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

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

johnson2 wrote: In this instance the FA's system has worked better because Suarez is clearly a racist.

Well we don't know whether he is a 'racist' but we're pretty sure he said racist things that were racially offensive so I'll have to agree with you that the FA's system was better suited to this case.

If I punch someone in the face without provocation then I am a violent person. Suarez is a racist plain and simple.

If a white player had said what Evra said about Suarez's sister and threatening to punch him he could/should be charged with inciting racism but Evra can say anything to anyone and get away with it because they are white

Not quite. If Evra had referred to Suarez or his sisters race then he could be quite rightly charged with inciting racism. Suarez should have been warned that he should not speak to black people in his cultural way as although accepted in his country and bizarrely viewed as a term of endearment in some quarters, it is not the same here.

This is complete fabrication by Suarez apologists. The term Suarez used can be both offensive and used to build a rapport. Telling someone you wont speak to them because he is black and pinching him is clearly on the offensive side of the word.

The report only says that is Evra's version of events not Suarez's and you have obviously decided to believe him and nobody else not even the FA

johnson2 wrote:

Y I Man wrote:

Macclads wrote:Liverpool have said they will not appeal against the decision and Suarez's ban is now immediate.

I take it they have received the evidence used by the FA (which the FA said would take 2 weeks or so to get to them)

Yes, but they dont accept Suarez is a racist. They dont want to undermine the FA's effort to stamp out racism to are happy for Suarez to be banned for 8 games to help this.

I dont believe Suarez is a racist. Saying racist things and being racist are two different things.

Liverpool as a football club handled this very badly and Dalglish should seriously consider his position in all this. Also anyone see Glen Johnson leaving in the summer?

braveheart101 wrote:The report only says that is Evra's version of events not Suarez's and you have obviously decided to believe him and nobody else not even the FA

Because they found him unreliable. In other words, a liar.

Fair play though, still sticking by his side.

braveheart101 wrote:The report only says that is Evra's version of events not Suarez's and you have obviously decided to believe him and nobody else not even the FA

Suarez didn't deny saying it. In fant he accepted that he did say the racist words.

azania wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

Y I Man wrote:

Macclads wrote:Liverpool have said they will not appeal against the decision and Suarez's ban is now immediate.

I take it they have received the evidence used by the FA (which the FA said would take 2 weeks or so to get to them)

Yes, but they dont accept Suarez is a racist. They dont want to undermine the FA's effort to stamp out racism to are happy for Suarez to be banned for 8 games to help this.

I dont believe Suarez is a racist. Saying racist things and being racist are two different things.

Liverpool as a football club handled this very badly and Dalglish should seriously consider his position in all this. Also anyone see Glen Johnson leaving in the summer?

Depends on the context. Telling someone you wont speak to them becasue they are black is racist. Pinching his skin is racist. Telling a racist joke is not.

Suarez is clearly a racist. I am really shocked that people argue this.

johnson2 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

johnson2 wrote: In this instance the FA's system has worked better because Suarez is clearly a racist.

Well we don't know whether he is a 'racist' but we're pretty sure he said racist things that were racially offensive so I'll have to agree with you that the FA's system was better suited to this case.

If I punch someone in the face without provocation then I am a violent person. Suarez is a racist plain and simple.

If a white player had said what Evra said about Suarez's sister and threatening to punch him he could/should be charged with inciting racism but Evra can say anything to anyone and get away with it because they are white

Not quite. If Evra had referred to Suarez or his sisters race then he could be quite rightly charged with inciting racism. Suarez should have been warned that he should not speak to black people in his cultural way as although accepted in his country and bizarrely viewed as a term of endearment in some quarters, it is not the same here.

This is complete fabrication by Suarez apologists. The term Suarez used can be both offensive and used to build a rapport. Telling someone you wont speak to them because he is black and pinching him is clearly on the offensive side of the word.

Well in fairness Johnson in that instance it is Suarez's word against Evra's. He did admit to using the word which indicates that he may view black people in a negative way but does not admit that he said he does not speak to blacks, and there is no independent witness that confirms that he says this either unless I've missed it.

Where in the 115 pages does Suarez admit pinching Evra?
He admitted saying it only once not 5 or 10 times

Evra's evidence says that he said it 10 times then only 5 times and didn't know what word was used.
He said the complained to the referee on the pitch but nobody heard him.
He admits he changed his version from being called a n****r to being called black
Nobody else heard what Suarez said

Is that creditable evidence?

