Suarez found guilty of Racism by FA

braveheart101 wrote: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

Grizzly wrote:I worry about Liverpool FCs stance here - they have a player who they've defended who has been found guilty of racism by an independent panel, they then follow this up with a long winded statement saying they accept the findings but they still maintain the players innocence and still support him.
How does this reflect on Liverpool FC ?
Liverpool have a fanbase around the world, in the crudest sense they are accepting the racist comments by their employee as acceptable, how will their fans from non-white countries react ?
What happens when Suarez is abused every time he takes the pitch after his ban ?
What happens when he is called/referred to as Negro by opposing fans ?
How do the non-white Liverpool players react to the stance the club have taken ?
How do non-white Liverpool players react when fans shout/sing racist songs about Suarez because Liverpool FC have deemed this form of racism not to be racism ?
I fully accept that the player needed support during the investigation and their employers provided this, but continuing that level of undoubted support despite a guilty verdict is not only disrespectful of the FA and the teams of people they employed during the investigation, but also blinkered and that could come back to haunt them.
Liverpool have dug themselves a huge hole in my opinion, they could and perhaps should have simply issued a statement saying they accept the findings and that they'll deal with matters internally.

braveheart101 wrote:

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.

braveheart101 wrote:So you have seen the 'hidden tv evidence' The FA haven't proved anything they admit they only used probability. If it was in a court of law Suarez's and Kuyt's evidence would have had to be taken into account not dismissed.

jro786 wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:So you have seen the 'hidden tv evidence' The FA haven't proved anything they admit they only used probability. If it was in a court of law Suarez's and Kuyt's evidence would have had to be taken into account not dismissed.

hear hear

exactly

this proves everything

injustice was given to suarez end of

and people who can't see this then in my opinion they're blind and will walk alone

as a racial victim myself, i would've done my research first before accusing a fellow pro

can we end this topic on the fact he was charged unjustly and found guilty without his evidence been taken into account?

slyadams wrote:

jro786 wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:So you have seen the 'hidden tv evidence' The FA haven't proved anything they admit they only used probability. If it was in a court of law Suarez's and Kuyt's evidence would have had to be taken into account not dismissed.

hear hear

exactly

this proves everything

injustice was given to suarez end of

and people who can't see this then in my opinion they're blind and will walk alone

as a racial victim myself, i would've done my research first before accusing a fellow pro

can we end this topic on the fact he was charged unjustly and found guilty without his evidence been taken into account?

No, because you're factually incorrect as has been pointed out above in detail.

jro786 wrote:

slyadams wrote:

jro786 wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:So you have seen the 'hidden tv evidence' The FA haven't proved anything they admit they only used probability. If it was in a court of law Suarez's and Kuyt's evidence would have had to be taken into account not dismissed.

hear hear

exactly

this proves everything

injustice was given to suarez end of

and people who can't see this then in my opinion they're blind and will walk alone

as a racial victim myself, i would've done my research first before accusing a fellow pro

can we end this topic on the fact he was charged unjustly and found guilty without his evidence been taken into account?

No, because you're factually incorrect as has been pointed out above in detail.

i was there at the game if there was any racial activity it would've been picked up by the home crowd near the incident, here is a fact that you fail to realize, merseyside police did not receive any complaints of racial activity and if there was an incident of this magnitude it would've been picked up immediately online using youtube or any other video sites, as that was not the case proves my point is true

jro786 wrote:
i was there at the game if there was any racial activity it would've been picked up by the home crowd near the incident, here is a fact that you fail to realize, merseyside police did not receive any complaints of racial activity and if there was an incident of this magnitude it would've been picked up immediately online using youtube or any other video sites, as that was not the case proves my point is true

amritia3ee wrote:

jro786 wrote:
i was there at the game if there was any racial activity it would've been picked up by the home crowd near the incident, here is a fact that you fail to realize, merseyside police did not receive any complaints of racial activity and if there was an incident of this magnitude it would've been picked up immediately online using youtube or any other video sites, as that was not the case proves my point is true

Firstly Suarez would have said it quietly. Secondly Suarez admitted to calling him negro once, and the crowd didn't hear that.

