of his defenceless female victims, including that of his mother. He led the police to their bodies (and heads).

By contrast, Luis Suarez was found guilty of possibly saying something racially inappropriate (due to cultural differences) in a conversation that had many opportunities for misunderstanding. (The conversation was started by a black Frenchman, in Spanish, on English soil, with a Dutchman called as a witness on behalf of the accused, who was a Uruguayan with a black grandparent. Straightforward, huh?)

“He was found guilty!” people scream at me, when I question anything to do with the case. But shouldn’t ‘guilt’, as a concept, relate to a court of law? – hard evidence, judge, jury of 12 of your peers, etc, especially when it’s an offence where ‘balance of probabilities’ is not sufficient for the condemnation a guilty verdict will produce?

Last week, Robert Huth was found guilty of serious foul play when he slid into Sunderland’s David Meyler, despite the fact that it was as clear as day that he was trying to pull out of the tackle.

“An independent regulatory commission has today dismissed the claim of wrongful dismissal of Stoke City’s Robert Huth. The defender will serve a three-match suspension with immediate effect following his red card for serious foul play in the game with Sunderland on February 4.”

Of course, being found guilty in such situations doesn’t lead to vilification. Players get ‘done’ for violent conduct all the time, yet don’t necessarily get labelled as violent people. Suarez is now labelled ‘racist’ for life.

“He admitted it!” others scream of Suarez. Some even say that he admitted to calling Evra “a negro”. (If you are in this latter category, why should I even bother trying to put you right?)

But the linguistics experts in the FA report essentially agree with both men. Basically, they say that if what Suarez claims to have said was true, its intent would not have been racist; but that if what Evra alleged was true, it would have been racist. So, who decides? Should one of the three chosen be accepted when he boasts on his own autobiography that he saved Alex Ferguson’s job?

I recently wrote the following in an email interview for The Trawler (to appear later this week): “Liverpool fans, including at least two fairly prominent lawyers, pored over the report because they felt it seriously flawed. If a decision goes your way, you say “that’s it, case closed”. You don’t want to look any deeper; you want to move on. If it doesn’t, you want to find the faults. It’s like when you get too much change from the supermarket – you just carry on. But if you get overcharged, you go through the receipt, item by item.”

I’ve probably lost the respect of loads of neutral supporters and writers over the issue, and to a degree that upsets me. I’ve certainly lost respect for those who simply follow the narrative, and who refuse to even consider an alternate reality. (And yes, I have considered the version where Suarez is guilty; I can’t prove that he isn’t guilty, of course – just as, based on the evidence, no-one could prove in a court of law that he is.)

Spiral of Silence

The only neutral source to have analysed the case with a critical eye rather than moral indignation is News Frames. The author of the blog does not support any football club, and until this issue, had dealt mostly with political and social reporting.

I asked News Frames why the story was playing out this way. The author believed it to be related to the sociological phenomenon called ‘spiral of silence’.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence

People dare not go against the grain. I’ve certainly wished I’d kept quiet at times, as it seems the aggro just isn’t worth it. To even dare suggest that an alternative to the media narrative may exist is worthy of a truckload of abuse. Suggest someone may be innocent of racism, and you get labelled a racist.

As the News Frames blog noted several weeks ago:

“I’m reminded of another T-shirt gesture to protest a man’s innocence. It’s a different type of case, but the underlying logic (of protest) is exactly the same. Amnesty International published a statement about the flawed evidence against a man (Troy Davis) convicted of murder. There was a campaign (‘Too Much Doubt’) to raise awareness of problems with the evidence and the legal process.

The Guardian supported the campaign (T-shirts and all). Nobody, to my knowledge, argued that, in so doing, they were supporting the crime (rather than the man and his claims of innocence). The logic of protesting wasn’t drowned out with cries of “shameful” or “beyond the pale” – at least not in the UK’s “liberal” media.

http://newsframes.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/media-on-racism-framing/

Appeal

The point that a lot of neutrals seem to be missing is that both player and manager can believe in Suarez’s innocence.

I don’t know why Liverpool did not launch an appeal. Perhaps they hoped to move on from a situation that was causing a lot of PR damage, with the media already outraged that they might have the temerity to dare consider such a move. (People like the Mail’s Martin Samuel had already said, many months before the verdict, that Suarez was likely to be guilty as racists are sly, and do things unseen, but that John Terry was likely to be innocent, as people don’t do that kind of thing publicly. So much for a fair press!)