It was only decided by Evra's word against Suarez's nothing else

johnson2 wrote:

azania wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

Y I Man wrote:

Macclads wrote:Liverpool have said they will not appeal against the decision and Suarez's ban is now immediate.

I take it they have received the evidence used by the FA (which the FA said would take 2 weeks or so to get to them)

Yes, but they dont accept Suarez is a racist. They dont want to undermine the FA's effort to stamp out racism to are happy for Suarez to be banned for 8 games to help this.

I dont believe Suarez is a racist. Saying racist things and being racist are two different things.

Liverpool as a football club handled this very badly and Dalglish should seriously consider his position in all this. Also anyone see Glen Johnson leaving in the summer?

Depends on the context. Telling someone you wont speak to them becasue they are black is racist. Pinching his skin is racist. Telling a racist joke is not.

Suarez is clearly a racist. I am really shocked that people argue this.

I wont argue the point too much but defer to Evra who said that Suarez was no racist. But it could well be that he was trying to lessen the impact. Either way, the ban is fair and deserved.

braveheart101 wrote:Where in the 115 pages does Suarez admit pinching Evra?
He admitted saying it only once not 5 or 10 times

Evra's evidence says that he said it 10 times then only 5 times and didn't know what word was used.
He said the complained to the referee on the pitch but nobody heard him.
He admits he changed his version from being called a n****r to being called black
Nobody else heard what Suarez said

Is that creditable evidence?

It was only decided by Evra's word against Suarez's nothing else

But the point is Suarez did use the word and it is deemed that he probably used it in an offensive way and not for conciliation. If you are trying to conciliate with someone would it help matters if you referred to their colour?

If as you say there were in a heated argument would there not have been raised voices therefore meaning other players would have heard it as well but nobody did

braveheart101 wrote:Where in the 115 pages does Suarez admit pinching Evra?
He admitted saying it only once not 5 or 10 times

Evra's evidence says that he said it 10 times then only 5 times and didn't know what word was used.
He said the complained to the referee on the pitch but nobody heard him.
He admits he changed his version from being called a n****r to being called black
Nobody else heard what Suarez said

Is that creditable evidence?

It was only decided by Evra's word against Suarez's nothing else

It was shown on sky sports news earlier when they went through the report. In fact it was highlighted with the pinching encircled.

braveheart101 wrote:If as you say there were in a heated argument would there not have been raised voices therefore meaning other players would have heard it as well but nobody did

Well if Suarez called Evra something racist he wouldn't have said it loudly lol

braveheart101 wrote:If as you say there were in a heated argument would there not have been raised voices therefore meaning other players would have heard it as well but nobody did

Now you are trying to build your own story outside of the evidence. Be impartial and objective.

Anyway I think my fair and balance assessment I posted around 7 posts above sums up everything you need to know.

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Where in the 115 pages does Suarez admit pinching Evra?
He admitted saying it only once not 5 or 10 times

Evra's evidence says that he said it 10 times then only 5 times and didn't know what word was used.
He said the complained to the referee on the pitch but nobody heard him.
He admits he changed his version from being called a n****r to being called black
Nobody else heard what Suarez said

Is that creditable evidence?

It was only decided by Evra's word against Suarez's nothing else

But the point is Suarez did use the word and it is deemed that he probably used it in an offensive way and not for conciliation. If you are trying to conciliate with someone would it help matters if you referred to their colour?

By his admission only once and in a non offensive way. As it is everyone will choose who they want to believe and the majority will believe Evra. I'd rather make a decision on proper evidence not he says she says nonsense but there won't be any made public. If there was proof I'd change my mind and say ban him for at least 12 months but that won't happen.
I wonder if all these anti Suarez posters will make the same decision about the Terry case where there is public video footage or defend him because he plays for Chelsea because he's England captain.

By his admission only once and in a non offensive way. As it is everyone will choose who they want to believe and the majority will believe Evra. I'd rather make a decision on proper evidence not he says she says nonsense but there won't be any made public. If there was proof I'd change my mind and say ban him for at least 12 months but that won't happen.
I wonder if all these anti Suarez posters will make the same decision about the Terry case where there is public video footage or defend him because he plays for Chelsea because he's England captain..

That's exactly what the FA did.

I cant for the life of me see how someone can repeatedly make derogatory remarks about someone elses ethnicity and claim it to be non offensive. And even go on to pinch his skin to emphasise that he was referring to his skin colour in a derogatory manner.