Grizzly wrote:jro786 - read the report in full, I have, it states clearly that TV evidence not publicly availble was used during the investigation and such evidence presented at the hearing.
I guess some people will always defend the indefensible despite not having all the facts available to them....

braveheart101 wrote:

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.

jro786 wrote:

Grizzly wrote:jro786 - read the report in full, I have, it states clearly that TV evidence not publicly availble was used during the investigation and such evidence presented at the hearing.
I guess some people will always defend the indefensible despite not having all the facts available to them....

i have also read the report and they said tv footage of the incident was not used and they dismissed suarez's evidence as unreliable just because it did not match with evra does not mean it should be classed as unreliable

jro786 wrote:
i have also read the report and they said tv footage of the incident was not used and they dismissed suarez's evidence as unreliable just because it did not match with evra does not mean it should be classed as unreliable

Macclads wrote:What I find even worse by Liverpool is the timing of it. Seems very odd that they suddenly rushed through the decision to not appeal before the City game meaning that Suarez's first game back is...

At Old Trafford.

braveheart101 wrote:Kenny Dalglish said after last night's game there is alot more that the club wanted to include in their statement but couldn't incase they got into trouble over it but they have not accepted Suarez's guilt.

Macclads wrote:8 game ban:

Man City (served)
Liverpool v Oldham (FA Cup)
Man City v Liverpool (League Cup)
Liverpool v Stoke
Bolton v Liverpool
Liverpool v Man City (League Cup)
Wolverhampton v Liverpool
Liverpool v Tottenham

Due back: v Utd at Old Trafford

johnson2 wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

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.

You can be punished without the victim pressing charges, so you are talking nonsense.

There are larger issues at stake, apparently. Important points to be made. So Liverpool deigned to do the world a favour and will not appeal Luis Suarez’s eight-match ban. How decent of them. Maybe they’ll make a T-shirt telling us all about it; or a hat. Not a white, pointy one, obviously.
Want to see a magic trick? Open an American newspaper and watch your country disappear. Oh, it’s an old joke, but a true one. I once picked up a copy of USA Today containing a first person article by Tony Blair. At the bottom, readers were helpfully informed: ‘Tony Blair is the British Prime Minister.’ And wasn’t he just, bless him.

So, until Tuesday, it was almost possible that John Henry, Tom Werner and the rest of the Fenway Sports Group were unaware of the damage being done to the image of their club by the fall-out from the Suarez affair. And then the statement dropped. There, in the details of the most misjudged public utterance since Tony Hayward, of British Petroleum, as good as told the oil-clogged inhabitants of America’s south to give him a break, was a bizarre digression on the subject of race relations in American sport.

It had little relevance to the matter in hand and offered no insight beyond the obvious; but was clearly present at the request of the owners.
Damage limitation, just in case some of the toxic spill from Suarez washed up on New England’s shores.

And, like most of Liverpool’s pronouncements since that fateful day in October, it served only to make matters worse.

Liverpool will not appeal and Suarez missed his first game at Manchester City on Tuesday night. Yet, by issuing a strongly worded statement shortly before the game, Liverpool believed they had gone out with a bang and a final assault on the credibility of the Football Association, the process, Manchester United and their accuser, Patrice Evra. Yet look down and observe the bullet hole in the foot.

Up to now, the strongest criticism that could be aimed at Fenway is that they allowed senior football executives at Anfield too much freedom to handle what was plainly an international affair with widening ramifications.

From here, however, Liverpool’s owners are culpable. What were they thinking? This has been a PR disaster, a legal disaster and a sporting disaster considering an eight-match ban may have been avoided with greater contrition from the start.

