Suarez found guilty of Racism by FA

First topic message reminder :

The Football Association says it will investigate claims from Manchester United defender Patrice Evra that he was racially abused by Liverpool forward Luis Suarez.

Evra says the incident occurred in Saturday's 1-1 draw between the teams.

A Liverpool spokesman said Suarez "categorically denied" the allegation.

An FA statement read: "Referee Andre Marriner was made aware of an allegation at the end of the fixture and has reported this to the FA."

It added: "The FA will now begin making enquiries into the matter."

Evra was quoted as telling French TV station Canal Plus: "There are cameras, you can see him [Suarez] say a certain word to me at least 10 times."

Source: BBC Sport Football

One more idiotic before I go ^

Liverpool have not dropped anything. They have queried in their statement as to whether Evra will be charged for something that he admitted to saying. They have made no further comment since, and it remains in their original statement. Why you are arguing this when it is cut and dry is beyond me.

Evra gave evidence in the hearing re the confrontation with the Chelsea ground staff in 2008. His evidence was found to be 'unrealible and exaggerated'. This is fact. You need to get those right, else you'll look foolish. What you are talking in seems to be some sort of cowpat. Evra was suspended for 4 games by the way. No idea what for, but anyway.

Suarez admitted 'to calling Evra something all his teammates call him'. Nobody on this forum knows what that is, stop pretending you do and if you believe anything that is printed in papers then you're even more niave than your coming across. Wait until the report comes out ffs. Please.

Cases tend to suceed when well prepared? So every civil and/or criminal case that he been overturned on appeal has been due to poor preparation? Are you a lawyer? Judge? Or talking sh!te again?

VivaPaulScholes wrote:I don't know unlike you I was not invited as a special guest to the hearing so I wouldn't know if it was Evras word or they had furthur evidnece. So I won't come up with Love sacks like I know when I don't. But what I do know is that Suarez has been fined and is branded a racist not by me but others.

If the case was dropped because it was Evras word against Suarez would you Liverpool fans still be saying what you are now or would you change it to your suiting?

I'm not making a decision about Suarez until the FA release their statement. If as has been reported he did say something racist to Evra and there is proof then fair enough he should get a longer ban but from what has come out so far it appears that it is only Evra's word against Suarez's and given that Evra has made claims in the past which have been not proven I can't see how the FA can find him guilty with no evidence so I have to presume that there is proof otherwise.
What is clear though is that either Liverpool FC or the FA are going to look stupid once the report is released, LFC if there is proof after claiming the FA only had Evra's word for what was said or the FA if there is no evidence whatsoever.

The football public need to be told what word was alledly used.......and how many times was it allegdly used and in what context...............

It must have been a very short word if, according to Evra" it was used "at least 10 times"........................

At the moment all we can do is surmise...........personally i think this is political correctness gone mad and i cant for the life of me think that whatever he said was deserving of an 8 game ban.................

John Cregan wrote:The football public need to be told what word was alledly used.......and how many times was it allegdly used and in what context...............

It must have been a very short word if, according to Evra" it was used "at least 10 times"........................

At the moment all we can do is surmise...........personally i think this is political correctness gone mad and i cant for the life of me think that whatever he said was deserving of an 8 game ban.................

The strange thing is Evra claimed that Suarez was caught on camera using a certain word at least 10 times so where is the footage of this? Terry's footage is still being shown now so if there is any of Suarez why hasn't any media got hold of it?

Suarez uses word that apparently the Man Utd team use regularly when speaking to Evra and no-one suggests that Man Utd may need to have a quiet word with their own players? This is like parents using bad language and then getting upset when their children come out with the same comments. If you use certain language, those around you who may not know any better will believe it to be acceptable and follow your example.

Suarez hears this and thinks, "Oh it must be OK, his team-mates say the same thing to him."

Ultimately Suarez SHOULD have considered whether or not his use of the word to Evra would have caused offence but he can't be deemed to be a racist when he sees/hears other people using the same word without it causing offence to the same player.

I believe the F.A. are looking for a scapegoat though and they've chosen Suarez. It will be interesting to see whether or not the F.A. take any further action against John Terry once his case has been dealt with a court but I somehow doubt it.

Ironic that a player can kick another one in an unprovoked/petulant attack and only receive a two match ban or that players can hurl verbal abuse and profanity at match officials yet escape without punishment when, if they behaved like that in the street, they'd be arrested.