Thankfully I'm no Chelsea fan, Liverpool or Manure fan. SO if Terry is guilty of calling Ferdinant a black C, then he should be banned from representing England at least.

braveheart101 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Where in the 115 pages does Suarez admit pinching Evra?
He admitted saying it only once not 5 or 10 times

Evra's evidence says that he said it 10 times then only 5 times and didn't know what word was used.
He said the complained to the referee on the pitch but nobody heard him.
He admits he changed his version from being called a n****r to being called black
Nobody else heard what Suarez said

Is that creditable evidence?

It was only decided by Evra's word against Suarez's nothing else

But the point is Suarez did use the word and it is deemed that he probably used it in an offensive way and not for conciliation. If you are trying to conciliate with someone would it help matters if you referred to their colour?

By his admission only once and in a non offensive way. As it is everyone will choose who they want to believe and the majority will believe Evra. I'd rather make a decision on proper evidence not he says she says nonsense but there won't be any made public. If there was proof I'd change my mind and say ban him for at least 12 months but that won't happen.
I wonder if all these anti Suarez posters will make the same decision about the Terry case where there is public video footage or defend him because he plays for Chelsea because he's England captain.

Of course people will defend him, probably using a similar illogical argument like you are doing in teh Suarez case depite the overwhelming evidence presented to you.

azania wrote:

By his admission only once and in a non offensive way. As it is everyone will choose who they want to believe and the majority will believe Evra. I'd rather make a decision on proper evidence not he says she says nonsense but there won't be any made public. If there was proof I'd change my mind and say ban him for at least 12 months but that won't happen.
I wonder if all these anti Suarez posters will make the same decision about the Terry case where there is public video footage or defend him because he plays for Chelsea because he's England captain..

That's exactly what the FA did.

I cant for the life of me see how someone can repeatedly make derogatory remarks about someone elses ethnicity and claim it to be non offensive. And even go on to pinch his skin to emphasise that he was referring to his skin colour in a derogatory manner.

Thankfully I'm no Chelsea fan, Liverpool or Manure fan. SO if Terry is guilty of calling Ferdinant a black C, then he should be banned from representing England at least.

Despite the clear evidence against Terry I think he will get off with it. If Gerrard can argue self defence in his court case then Terry can get away with it as well. Money will buy him a not guilty...

johnson2 wrote:

azania wrote:

By his admission only once and in a non offensive way. As it is everyone will choose who they want to believe and the majority will believe Evra. I'd rather make a decision on proper evidence not he says she says nonsense but there won't be any made public. If there was proof I'd change my mind and say ban him for at least 12 months but that won't happen.
I wonder if all these anti Suarez posters will make the same decision about the Terry case where there is public video footage or defend him because he plays for Chelsea because he's England captain..

That's exactly what the FA did.

I cant for the life of me see how someone can repeatedly make derogatory remarks about someone elses ethnicity and claim it to be non offensive. And even go on to pinch his skin to emphasise that he was referring to his skin colour in a derogatory manner.

Thankfully I'm no Chelsea fan, Liverpool or Manure fan. SO if Terry is guilty of calling Ferdinant a black C, then he should be banned from representing England at least.

Despite the clear evidence against Terry I think he will get off with it. If Gerrard can argue self defence in his court case then Terry can get away with it as well. Money will buy him a not guilty...

Ha. The Gerrard case was presided by a 'pool fan. But this time there is very clear evidence of what he said. And he sure as hell didn't refer to Anton as bling as he claims.

azania wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

azania wrote:

By his admission only once and in a non offensive way. As it is everyone will choose who they want to believe and the majority will believe Evra. I'd rather make a decision on proper evidence not he says she says nonsense but there won't be any made public. If there was proof I'd change my mind and say ban him for at least 12 months but that won't happen.
I wonder if all these anti Suarez posters will make the same decision about the Terry case where there is public video footage or defend him because he plays for Chelsea because he's England captain..

That's exactly what the FA did.

I cant for the life of me see how someone can repeatedly make derogatory remarks about someone elses ethnicity and claim it to be non offensive. And even go on to pinch his skin to emphasise that he was referring to his skin colour in a derogatory manner.

Thankfully I'm no Chelsea fan, Liverpool or Manure fan. SO if Terry is guilty of calling Ferdinant a black C, then he should be banned from representing England at least.

Despite the clear evidence against Terry I think he will get off with it. If Gerrard can argue self defence in his court case then Terry can get away with it as well. Money will buy him a not guilty...

Ha. The Gerrard case was presided by a 'pool fan. But this time there is very clear evidence of what he said. And he sure as hell didn't refer to Anton as bling as he claims.