And Fenway knew all along. Their fingerprints were across yesterday’s pronouncement, which succeeded in slandering just about everybody involved in the procedure bar the player who referred to Evra’s skin colour seven times.

If Fenway remain oblivious to the harm here, they need telling, and quickly. Letting the football men run the football club is an admirable stance, but there comes a time when an issue lies beyond the manager’s call.

Whoever was left to mastermind Liverpool’s stance over Suarez has been proven horribly inept in this arena.

It is surely no coincidence that Liverpool recently dispensed with Paul Tyrrell, their widely respected head of communications. In his absence, the club’s actions have drawn universal condemnation on a par with Carlos Tevez’s walk-out at Manchester City.

More harmfully, the blinkered protestations of some supporters are increasingly perceived as the position of Liverpool’s senior executive. Tuesday’s statement, despite its late grab for the moral high ground, did nothing to dispel that damning perception.

The production of a 115-page report which metaphorically took Liverpool’s case out at the knee was the only possible response to the aggressive campaign mounted by the club following Suarez’s eight-game ban.
Any impartial reading of the exhaustive detail therein would note its thoroughness. Picking at its weaknesses is an easy game when there is so much information to inspect.

Had the FA released a one- paragraph judgment and punishment, the lawyers — the qualified and those self-deluding amateurs — would have had nothing with which to work.

The more detailed the findings, the more chance there is of unearthing an arguable point. It is not an edifying spectacle, though, this use of technicalities to cloud such a serious issue.

Raking over familiar ground will merely alienate Liverpool further from all but their most myopic devotees.

Where is Henry in all this? Where has he been, where is he now? The longer he procrastinated the more firmly his club became aligned with the most extreme cases of denial emanating from Merseyside. And now this.
For a man supposedly so aware of racial issues in sport and beyond, Henry has not emerged well. Many days ago he should have ended the unholy mess with a transatlantic telephone call that ordered his club to accept the verdict, issue an apology and try to retrieve a shard of respectability from the wreckage.

If he thought such interference would have undermined his manager, he could have made it the player’s decision, announcing that Suarez has asked the club not to appeal. It would have been a small step but at least it would have placed him on the road to rehabilitation.
I
nstead, Suarez put out a statement on Tuesday night, which included the remarkable assertion: ‘I will carry out the suspension with the resignation of someone who hasn’t done anything wrong.’

So if he was found innocent, he would have been innocent; but if guilty, he is innocent, still. At the outset Suarez said the verdict would decide which of the parties had to apologise. Apparently, like much of the evidence, that stance has since changed.

At the very least, Henry has been poorly counselled. One cannot imagine such a sore being allowed to fester and grow at the Boston Red Sox, his Major League Baseball franchise.

Henry did not switch sports and continents, he did not buy Liverpool to consolidate its popularity among Liverpudlians. A euphoric Kop singing You’ll Never Walk Alone is only half the story. Henry’s eye was on the bigger picture, the wider world, where Liverpool’s history and traditions had enduring appeal.

It is this reputation, and his own, that is being surrendered, line by ghosted line, over Suarez.

The reason the Suarez decision carried such impact was that it was plainly not taken lightly. The Football Association should be commended for this, because the reaction to the police charge laid against John Terry shows few have the patience to wait for a verdict any more.

Terry’s first court hearing is scheduled for February 1, yet there have been repeated calls for him to pre-empt this by standing down as England captain, insinuations that his defence is flawed, while The Guardian placed him in a jokey list of those who had ‘ruined 2011’ and failed their ‘diversity awareness test’ along with John Galliano (found guilty of racism), Suarez (found guilty of racism) and the outspoken #tramlady (arrested, awaiting trial, video available on YouTube, see for yourself).

So much for liberalism. A fair hearing, a fair trial, means we sometimes have to let events take a measured course. This is not Strictly Come Racism. This actually matters.



And still the war rages over whether negro, as uttered in Rioplatense Spanish, is a racist word. So break it down.