Perhaps Liverpool didn’t trust the system; after all, the FA finds people guilty 99.5% of the time. Why repeat a trial in a kangaroo court?

Perhaps they don’t trust the FA, with Manchester United’s David Gill a key part of their decision-making process.

Perhaps they knew that, in the admirable drive to rid the game of racism, a scapegoat had to be found.

Perhaps, from a purely footballing point of view, they wanted to get the suspension out of the way to have the player back for more important games.

Or perhaps they suspected that Suarez was guilty. This is a possibility, obviously; just not, as many have you believe, the only logical explanation.

The Future?

A lot of fans are fearing that Suarez may have to be sold. I started resigning myself to this a few months back; a move to Spain, for a large transfer fee, might do everyone the world of good. He’s become the boogeyman, responsible for all the ills of the English game, it seems. A lovely bloke off the pitch, by all accounts, he’s certainly controversial on it.

I’m not sure how the circus that surrounds him goes away, unless he himself does. Time will lessen the hatred, and dull the hysteria, but the stain on his character remains.

He’s the club’s best player, so that makes it tough. Ferguson sticks by his players when they overstep the mark. All clubs work this way; it’s easy to offload a troublemaker if he’s not a key player.

If he stays, then he certainly has my support. He’s served his punishment, even though the evidence of his guilt was so flimsy. But if he goes, we move on. If, by staying, it adversely affects the club, and results on the pitch suffer, then as much as I love his skill and ceaseless desire to win, we look for a new star man."

hmmm, just read a Liverpool player spat at De Gea in the tunnel which is when the Tunnel fight happened

First of all, thanks to Arquitecto for so eloquently compiling the feeling of many Liverpool supporters. I'm sure you will receive criticism over the issue, but your analysis seems to comprehensively sum up the Liverpool supporter's stance on the issue. To be clear, you are defending the rational LFC supporter who, while hoping for Suarez's innocence, is willing to analyze the issue from various angles. The media in particular have seemed utterly incapable of doing anything but assuming guilt regardless of the "evidence." This stance was only confirmed once the Fa condemned Suarez to an 8-match ban. Given the inundation of the media with these stories, it is understandable how the neutral sees Suarez as a racist monster, refusing to even shake the hand of his "victim."

Let me say that I hope your take on the "Future" for Suarez is incorrect. I would hope that LFC does not allow the media, the FA and Sir Alex Ferguson to determine how we run our club. Can you imagine what would happen if the same thing were said about Vidic or Ferdinand or any other MUFc player? There would be unimaginable upheaval. While I'm not saying you're incorrect in your analysis, I'm merely hoping that the club does not allow outside influence to determine Suarez's fate at Liverpool. Suarez leaving would end the issue, but it also seems like the "easy way out." It would signal a resignation to the will of the FA, Fergie and the media. I cannot see how that aspect of the decision could benefit the club going forward.

Once again, kudos on your analysis and the elegant manner in which you expressed the views of many of us LFC supporters.

@halamadrid
Is that supposed to be relevant to this topic? Are you trying to imply Suarez spat at De Gea? I'm sorry, but I'm grasping at straws to discern your intentions by posting that in under this topic.

Let me share something with you.

"The half-time bust-up between Manchester United and Liverpool players in Saturday's match at Old Trafford was started by spitting, according to the Sun." -Goal.com

"Although it is is unclear who was responsible for the spitting, one source told The Sun: 'De Gea was making his way to the tunnel and was clearly shocked to be spat at." -DailyMail.co.uk

Due to the source you're going to have an exceedingly difficult time convincing any Liverpool supporter that these reports are credible.

Eloquent analysis, excellent job of compiling our thoughts into one area instead of letting the typical piecemeal comments that everyone ignores accumulate. Hopefully this will at least get some attention from the others on this forum to understand where we're coming from, even if the disagreement remains.

and halamadrid... excellent job trolling a liverpool thread without purpose. we appreciate your contribution to arq's thoughtful analysis of the situation.

Good post Arq. People in the English Media enjoy picking on people for racism, Stuart Pearce, for example, was acused of something similar to Terry, an how Ironic that he would probably be Englands temp manager for the Euros.