But Gerrard was on film too...

The fact his mates who could afford a 500k lawyer were all convicted and he wasnt speaks volumes in my opinion.

azania wrote:

By his admission only once and in a non offensive way. As it is everyone will choose who they want to believe and the majority will believe Evra. I'd rather make a decision on proper evidence not he says she says nonsense but there won't be any made public. If there was proof I'd change my mind and say ban him for at least 12 months but that won't happen.
I wonder if all these anti Suarez posters will make the same decision about the Terry case where there is public video footage or defend him because he plays for Chelsea because he's England captain..

That's exactly what the FA did.

I cant for the life of me see how someone can repeatedly make derogatory remarks about someone elses ethnicity and claim it to be non offensive. And even go on to pinch his skin to emphasise that he was referring to his skin colour in a derogatory manner.

Thankfully I'm no Chelsea fan, Liverpool or Manure fan. SO if Terry is guilty of calling Ferdinant a black C, then he should be banned from representing England at least.

No they didn't. By their own admission the FA based their decision purely on PROBABILITY.
For the last time it hasn't been proven that Suarez repeatedly used that word only Evra says he did.
If Terry is found guilty why should he get off with a lighter punishment than Suarez or anyone else

braveheart101 wrote:

azania wrote:

By his admission only once and in a non offensive way. As it is everyone will choose who they want to believe and the majority will believe Evra. I'd rather make a decision on proper evidence not he says she says nonsense but there won't be any made public. If there was proof I'd change my mind and say ban him for at least 12 months but that won't happen.
I wonder if all these anti Suarez posters will make the same decision about the Terry case where there is public video footage or defend him because he plays for Chelsea because he's England captain..

That's exactly what the FA did.

I cant for the life of me see how someone can repeatedly make derogatory remarks about someone elses ethnicity and claim it to be non offensive. And even go on to pinch his skin to emphasise that he was referring to his skin colour in a derogatory manner.

Thankfully I'm no Chelsea fan, Liverpool or Manure fan. SO if Terry is guilty of calling Ferdinant a black C, then he should be banned from representing England at least.

No they didn't. By their own admission the FA based their decision purely on PROBABILITY.
For the last time it hasn't been proven that Suarez repeatedly used that word only Evra says he did.
If Terry is found guilty why should he get off with a lighter punishment than Suarez or anyone else

Braveheart, you sound like a broken record. Despite being told REPEATEDLY that the 'balance of probabilities' is a definition of a burden of proof (used in MANY legal cases, in fact almost all civil cases) you continually use it as a stick to beat the FA with when in fact its the opposite. The balance of probabilities basically says "we're not going to lock you away for life, execute you or even imprison you thus the burden of proof is lessened". Its the same burden that parents have over children and teachers have over students etc. etc. and in truth, it rarely goes wrong. You should stop this line of defense because it makes you sound childish.

He said it once, he admitted it. All the impartial evidence from cultural 'experts' say that in the way he used it in the scenario wouldn't be considered conciliatory in Uruguay, so that argument collapses and it must therefore be seen as argumentative/aggresive and thus racist. I really don't see any argument here. No doubt you'll reply with someone you've already said above that really means nothing.

braveheart101 wrote:

azania wrote:

By his admission only once and in a non offensive way. As it is everyone will choose who they want to believe and the majority will believe Evra. I'd rather make a decision on proper evidence not he says she says nonsense but there won't be any made public. If there was proof I'd change my mind and say ban him for at least 12 months but that won't happen.
I wonder if all these anti Suarez posters will make the same decision about the Terry case where there is public video footage or defend him because he plays for Chelsea because he's England captain..

That's exactly what the FA did.

I cant for the life of me see how someone can repeatedly make derogatory remarks about someone elses ethnicity and claim it to be non offensive. And even go on to pinch his skin to emphasise that he was referring to his skin colour in a derogatory manner.

Thankfully I'm no Chelsea fan, Liverpool or Manure fan. SO if Terry is guilty of calling Ferdinant a black C, then he should be banned from representing England at least.

No they didn't. By their own admission the FA based their decision purely on PROBABILITY.
For the last time it hasn't been proven that Suarez repeatedly used that word only Evra says he did.
If Terry is found guilty why should he get off with a lighter punishment than Suarez or anyone else

Have you read my explanation- ill repeat it for the last time to make things clear-

'My official verdict: - I am fair- not fan of mu or lfc:
According to Evra Suarez said he fouled him, 'because he was black,' and also said , I don't talk to blacks,' and then 'blackie blackie blackie.'
So if we take what Evra said then Suarez IS racist and GUILTY.