Seems the F.A. lack the desire, inclination, ability or bottle to challenge cheating, diving, abuse of officials and a general lack of respect for the ethos of the sport and have instead decided to make 'amends' on a very emotive topic.

liverpool fc coming under fire today for the shirts they wore in the warm ups last night, and apparently Dalglish was wearing one as well.

now before people get all dramatic, im not saying it was wrong, but what do people think aobut this?

Personally I don't see anything wrong with it. LFC staff and players know what is in the FA's report and obviously don't agree with it and as they know Suarez better than anyone else in English football should be allowed to show their support for him and if that's the way they choose to do it then so be it. No doubt the FA will disapprove and end up fining LFC though

Liverpool's choice to wear Suarez t-shirts was baffling, badly-advised, a touch classless, and a wasted opportunity. They should have wore anti racism t-shirts, but chose not to.

Bet if the shoe was on the other foot all the liverpool fans would be up in arms. Imagine if it was rooney we would never hear the end of it from them! The difference being id slag rooney off even as a united fan. Liverpool fans wont, dont know if anyone has seen the twitter stuff but the obuse stan collymore has received is not acceptable, not saying all liverpool fans are like this but defending suarez certainly doesnt help

To the guys saying Evra has made false claims about racism before, can you lot please show the evidence?

He was banned for 4 games after making the false allegations by the FA.

Look at Fergie's recent quotes.

Ups just realised that comment was made from October

not saying all liverpool fans are like this but defending suarez certainly doesnt help

You aren't being very objective here, Liverpool fans don't believe he has said something racist, the FA have only gone by Evra's word and nothing else. Of course they would defend their best player in that position.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

To the guys saying Evra has made false claims about racism before, can you lot please show the evidence?

He was banned for 4 games after making the false allegations by the FA.

Look at Fergie's recent quotes.

No he wasn't. He was banned for 4 games for attacking a Chelsea groundsman-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1092350/Evras-game-ban-riles-Fergie-United-star-pays-Chelsea-brawl.html
http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/434189-evra-banned-for-four-games

From what has been reported so far Suarez admitted he either
(a) Said something that is not deemed to be racist in Uruguay and/or
(b) Said something that Evra's team mates call him
If it is only the former then the punishment is probably justified even though he meant it in another context but if it is something that some or all United players call Evra then it is totally unacceptable to find him guilty of racism.
Just because it comes from players in the same team doesn't make it right, if anything it's a lot worse because Evra knows he just has to accept it from them and can't complain to the FA or anyone.

seems this one rumbles on, not sure swearing at the camera is worse than swearing at the fans but thats the fa for you.

on the whole something his team mates called him issue the point that liverpool are not getting is the context it was said in. for example it may well be true say for instance rio calls evra a n*$%^r in a joking way that he's knows evra wont take offence to, we see it often enough in music these days. the difference was suarez said it to cause evra offence during a arguement. he meant to offend him by saying it, and therefore should be punished. not saying running round in calling people that name is right but theres certainly a difference context to the different circumstances

compelling and rich wrote:seems this one rumbles on, not sure swearing at the camera is worse than swearing at the fans but thats the fa for you.

on the whole something his team mates called him issue the point that liverpool are not getting is the context it was said in. for example it may well be true say for instance rio calls evra a n*$%^r in a joking way that he's knows evra wont take offence to, we see it often enough in music these days. the difference was suarez said it to cause evra offence during a arguement. he meant to offend him by saying it, and therefore should be punished. not saying running round in calling people that name is right but theres certainly a difference context to the different circumstances

I'm not sure the Ferdinand analogy you used is accurate here. To put it a different way, your setting it up almost like the Prince Harry case, where he was calling his friend a 'person of Asian descent' (without causing offence) and then imagining a third person (Suarez) hearing this and calling PH's friend that in a derogetry manner and saying I thought it was fine because I heard Prince Harry saying it to him.

This is not like that in my opinion. If it was that simple Liverpool would not back him so defiantly and neither
would Suarez's native FA (because he is so obviously in the wrong). Neither would it take a massive (allegedly 50 page) report, a month in the making to justify the FAs' position. It's a far too simplistic view of things I'm afraid.

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

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

Just read through some of it. Seems Suarez admits calling Evra a 'negro'. All else is window dressing, you can't do that in this country in our game. Sorry.

In point of fact, if the following is true Suarez has got off EXTREMELY lightly:

Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie".