I for one don't think Suarez is racist, but that's the state that the world is going to, where people are to afraid to call someone black. I mean I have seen some people get offended from being called darked skinned.

I don't think Suarez is racist, but he has a troubled history since he was at Ajax. The FA is a farce tbh, no one takes them seriously and they are the laughing stock in world football.

jibers wrote:I for one don't think Suarez is racist, but that's the state that the world is going to, where people are to afraid to call someone black. I mean I have seen some people get offended from being called darked skinned.

Calling someone black isn't racist, but thats not what the issue is about

The issue is about whether the following occurred:

Evra: "Porque me diste un golpe?" ("Why did you kick me?")
Suarez: "Porque tu eres negro" ("Because you are black")
Evra: "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada" ("Say it to me again, Im going to punch you")
Suarez: "No hablo con los negros" ("I dont speak with blacks")
Evra: "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada" ("Ok, now Im going to punch you")
Suarez: "Dale, negro, negro, negro" ("Do it, blackie, blackie, blackie")

BhritanniaBhlue wrote:

jibers wrote:I for one don't think Suarez is racist, but that's the state that the world is going to, where people are to afraid to call someone black. I mean I have seen some people get offended from being called darked skinned.

Calling someone black isn't racist, but thats not what the issue is about

The issue is about whether the following occurred:

Evra: "Porque me diste un golpe?" ("Why did you kick me?")
Suarez: "Porque tu eres negro" ("Because you are black")
Evra: "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada" ("Say it to me again, Im going to punch you")
Suarez: "No hablo con los negros" ("I dont speak with blacks")
Evra: "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada" ("Ok, now Im going to punch you")
Suarez: "Dale, negro, negro, negro" ("Do it, blackie, blackie, blackie")

Is this actually what the Evra said was said? FML

That sounds like utter BS... WTF

Arq is this your own writing or someone else's? If it's your own, my hat's off to you. I agree with you on almost all accounts.

You just don't get it, no offence. It that's. Een liberpools problem the whole time. Suarez has never, not once, said evras hesitancy caused him to back out of the handshake. This is an excuse from a still pic that pool fans latched onto. Suarez marched past evra at speed and reached past him to de gea. If Suarez never clarified this, pool fans stretching for an excuse shouldn't either. The handshake was a pr exercise. Pr stripped down means nothing and looks even less, but the simple pass of a handshake is shown as a victim of racist abuse being snubbed. U the racist in the first step of reconciliation. Cry all you want but that's exactly what it is. Also, dalglish and Liverpool came out and promised Suarez would shake his hand... Suarez gave his word to the club and man that stood behind him, and he lied. What else did he lie about and to whom if he can be as cold hearted as that? It's a betrayal of those who stood behind him. And it's not the British media that forced the apology, of It was then the apology would've come weeks ago. It was he growing scrutiny and criticism from the American press that forced their hand. Not the British. The haracter defamation and outright lies Liverpool released about evra during an investigation, the public humiliation of a snub when it must've been so hard to reach out himself... The context of his is far more reaching than what it's made out to be. If the handshake meant nothing then why did Liverpool fans pollute the net with optical illusion pics of evra refusing the handshake? It's ridiculous reasoning and hilarious how the handshake was never derided for ten years, now Liverpool are prickly over it and it should b scrapped. When do we show sportsmanship? Do we only show sportsmanship to people we like?

*bleep* iPad....

i think suarez was well within his rights to refuse that handshake, its voluntary anyway just a sign of good sportsman spirit.. he and kenny both shouldnt have apologised over it though nor should sir alex have said that suarez was a disgrace which was an epitome of double standards from him.. and those pictures as cyber said were useless since suarez himself apologised for not shaking hands