According to Suarez he was talking to Evra and finished the sentence by referring him to negro- black. He says this is common in Uruguay. So if we take what Suarez said then he is NOT RACIST PERSON but COULD BE GUILTY OF RACIST CONDUCT depending on whether by calling him 'negro' Suarez was trying to be racially abusive or not. Suarez says he said it a friendly way but this is unlikely as they were in a heated argument.

When considering who to believe look at the facts. Suarez has not been involved in a racist charge before but in the heat of the moment might have said it to provoke him. The FA showed a clear example in this report when Suarez went back on his word when he said he tried to 'patch up the situation' but later admitted this was not so. Meanwhile many United players all gave consistent evidence that Evra was really furious after the game, and believed Suarez had been racist. Unless this was a big conspiracy and all the United players who gave evidence were lying there is no other reason to suggest why Evra would be so angry and then report Suarez to the FA.
Therefore on the whole the right decision has been made, and everyone apart from Liverpool fans, accept this.
I hope this balanced and fair assessment clears it up for you.'

And for the record I think Terry should get a harsher punishment than Suarez- and I think he will. 10+games atleast is what I'm thinking.

haven't really kept up with this, but I believe Evra admitted in his testemony to using racial language towards Suarez as well. If this is the case why has no action been taken against Evra, because it was only said once it would only be a one or two game ban, but it sends out a message saying if you only use racial language once its ok and theres no punishment.

hodge wrote:haven't really kept up with this, but I believe Evra admitted in his testemony to using racial language towards Suarez as well.

No he didn't.
If you read my post 2 posts up; the part in italics explains everything that is important in this case.

One last point, how can any case be judged solely on the accuser's evidence and the accused's evidence and anyone else who collaborates the acused's evidence is thrown out and completely disregarded.

In the report there is a line which says 'It is not up to Mr Suarez to prove he didn't contravene Rule E3 only for the FA to prove he did' which means that whatever happened the FA were always going to find him guilty no matter what evidence Suarez, Kuyt, Dalglish or anyone else connected with Liverpool produced.

How is that fair? Surely the case and ALL EVIDENCE, not just the evidence, has to be taken into account and not say that Suarez's evidence differs from Evra's so has to be disregarded or that Kuyt's differs from Marriner's so also has to be disregarded.

Kuyt and all the Liverpool players did not hear what had happened. What great evidence they had I don't know. They heard nothing (even though Suarez admitted he said the word negro once).
Likewise the evidence from the United players also didn't have much relevance. They commented on how furious Evra was- no one gets furious for no reason randomly.

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

azania wrote:

By his admission only once and in a non offensive way. As it is everyone will choose who they want to believe and the majority will believe Evra. I'd rather make a decision on proper evidence not he says she says nonsense but there won't be any made public. If there was proof I'd change my mind and say ban him for at least 12 months but that won't happen.
I wonder if all these anti Suarez posters will make the same decision about the Terry case where there is public video footage or defend him because he plays for Chelsea because he's England captain..

That's exactly what the FA did.

I cant for the life of me see how someone can repeatedly make derogatory remarks about someone elses ethnicity and claim it to be non offensive. And even go on to pinch his skin to emphasise that he was referring to his skin colour in a derogatory manner.

Thankfully I'm no Chelsea fan, Liverpool or Manure fan. SO if Terry is guilty of calling Ferdinant a black C, then he should be banned from representing England at least.

No they didn't. By their own admission the FA based their decision purely on PROBABILITY.
For the last time it hasn't been proven that Suarez repeatedly used that word only Evra says he did.
If Terry is found guilty why should he get off with a lighter punishment than Suarez or anyone else

Braveheart, you sound like a broken record. Despite being told REPEATEDLY that the 'balance of probabilities' is a definition of a burden of proof (used in MANY legal cases, in fact almost all civil cases) you continually use it as a stick to beat the FA with when in fact its the opposite. The balance of probabilities basically says "we're not going to lock you away for life, execute you or even imprison you thus the burden of proof is lessened". Its the same burden that parents have over children and teachers have over students etc. etc. and in truth, it rarely goes wrong. You should stop this line of defense because it makes you sound childish.

He said it once, he admitted it. All the impartial evidence from cultural 'experts' say that in the way he used it in the scenario wouldn't be considered conciliatory in Uruguay, so that argument collapses and it must therefore be seen as argumentative/aggresive and thus racist. I really don't see any argument here. No doubt you'll reply with someone you've already said above that really means nothing.