Liverpool sure look classy now.

Remind me who was talking 'Poopie'.

I'd like to know why only Kuyt was asked to provide evidence from Liverpool yet several players from United where asked, also how can Ferguson, Dowd and some clown from french tv give evidence?

hampo171 wrote:I'd like to know why only Kuyt was asked to provide evidence from Liverpool yet several players from United where asked, also how can Ferguson, Dowd and some clown from french tv give evidence?

It seems strange how a Spanish goalkeeper who, from what is in the report, was only 2 or 3 yards away from Evra and Suarez didn't hear a single word. If Suarez had said it at least 5 times surely De Gea would have heard it at least once.

Also it appears Evra took offence to being fouled and started the whole thing firstly by saying something insulting to Suarez then threatening to punch Suarez.

The FA seem to have only made their decision from Evra's word alone. Evra's evidence was that he thought what Suarez said was racist but changed his mind half way through as he isn't fluent in Spanish. How can the FA, from their own admission, make a decision like that on "probability" and not real evidence? There is a part in the report that says 'it isn't upto Suarez to prove he hasn't breached rule E3(1)/(2), it's only upto the FA to prove within all probability that he did" which means that his evidence was dismissed as if the FA had accepted his claims that it was taken out of context the FA admit there is no way he could have been found guilty

No wonder this case isn't being investigated by the Police/CPS because they know there is reasonable doubt and they wouldn't get a guilty verdict in court i.e. the FA have only gone on Evra's word and probability rather than facts

I've not read all of it, I saw it posted on a West Brom forum where the pages highlighted were 98-100.

There does seem to be a fair amount of assumption from the FA however with Suarez admitting to saying he kicked Evra because he was black, it is fair to see where this assumption has come from.

Evra said that Suarez said he kicked him because he was black, Suarez said it was a normal foul and shrugged his shoulders.

Evra could and should have, when asked by the referee, said who racially abused him but didn't and after the match admitted he couldn't remember what word(s) Suarez used until he was referee's room. If Suarez's evidence is inconsistent then the more I read Evra's is just as bad.

Just read the report- its damn long

As a neutral its pretty obvious the FA have come to the right decision.

amritia3ee wrote:Just read the report- its damn long

As a neutral its pretty obvious the FA have come to the right decision.

i think pretty much to everyone bar liverpool fans the right decision has been made, just suprised liverpool fans still defending him. sad

I haven't seen any Liverpool players defending him, all that has happened is that Liverpool players are questioning certain facts about it, it's also the belief of the club that Suarez isn't a racist, so it's not like Liverpool fans are getting these beliefs from no where, at the moment it is still a debate rather than being concluded.

I read most of that report, getting a bit bored towards the end where it kind of repeated itself, but it does look a lot like they have taken Evra's evidence only, no other evidence in there even claims that Suarez did that. They claim that Evra's account of events is more reliable than Suarez'. But you cannot punish on account of his word versus mine and then just deciding who sounds like they're telling the truth.

Luis Suarez may have said those things, I am not denying that, but there seems very little ACTUAL evidence that he did, and it doesn't seem to make sense considering who he is and he has absolutely NO history of racism, despite playing with and against black players for his entire career.

The only other evidence that seemed to be used was that Patrice Evra told other people that he was called black, and that he was unhappy in the dressing room. That surely isn't a good enough reason to actually punish somebody?

Like braveheart101 said, if this was in court and being prosecuted by the CPS there would have been no punishment as it has been far from proven, which means it's a travesty that the FA seems to have said that the law is wrong and that we should punish people if they said it's likely, that is ridiculous!

I want to see a hard stance on racism, but this case is not the place to do it. This will open a huge can of worms now of accusing players of calling them black. We see enough of players trying to get players of sent off on the pitch, now we're going to see them trying to get them banned off of it with accusations of racism knowing that after an argument as long as they act like they have been called black and nobody else heard it, apparently that's enough to get a hefty fine and ban.

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:I want to see a hard stance on racism, but this case is not the place to do it. This will open a huge can of worms now of accusing players of calling them black. We see enough of players trying to get players of sent off on the pitch, now we're going to see them trying to get them banned off of it with accusations of racism knowing that after an argument as long as they act like they have been called black and nobody else heard it, apparently that's enough to get a hefty fine and ban.