good article though

cyberman wrote:You just don't get it, no offence. It that's. Een liberpools problem the whole time. Suarez has never, not once, said evras hesitancy caused him to back out of the handshake. This is an excuse from a still pic that pool fans latched onto. Suarez marched past evra at speed and reached past him to de gea. If Suarez never clarified this, pool fans stretching for an excuse shouldn't either. The handshake was a pr exercise. Pr stripped down means nothing and looks even less, but the simple pass of a handshake is shown as a victim of racist abuse being snubbed. U the racist in the first step of reconciliation. Cry all you want but that's exactly what it is. Also, dalglish and Liverpool came out and promised Suarez would shake his hand... Suarez gave his word to the club and man that stood behind him, and he lied. What else did he lie about and to whom if he can be as cold hearted as that? It's a betrayal of those who stood behind him. And it's not the British media that forced the apology, of It was then the apology would've come weeks ago. It was he growing scrutiny and criticism from the American press that forced their hand. Not the British. The haracter defamation and outright lies Liverpool released about evra during an investigation, the public humiliation of a snub when it must've been so hard to reach out himself... The context of his is far more reaching than what it's made out to be. If the handshake meant nothing then why did Liverpool fans pollute the net with optical illusion pics of evra refusing the handshake? It's ridiculous reasoning and hilarious how the handshake was never derided for ten years, now Liverpool are prickly over it and it should b scrapped. When do we show sportsmanship? Do we only show sportsmanship to people we like?

nowhere in the op did he say that the handshake meant nothing, nor did he say that it should be blamed on evra, merely that there's a second side to be considered. which you're clearly ignoring.

furthermore, to ONCE AGAIN bring up the idea of suarez being racist and evra being a victim is ridiculous, especially when the point of this thread is to explain liverpool, lfc fans and suarez's position on the issue as being more nuanced than you seem to be able to accept. please, try to read the actual fa report and then the original post again, and understand that there is more to this story than "SUAREZ IS EVAL OMG HWO DAR HE!!!!!1!!" i think arq should be commended for attempting to start a civil, intelligent discussion on the issue, and the response has been fairly disheartening.

But the linguistics experts in the FA report essentially agree with both men. Basically, they say that if what Suarez claims to have said was true, its intent would not have been racist; but that if what Evra alleged was true, it would have been racist. So, who decides? Should one of the three chosen be accepted when he boasts on his own autobiography that he saved Alex Ferguson’s job?



I'm sorry. But no the linguistic experts didn't agree at all with Suarez and said it could only be used on an aggressive manner. They went as far as calling Suarez account fanciful (or whatever word to that effect )

....

Where did I say the handshake meant nothing and where did I say he blamed evra?
Next tIme you accuse me of not reading a post, actually read mine first

And read the fa report Steve? The same report that destroyed Suarez? What am I to read? The fact he was an untrustworthy witness or inventing fanciful stories to suit evidence as he went along? Absolutely nothing came from that report that have Suarez any Benifit of any sort of doubt. None. Scathing is the word

cyberman wrote:Where did I say the handshake meant nothing and where did I say he blamed evra?
Next tIme you accuse me of not reading a post, actually read mine first

you said that liverpool fans did both of those things, neither of which were done in the op. proof:

cyberman wrote:The handshake was a pr exercise. Pr stripped down means nothing and looks even less, but the simple pass of a handshake is shown as a victim of racist abuse being snubbed. U the racist in the first step of reconciliation.

cyberman wrote:If the handshake meant nothing then why did Liverpool fans pollute the net with optical illusion pics of evra refusing the handshake? It's ridiculous reasoning and hilarious how the handshake was never derided for ten years, now Liverpool are prickly over it and it should b scrapped.

maybe after you reread the op so that you understand it, you should also reread your own posts so you're conscious of what it is YOU said... you seem to be simultaneously missing both sides of the argument, pretty impressive.


also, the fa report was scathing against suarez, but it failed to provide evidence against him outside of evra's word. they found inconsistencies in his side but ignored similar inconsistencies on the side of evra, and eventually said to the both of them "we find one of you (evra) more trustworthy than the other, 8 game ban." furthermore, you're just plain wrong on the issue of the linguistics experts - arq was right, they say that suarez's claims make sense. so i guess we should add the fa report to the list of things for you to reread. that brings us to 3.

Didn't realise when I said Liverpool fans, I meant arq. If arq didn't say it, pool fans therefore didn't say it. Gotcha
This is the third te I've seen a pool can on here say the report understood Suarez view, this is the third time I'll ask for a link. Incredible inconsistencies and damaging English football is not understanding Suarez view.
Link me to it oh studied of fa reports.

I bet you wont

Have a look at this picture. It tells something


https://2img.net/h/oi43.tinypic.com/2u5qjir.jpg

Arquitecto wrote:Maybe a lot of Liverpool fans don’t care – and a siege mentality rarely hurts a football club – but I feel we’re being seriously misunderstood right now.