Have you actually read all 115 pages because if you did you would know those experts had their evidence disregarded as well Suarez's and Kuyt's so it wasn't taken into account when they made their decision.

On the CPS website it says that racist crime and incite to racism is very very difficult to prove and cannot be taken on the balance of probability so the FA's case is totally unfounded.

IN WHICH LEGAL CASES DO THEY NOT MAKE A DECISION BASED ON PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

amritia3ee wrote:Kuyt and all the Liverpool players did not hear what had happened. What great evidence they had I don't know. They heard nothing (even though Suarez admitted he said the word negro once).
Likewise the evidence from the United players also didn't have much relevance. They commented on how furious Evra was- no one gets furious for no reason randomly.

If you have read all of it you will have read Kuyt's evidence.
If the United players evidence wasn't relevant why was it the only evidence other than Marriner's that was used in their decision
Why wasn't De Gea's interviewed evidence accepted by Liverpool's lawyers and why wasn't he there to give evidence in person? Was it because he would have contradicted Evra's claims

braveheart101 wrote:

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

azania wrote:

By his admission only once and in a non offensive way. As it is everyone will choose who they want to believe and the majority will believe Evra. I'd rather make a decision on proper evidence not he says she says nonsense but there won't be any made public. If there was proof I'd change my mind and say ban him for at least 12 months but that won't happen.
I wonder if all these anti Suarez posters will make the same decision about the Terry case where there is public video footage or defend him because he plays for Chelsea because he's England captain..

That's exactly what the FA did.

I cant for the life of me see how someone can repeatedly make derogatory remarks about someone elses ethnicity and claim it to be non offensive. And even go on to pinch his skin to emphasise that he was referring to his skin colour in a derogatory manner.



Thankfully I'm no Chelsea fan, Liverpool or Manure fan. SO if Terry is guilty of calling Ferdinant a black C, then he should be banned from representing England at least.

No they didn't. By their own admission the FA based their decision purely on PROBABILITY.
For the last time it hasn't been proven that Suarez repeatedly used that word only Evra says he did.
If Terry is found guilty why should he get off with a lighter punishment than Suarez or anyone else

Braveheart, you sound like a broken record. Despite being told REPEATEDLY that the 'balance of probabilities' is a definition of a burden of proof (used in MANY legal cases, in fact almost all civil cases) you continually use it as a stick to beat the FA with when in fact its the opposite. The balance of probabilities basically says "we're not going to lock you away for life, execute you or even imprison you thus the burden of proof is lessened". Its the same burden that parents have over children and teachers have over students etc. etc. and in truth, it rarely goes wrong. You should stop this line of defense because it makes you sound childish.

He said it once, he admitted it. All the impartial evidence from cultural 'experts' say that in the way he used it in the scenario wouldn't be considered conciliatory in Uruguay, so that argument collapses and it must therefore be seen as argumentative/aggresive and thus racist. I really don't see any argument here. No doubt you'll reply with someone you've already said above that really means nothing.

Have you actually read all 115 pages because if you did you would know those experts had their evidence disregarded as well Suarez's and Kuyt's so it wasn't taken into account when they made their decision.

On the CPS website it says that racist crime and incite to racism is very very difficult to prove and cannot be taken on the balance of probability so the FA's case is totally unfounded.

IN WHICH LEGAL CASES DO THEY NOT MAKE A DECISION BASED ON BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Why then with such ambiguity as you see it and with these top Boston lawyers that Liverpool have aren't they taking the matter further? Surely they can take the FA to ground on this for defamation of character?
Or perhaps they now realise they've got egg on their face?

braveheart101 wrote:

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

azania wrote:

By his admission only once and in a non offensive way. As it is everyone will choose who they want to believe and the majority will believe Evra. I'd rather make a decision on proper evidence not he says she says nonsense but there won't be any made public. If there was proof I'd change my mind and say ban him for at least 12 months but that won't happen.
I wonder if all these anti Suarez posters will make the same decision about the Terry case where there is public video footage or defend him because he plays for Chelsea because he's England captain..

That's exactly what the FA did.

I cant for the life of me see how someone can repeatedly make derogatory remarks about someone elses ethnicity and claim it to be non offensive. And even go on to pinch his skin to emphasise that he was referring to his skin colour in a derogatory manner.

Thankfully I'm no Chelsea fan, Liverpool or Manure fan. SO if Terry is guilty of calling Ferdinant a black C, then he should be banned from representing England at least.