You're implying that now if a black player has an argument, he's going to come off the field claiming racism? I doubt it. Trying to get someone sent off by feigning injury is one thing. Walking off the pitch, having to complete a report, be interviewed by the FA, possibly the Police and deal with the media is another.

Atila wrote:

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:I want to see a hard stance on racism, but this case is not the place to do it. This will open a huge can of worms now of accusing players of calling them black. We see enough of players trying to get players of sent off on the pitch, now we're going to see them trying to get them banned off of it with accusations of racism knowing that after an argument as long as they act like they have been called black and nobody else heard it, apparently that's enough to get a hefty fine and ban.

You're implying that now if a black player has an argument, he's going to come off the field claiming racism? I doubt it. Trying to get someone sent off by feigning injury is one thing. Walking off the pitch, having to complete a report, be interviewed by the FA, possibly the Police and deal with the media is another.

I didn't say he would, but it certainly has opened the doors for that kind of thing.

Homer's response to Suarez racist taunt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLVJm7QW3dA

It's pretty funny with the Man U. trolls coming out to talk smack about Suarez, and I don't even like Liverpool. Most of you would not even care if it was a Swansea or Norwich player being accused of racism, but because it's a Liverpool player....

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Homer's response to Suarez racist taunt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLVJm7QW3dA

lol

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:I haven't seen any Liverpool players defending him, all that has happened is that Liverpool players are questioning certain facts about it, it's also the belief of the club that Suarez isn't a racist, so it's not like Liverpool fans are getting these beliefs from no where, at the moment it is still a debate rather than being concluded.

I read most of that report, getting a bit bored towards the end where it kind of repeated itself, but it does look a lot like they have taken Evra's evidence only, no other evidence in there even claims that Suarez did that. They claim that Evra's account of events is more reliable than Suarez'. But you cannot punish on account of his word versus mine and then just deciding who sounds like they're telling the truth.

Luis Suarez may have said those things, I am not denying that, but there seems very little ACTUAL evidence that he did, and it doesn't seem to make sense considering who he is and he has absolutely NO history of racism, despite playing with and against black players for his entire career.

The only other evidence that seemed to be used was that Patrice Evra told other people that he was called black, and that he was unhappy in the dressing room. That surely isn't a good enough reason to actually punish somebody?

Like braveheart101 said, if this was in court and being prosecuted by the CPS there would have been no punishment as it has been far from proven, which means it's a travesty that the FA seems to have said that the law is wrong and that we should punish people if they said it's likely, that is ridiculous!

I want to see a hard stance on racism, but this case is not the place to do it. This will open a huge can of worms now of accusing players of calling them black. We see enough of players trying to get players of sent off on the pitch, now we're going to see them trying to get them banned off of it with accusations of racism knowing that after an argument as long as they act like they have been called black and nobody else heard it, apparently that's enough to get a hefty fine and ban.

Sorry, but you're fundamentally wrong. You're assuming that "beyond reasonable doubt" applies to all procedings, when it doesn't. "Preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. the court thinks he probably did it) is actually applicable in most civil courts. Indeed, this is neither a civil or a criminal court, so the FA can apply whatever burden they want.

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

My main issue is that the only evidence appears to be Evra's word against Suarez' word.

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:My main issue is that the only evidence appears to be Evra's word against Suarez' word.

The commission have said quite openly that Suarez's evidence was inconsistent and questionably delivered. If you have one person with a solid & consistent story who delivers it clearly and consisely and someone who, in the opinion of an experienced QC, doesn't have a consistent story and delivers it in a questionable fashion then most people would concede that under the burdern of evidence of "on the balance of probabilities" the first person's story is likely correct (indeed, we all encounter these situations in day-to-day life, especially if you have two children). This is the burden the FA were under and the commission considers that burden met.

It seems that nothing will satisfy you on this matter, even the findings of an experienced and independent panel. I'm sure its all a conspiracy against Liverpool though.

Look of course some Liverpool fans will defend Suarez and some Manchester United fans will want an even bigger ban for him. That is life.

But as neutral it's pretty clear that Suarez got the punishment he deserved. Also, its ok for Liverpool fans to be complaining, but seriously the club themselves, LFC acting in this manner is wrong. They should withdraw their statement and it would be disgraceful appeal now.

slyadams wrote:

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:My main issue is that the only evidence appears to be Evra's word against Suarez' word.