In 1960s Britain before mass immigration had created our cultural melting pot, a factory floor might have a single black worker, newly arrived from the Caribbean. And his mates might give him a nickname, and mean no harm by it.

‘Morning, Darkie’, they might say. And Darkie would say good morning back. He thought little of it. Nor did Sooty, or Sambo, or the white folk who had not yet evolved to understand that to define a man solely by the colour of his skin is demeaning.

Yet, at the same time, if a chap peered through his net curtains at the street outside, scowled and told his wife, ‘I don’t like it around here — too many darkies’, he was not saying he had a surplus of black acquaintances in the area. We know exactly what he meant. So all languages have contextual nuances like the duality of negro in Rioplatense Spanish.
And, once made clear, the precise meaning is all too apparent.

jro786 wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Kenny Dalglish said after last night's game there is alot more that the club wanted to include in their statement but couldn't incase they got into trouble over it but they have not accepted Suarez's guilt.

agreed

and i am still not accepting it

braveheart101 wrote:Hampo as you say it appears to be Evra's word against Suarez's but if they did use tv footage in making their decision they should make it public and if it proves Suarez pinched Evra as was claimed and he used the word more than once then I will accept that he is guilty but until that time I choose to believe Suarez over Evra especially when there are experts who backed up his claim that in Uruguay it is not classed as racist.

johnson2 wrote:

jro786 wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Kenny Dalglish said after last night's game there is alot more that the club wanted to include in their statement but couldn't incase they got into trouble over it but they have not accepted Suarez's guilt.

agreed

and i am still not accepting it

By not appealing they are essentially accepting his guilt. If the case was so flimsy they would appeal. Fact is that it is a strong case against him with some very strong evidence.

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Hampo as you say it appears to be Evra's word against Suarez's but if they did use tv footage in making their decision they should make it public and if it proves Suarez pinched Evra as was claimed and he used the word more than once then I will accept that he is guilty but until that time I choose to believe Suarez over Evra especially when there are experts who backed up his claim that in Uruguay it is not classed as racist.

You repeatedly miss the point. Its racist HERE. He lives and works HERE. A German cannot drive down the M1 at 200mph. People can't kiss on the streets of Dubai. You can't chew gum or spit in Singapore. You MUST abide by the laws and regulations of the country you are in.

Grizzly wrote:A couple more extracts for you:

''First, there are some black people in Uruguay and other areas of Latin America who object
to the use of the word "negro"

''Secondly, use of the word "negro" can be seen as offensive or inoffensive in Uruguay and
Latin America. It appears to depend, largely, on the context. It might be seen by some as
inoffensive when used to address relatives, friends or passers-by''

Also, without trawling through all 115 pages of the report, did they not confirm Suarez used the word 7 times ?
I may be wrong

braveheart101 wrote:

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Hampo as you say it appears to be Evra's word against Suarez's but if they did use tv footage in making their decision they should make it public and if it proves Suarez pinched Evra as was claimed and he used the word more than once then I will accept that he is guilty but until that time I choose to believe Suarez over Evra especially when there are experts who backed up his claim that in Uruguay it is not classed as racist.

You repeatedly miss the point. Its racist HERE. He lives and works HERE. A German cannot drive down the M1 at 200mph. People can't kiss on the streets of Dubai. You can't chew gum or spit in Singapore. You MUST abide by the laws and regulations of the country you are in.

Yes I agree with that upto a point but you are forgetting that in Suarez's evidence he says he uses 'negro' when addressing Glen Johnson and has stated that other players at Man U and Man City have used it as well and it hasn't been taken as a racist slur by anyone else so doesn't that send out the wrong message to him and the rest of the South Americans playing in England.

Grizzly wrote:johnson

But why not just accept it ? Why present a long winded statement as they did yesterday ?

braveheart101 wrote:If as Suarez claims Evra called him something that is insulting/racist to South American's who now live in Spain or anywhere in Europe should he not be charged as well.

braveheart101 wrote:At the time of the incident Suarez had been in England for 9 months, he cannot speak English therefore if he says something in his native language which is not deemed racist is it being taken out of context once translated?