No they didn't. By their own admission the FA based their decision purely on PROBABILITY.
For the last time it hasn't been proven that Suarez repeatedly used that word only Evra says he did.
If Terry is found guilty why should he get off with a lighter punishment than Suarez or anyone else

Braveheart, you sound like a broken record. Despite being told REPEATEDLY that the 'balance of probabilities' is a definition of a burden of proof (used in MANY legal cases, in fact almost all civil cases) you continually use it as a stick to beat the FA with when in fact its the opposite. The balance of probabilities basically says "we're not going to lock you away for life, execute you or even imprison you thus the burden of proof is lessened". Its the same burden that parents have over children and teachers have over students etc. etc. and in truth, it rarely goes wrong. You should stop this line of defense because it makes you sound childish.

He said it once, he admitted it. All the impartial evidence from cultural 'experts' say that in the way he used it in the scenario wouldn't be considered conciliatory in Uruguay, so that argument collapses and it must therefore be seen as argumentative/aggresive and thus racist. I really don't see any argument here. No doubt you'll reply with someone you've already said above that really means nothing.

Have you actually read all 115 pages because if you did you would know those experts had their evidence disregarded as well Suarez's and Kuyt's so it wasn't taken into account when they made their decision.

On the CPS website it says that racist crime and incite to racism is very very difficult to prove and cannot be taken on the balance of probability so the FA's case is totally unfounded.

IN WHICH LEGAL CASES DO THEY NOT MAKE A DECISION BASED ON PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

No need to shout son. Lessens the impact of your 'arguments'.

This is not a legal case, the FA are under no obligation to use the highest legal level of burden of proof. Sorry, but you seem to find this impossible to understand. Almost all civil cases (do you understand the difference between a civil case and criminal case, I don't believe you do) are tried under the balance of probabilities:

http://www.lawmentor.co.uk/glossary/T/the-balance-of-probabilities/

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

I strongly recommend you read these things shown to you rather than just coming back shouting absolute nonsense.

Who knows why they aren't going to appeal, maybe because they would have to appeal to the FA who aren't going to change their decision and would impose a longer ban on Suarez all but forcing him out of English football so then what take the FA to court. What do you think would happen to Liverpool FC if they did that

You said earlier 'burden of proof is used in many criminal cases' so give examples because I have to disagree

I know it isn't a legal case because there is 'No Evidence to back up Evra's claim in a Court of Law'

I know the difference between civil and criminal law. Civil law involves cases between individuals with disputes that do not amount to crimes i.e. contractual disputes, monetary disputes etc.
Since when has racism NOT BEEN A CRIME

braveheart101 wrote:You said earlier 'burden of proof is used in many criminal cases' so give examples because I have to disagree

Nope, I said that:

Despite being told REPEATEDLY that the 'balance of probabilities' is a definition of a burden of proof (used in MANY legal cases, in fact almost all civil cases)

i.e. I said that the "balance of probabilities" burden of proof definition is used in many legal cases. Its true, civil cases. See the links above. You're basically asking me to give you examples of 2+2=4. Its simply a fact, the UK legal system uses this level of burden of proof in civil cases.

I honestly don't think you understand what I'm talking about.

lol is this argument still going on.
Hasn't braveheart accepted the obvious yet?

Sorry my mistake thought it said criminal not legal.

It still can't be classed as a civil case though because it is dealing with a crime

braveheart101 wrote:Sorry my mistake thought it said criminal not legal.

It still can't be classed as a civil case though because it is dealing with a crime

The FA are under no obligation to use the same standard as the British Justice system. Under the FA's system Suarez is guilty of using racist words.

If the case was so unfair and unjust, why are Liverpool not appealing. The potential costs to Liverpool (players wages, potential points dropped etc...) could well exceed a million quid.

braveheart101 wrote:Sorry my mistake thought it said criminal not legal.

It still can't be classed as a civil case though because it is dealing with a crime

OK, you're totally missing the point. Its not a criminal or civil case because its not a legal case.

johnson2 wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Sorry my mistake thought it said criminal not legal.

It still can't be classed as a civil case though because it is dealing with a crime

The FA are under no obligation to use the same standard as the British Justice system. Under the FA's system Suarez is guilty of using racist words.

If the case was so unfair and unjust, why are Liverpool not appealing. The potential costs to Liverpool (players wages, potential points dropped etc...) could well exceed a million quid.

Just to add to that.... With Liverpool on the cusp of a potential Champs League spot this year do you really think they would just 'draw a line under the incident' at the risk of missing out on the top four.