The commission have said quite openly that Suarez's evidence was inconsistent and questionably delivered. If you have one person with a solid & consistent story who delivers it clearly and consisely and someone who, in the opinion of an experienced QC, doesn't have a consistent story and delivers it in a questionable fashion then most people would concede that under the burdern of evidence of "on the balance of probabilities" the first person's story is likely correct (indeed, we all encounter these situations in day-to-day life, especially if you have two children). This is the burden the FA were under and the commission considers that burden met.

It seems that nothing will satisfy you on this matter, even the findings of an experienced and independent panel. I'm sure its all a conspiracy against Liverpool though.

Evra's story changes the more you read of the FA's report so how is his evidence consistent?
He firstly claims that Suarez called him the 'n' word several times then changed his story to being called black and after the game he admitted to Nani he couldn't remember what word was used until he spoke so Sir Alex and then the referee when he finally made a complaint. If he had a problem with what was said why didn't he tell the referee at the time who he was referring to when he complained about being racially abused?

Seeing as this isn't a legal case why has nobody seen this withheld video footage of the incident? Is it because there is no footage or because the footage the FA used can't prove what was or wasn't said?

Why wasn't De Gea called to give any evidence? For the only Spaniard that was within 5 yards of the incident not to have heard what Suarez said at least once in a 2 minute period is ridiculous seeing as it appears to have been in an argument so there would have been raised voices from both players


The FA said that 'it isn't upto Mr Suarez to prove he didn't contravene 2 rules only for the FA to prove he probably did' meaning all Suarez's evidence was never going to be taken seriously.

How many people in life if threatened by a coloured person wouldn't use abusive and/or racist language in the heat of an argument or fight. Seems that Evra can use whatever language he wants to Suarez or any white person but get away with it because it isn't deemed racist but only abusive

I'm sorry braveheart you haven't understood the report. Have you read the whole thing carefully?
If you have you can pick out these points:
-He says he has been called 'negro' but was only told that this means 'black' not n*****r later.
-The footage was described thoroughly in the report- have you read it? Some parts were seen, some not. Read the report.
- It specifically explains in the report why De Gea couldn't hear them. And he was interviewed to give evdence. Have you really read the report???

-

Look I'm completely neutral here, but it appears that braveheart has not read the report fully. I would go through the whole thing- but its 100+pages.

Yes I have read all of the report.
My points are
Evra admitted he didn't know what word was used, so how can he later say he was racially abused?
Evra by his own admission isn't fluent in Spanish so how does he know what context the word was used in?
How can the FA accept that De Gea didn't hear anything racist when he was no more than 5 yards away?
Why didn't Evra inform the referee who racially abused him instead of just saying 'ref he called me a n****r'
Why was Suarez not able to prove his innocence?
Why can the FA base their decision on probability and not fact?
Why can the FA choose to believe one player over another?

I think it's clear that if Evra's version of events is true, Suarez deserves the ban.

The FA have said that if Suarez was telling the truth then he is innocent.

Quote

The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez's account as follows. 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.


I really don't know how they can throw down a near 1/4 season ban based on one player (previously guilty of exaggeration) and his word.

TechInept wrote:I think it's clear that if Evra's version of events is true, Suarez deserves the ban.

The FA have said that if Suarez was telling the truth then he is innocent.

Quote

The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez's account as follows. 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.


I really don't know how they can throw down a near 1/4 season ban based on one player (previously guilty of exaggeration) and his word.

If these independent experts are to be believed and the word 'negro' is not deemed to be offensive and/or racist in South America how can the FA come to the conclusion Suarez used it in a racist way?
As a non Spanish speaking country it cannot be taken out of context therefore Suarez cannot be guilty of racism and only be judged by the word of a non-fluent (by his own admission) Spanish speaking Frenchman.

The point is the FA have stated that 'Suarez has damaged the image of English football worldwide' after these allegations were made and as a result had to be seen to inflict as severe a penalty as possible so they look as if they will not tolerate racism in any way. If that is the case then do the FA not think they should have dealt with the John Terry case before or at the same time as the Suarez one seeing as he is England Captain or has that been swept under the carpet and forgotten about by the FA and only left for the CPS to deal with through the courts

amritia3ee wrote:I'm sorry braveheart you haven't understood the report. Have you read the whole thing carefully?
If you have you can pick out these points:
-He says he has been called 'negro' but was only told that this means 'black' not n*****r later.
-The footage was described thoroughly in the report- have you read it? Some parts were seen, some not. Read the report.
- It specifically explains in the report why De Gea couldn't hear them. And he was interviewed to give evdence. Have you really read the report???