It's not that you're misunderstood, it's that the stupid masses and pathetic media don't care. They are public opinion bandwagoners and creators of waves of ignorant standpoints.

If someone is successful press will praise them for everything, their game, their behaviour their background (imagine being a Madrid fan in Barca dominated age) and their penis legths.

It's just a way of failsafe these brainless journalist defend themself with if their message could be completely off, or plain wrong. They know that there's enough of ignorant bandwagon fans who'll support what they say if it praises their club, or devalues the rival club. It' the way of the world.

I'd punch Evra in the face, and how Ferguson reacted to Suarez's refusal of a handshake has lowered him in my eyes. Only Giggs reacted professionaly. Said that it was never a big issue in football if someone refused to shake hands, "must be some new rule this season" - master troll Ryan Giggs

Sepi wrote:Have a look at this picture. It tells something


https://2img.net/h/oi43.tinypic.com/2u5qjir.jpg

Good point. Evra desrves a smack acros his ugly face.

Stop with the fcuking pics, evra was publicly humiliated by the man who racially abused him, judging by the public reaction and Suarez apOlogy, he has been proven right to be so.
Nowhere outside of pool fans have I seen these stills given any credibility and. Or evra criticised for the non handshake
Keep that nonsense on rawk where it belongs

So disappointed with where this thread has been taken.

Credit to Arq for trying...

pool fans can stop making things up and ill let up

keane did not end haalands career, he played the very next week and retired years later with an injury to his other knee.
they gave no credance to suarez story at all.. they totally dismissed it as incredible. this isnt the first time its been brought up by pool fans when its not true.
for the 4th time ill ask for a link

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx

Please pay close attention to sections 167-176, which provides the linguistic expert's analysis of the use of the word "negro" within South American communities. Pay special attention to the following passage, which i will quote directly:

"Though these terms are often used between friends or relatives, they are not used exclusively so; thus, an individual might call out to a passer-by "ay, negro, queres jugar con nosotros?" [hey, blackie, do you want to play with us?]" in all cases, however, when the word is used in this way it implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such rapport; naturally, if the term were used with a sneer, then it might carry some of the negative connotations referred to above."

At the start to this section, in section 165, it says that "The experts made their observations on the premise that in each case the statement made by the player in question was an accurate retelling of the events that took place." Using this basis, under Evra's description of events, they agreed that Suarez's usage of the word "negro" would be considered racist. The experts continued on to say that under Suarez's account of events, the usage of the term would be, as Suarez claimed, non-offensive, or even "an attempt at conciliation and/or to establish rapport." The section goes on to conclude that "If Mr Suarez used the word 'negro' as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally"

Furthermore, the same linguistic experts said that Suarez's account "sounded right linguistically and culturally" according to his background, as in the language he claimed to have used (unlike the language Evra claimed Suarez used) was accurate for his background. This is fairly obvious, as Suarez would not make regional mistakes in his own depiction of his use of Spanish, but also further indicates that the linguistic experts did not find inconsistencies in his account.

Finally, the linguistic experts said that a term Evra used - "sudamericano" - could very easily have been interpreted by Suarez as derogatory, and in fact would be considered so whether using Spanish or South American dialects if the circumstances surrounding it are correct. AKA Evra did something equally reprehensible, if the testimony by the experts is held in equal weight on either side.

If you need any more citations, let me know, I'll happily do your research for you again. But in the meantime, please follow through with your promise that you would shut the **** up when proven wrong. It just happened.

breakdown...
if suarez was telling the truth... he wouldnt say phrases inaccurately in his own tongue.
thats it? thats nothing lol

Suarez told Cormolli and Kuyt about the incident (in different languages) after the game. They both reported what he said to the ref. Suarez changed his story (relating to him saying "Because you are Black") and claimed that both Cormolli and Kuyt must have misunderstood him. Odd that they both came up with the same phrase in different languages and in both cases this was a mistake of some sort. When subsequently asked about what they were told both said that they were sure they must have misheard.


Then there's the 'conciliatory pinching' (which counsel had to retract) - Kuyt's fictional account of what Evra had said to the ref (it didn't match the accounts given by Evra and the ref - which dovetailed), etc, etc.