You need to take the blinkers of Braveheart. The fact the only Liverpool fans (and a small minority at that) have an issue with the case speaks volumes. Virtually every respected pundit, journo, blogger who have reviewed the evidence basically say he doesnt have a leg to stand on. A stance obviously agreed with by the Liverpool legal team.

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Sorry my mistake thought it said criminal not legal.

It still can't be classed as a civil case though because it is dealing with a crime

OK, you're totally missing the point. Its not a criminal or civil case because its not a legal case.

I know that but as the 3 man commission was headed by a QC and as racism is a crime why wasn't it run in the same way as a criminal case not a civil one?

braveheart101 wrote:

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Sorry my mistake thought it said criminal not legal.

It still can't be classed as a civil case though because it is dealing with a crime

OK, you're totally missing the point. Its not a criminal or civil case because its not a legal case.

I know that but as the 3 man commission was headed by a QC and as racism is a crime why wasn't it run in the same way as a criminal case not a civil one?

Because its not a criminal case because no-one made a complaint to the police like they did in the Terry case.

This was an FA hearing and thus they used their burden of proof. In fact, "beyond all reasonable doubt" is a more RARELY used burden because it very often fails to get convictions because its easy to add doubt. Only in cases where punishment is severe (i.e. criminal) is it used.

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Sorry my mistake thought it said criminal not legal.

It still can't be classed as a civil case though because it is dealing with a crime

OK, you're totally missing the point. Its not a criminal or civil case because its not a legal case.

I know that but as the 3 man commission was headed by a QC and as racism is a crime why wasn't it run in the same way as a criminal case not a civil one?

Because its not a criminal case because no-one made a complaint to the police like they did in the Terry case.

This was an FA hearing and thus they used their burden of proof. In fact, "beyond all reasonable doubt" is a more RARELY used burden because it very often fails to get convictions because its easy to add doubt. Only in cases where punishment is severe (i.e. criminal) is it used.

Additionally, its a bit like if you get into a fight at school. Technically assault is a crime, but its much more likely that the issue would be dealt with by the school and they most certainly would NOT treat it like a criminal case. Just like the FA here. I guess technically Evra could have made a complaint to the police and then it would have gone to court. However, I think in sport its generally considered best to deal with it within the sport. Rarely does someone escalate to include the police.

Johnson I have already stated that if as you and other's say there is video footage that back's up Evra's claims then now the case is closed make it public, and I will be the first one to say the ban and fine is too lenient, otherwise there will always be doubters.

It has nothing to do with supporting Liverpool. If the FA do investigate the Terry case and publish a similar report where it is one players word against the others with no real facts then I will say the same about that case.
If on the other hand he is found guilty but not punished by the FA that will prove my point that Suarez was made a scapegoat

braveheart101 wrote:

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Sorry my mistake thought it said criminal not legal.

It still can't be classed as a civil case though because it is dealing with a crime

OK, you're totally missing the point. Its not a criminal or civil case because its not a legal case.

I know that but as the 3 man commission was headed by a QC and as racism is a crime why wasn't it run in the same way as a criminal case not a civil one?

Should they deal with violent conduct cases the same way, after all, violence is a crime.

You are clearly missing the point, I think you need to just accept Suarez is guilty.

johnson2 wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Sorry my mistake thought it said criminal not legal.

It still can't be classed as a civil case though because it is dealing with a crime

OK, you're totally missing the point. Its not a criminal or civil case because its not a legal case.

I know that but as the 3 man commission was headed by a QC and as racism is a crime why wasn't it run in the same way as a criminal case not a civil one?

Should they deal with violent conduct cases the same way, after all, violence is a crime.

You are clearly missing the point, I think you need to just accept Suarez is guilty.

Don't think you get my point. A top QC is leading the case against allegations of racism(which is a crime)against Suarez and he chooses to use civil law to judge it instead of criminal law which is how same said case would have been dealt with in a court.

As for your point about violent conduct cases some or most of end in a red card. Do you know what happens to a player once they are sent off as a result of violence. They are followed down the tunnel by a police officer and have to make a statement. The only reason that they aren't prosecuted is that the recipient doesn't press charges. The only case I remember was Duncan Ferguson when he was at Rangers on Raith's John McStay which resulted in a 3 month jail sentence.

I will say Suarez is probably guilty of using a word in a racist way but isn't a racist.
If there is tv footage that shows him using that word more than once I will change my mind though and won't want him at Liverpool