-

There is no public tv footage. Why is that? After the Terry case there were clips all over the internet within hours and in the media but there has been none of the Suarez case.

De Gea did not give evidence at the hearing so whatever he said in any interview should be irrelevant.

Evra has admitted he did not know what 'negro' meant and after the match couldn't even remember what word was used, is that consistent and reliable evidence.

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:I haven't seen any Liverpool players defending him, all that has happened is that Liverpool players are questioning certain facts about it, it's also the belief of the club that Suarez isn't a racist, so it's not like Liverpool fans are getting these beliefs from no where, at the moment it is still a debate rather than being concluded.

I read most of that report, getting a bit bored towards the end where it kind of repeated itself, but it does look a lot like they have taken Evra's evidence only, no other evidence in there even claims that Suarez did that. They claim that Evra's account of events is more reliable than Suarez'. But you cannot punish on account of his word versus mine and then just deciding who sounds like they're telling the truth.

Luis Suarez may have said those things, I am not denying that, but there seems very little ACTUAL evidence that he did, and it doesn't seem to make sense considering who he is and he has absolutely NO history of racism, despite playing with and against black players for his entire career.

The only other evidence that seemed to be used was that Patrice Evra told other people that he was called black, and that he was unhappy in the dressing room. That surely isn't a good enough reason to actually punish somebody?

Like braveheart101 said, if this was in court and being prosecuted by the CPS there would have been no punishment as it has been far from proven, which means it's a travesty that the FA seems to have said that the law is wrong and that we should punish people if they said it's likely, that is ridiculous!

I want to see a hard stance on racism, but this case is not the place to do it. This will open a huge can of worms now of accusing players of calling them black. We see enough of players trying to get players of sent off on the pitch, now we're going to see them trying to get them banned off of it with accusations of racism knowing that after an argument as long as they act like they have been called black and nobody else heard it, apparently that's enough to get a hefty fine and ban.

i hate to admit this but i'm with liverpool on this one, in my opinion i think the fa stamped their foot but not on the ground but through the ground and onto heavy metal spikes, i just hope that this is argued in court of arbitration of sport

braveheart101 wrote:Yes I have read all of the report.
My points are
Evra admitted he didn't know what word was used, so how can he later say he was racially abused?
Evra by his own admission isn't fluent in Spanish so how does he know what context the word was used in?
How can the FA accept that De Gea didn't hear anything racist when he was no more than 5 yards away?
Why didn't Evra inform the referee who racially abused him instead of just saying 'ref he called me a n****r'
Why was Suarez not able to prove his innocence?
Why can the FA base their decision on probability and not fact?
Why can the FA choose to believe one player over another?

i think it's corruption

Again i raise my point. Liverppol fans popping on here defending Suarez even though he has been CONVICTED of Racial Abuse. Guys, the report has been released, he has been found guilty, he has been fined £20,000, he has been given an 8 match ban. End of the day it has been done, simple.. He will serve his punishment and then start playing again. Why are you all on here nuthugging him? He has been convicted. He is guilty. Whether you like it or not. GET OVER IT!

d260005p wrote:Again i raise my point. Liverppol fans popping on here defending Suarez even though he has been CONVICTED of Racial Abuse. Guys, the report has been released, he has been found guilty, he has been fined £20,000, he has been given an 8 match ban. End of the day it has been done, simple.. He will serve his punishment and then start playing again. Why are you all on here nuthugging him? He has been convicted. He is guilty. Whether you like it or not. GET OVER IT!

?????????????????

remember the fa gave liverpool 2 weeks to appeal the decision, he was convicted but unfairly and unjustly

But has he been convicted??!! YES. How is it unfairly and unjustly? It obviously isnt. And like i said, the sooner people get over it the better.

d260005p wrote:But has he been convicted??!! YES. How is it unfairly and unjustly? It obviously isnt. And like i said, the sooner people get over it the better.

well they judged his evidence to be unreliable without any reason

like i said

corruption

Who did? The FA? If the FA have said it is unreliable then why punish him? That makes no sense and not once have a seen the FA come out and say "Errrr yeh, the evidence is unreliable and without reason, therefore we are banning SUAREZ for 8 games and whacking a fine on top of that"

Have you honestly heard that? If you have and i have not then i will apologize