If you were in Uruguay or any other foreign country it would take a lot longer than 9 months to determine that something said in English could be translated into a negative/abusive/insulting/racist slur therefore you would defend yourself and the meaning in which it was used.

braveheart101 wrote:If as Suarez claims Evra called him something that is insulting/racist to South American's who now live in Spain or anywhere in Europe should he not be charged as well.

Grizzly wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:If as Suarez claims Evra called him something that is insulting/racist to South American's who now live in Spain or anywhere in Europe should he not be charged as well.

Yes.

As for your previous point, common sense tells anyone with a solitary brain cell that reference to skin colour is a sensitive subject, you would have to be extremely foolish or, as is more likely the case here, deliberately offensive if deciding to use a term that may offend.
Anyone capable of engaging brain before opening their mouth would probably think it's at best, near the mark, and avoid using the term, unless as I say they are deliberately setting out to offend.

Didnt the Spanish coach get a fine for a similar term aimed at Thierry Henry when filmed during a training session some years ago ?
It ought not to be a secret to Uraguayans that the word Negro can cause offense and most clubs provide some sort of assistance to players when signing for new clubs, some help with customs, traditions, language etc

braveheart101 wrote:

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Hampo as you say it appears to be Evra's word against Suarez's but if they did use tv footage in making their decision they should make it public and if it proves Suarez pinched Evra as was claimed and he used the word more than once then I will accept that he is guilty but until that time I choose to believe Suarez over Evra especially when there are experts who backed up his claim that in Uruguay it is not classed as racist.

You repeatedly miss the point. Its racist HERE. He lives and works HERE. A German cannot drive down the M1 at 200mph. People can't kiss on the streets of Dubai. You can't chew gum or spit in Singapore. You MUST abide by the laws and regulations of the country you are in.

Yes I agree with that upto a point but you are forgetting that in Suarez's evidence he says he uses 'negro' when addressing Glen Johnson and has stated that other players at Man U and Man City have used it as well and it hasn't been taken as a racist slur by anyone else so doesn't that send out the wrong message to him and the rest of the South Americans playing in England.

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Hampo as you say it appears to be Evra's word against Suarez's but if they did use tv footage in making their decision they should make it public and if it proves Suarez pinched Evra as was claimed and he used the word more than once then I will accept that he is guilty but until that time I choose to believe Suarez over Evra especially when there are experts who backed up his claim that in Uruguay it is not classed as racist.

You repeatedly miss the point. Its racist HERE. He lives and works HERE. A German cannot drive down the M1 at 200mph. People can't kiss on the streets of Dubai. You can't chew gum or spit in Singapore. You MUST abide by the laws and regulations of the country you are in.

Yes I agree with that upto a point but you are forgetting that in Suarez's evidence he says he uses 'negro' when addressing Glen Johnson and has stated that other players at Man U and Man City have used it as well and it hasn't been taken as a racist slur by anyone else so doesn't that send out the wrong message to him and the rest of the South Americans playing in England.

How on earth is this remotely relevant? He can call Glenn Johnson every name under the sun if Johnson doesn't care. It doesn't mean that he can call other people that.

I call my fiancee a dirty bitch all the time. If someone else calls her a dirty bitch I'll knock them out. Its all about relationship and context.

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Hampo as you say it appears to be Evra's word against Suarez's but if they did use tv footage in making their decision they should make it public and if it proves Suarez pinched Evra as was claimed and he used the word more than once then I will accept that he is guilty but until that time I choose to believe Suarez over Evra especially when there are experts who backed up his claim that in Uruguay it is not classed as racist.

You repeatedly miss the point. Its racist HERE. He lives and works HERE. A German cannot drive down the M1 at 200mph. People can't kiss on the streets of Dubai. You can't chew gum or spit in Singapore. You MUST abide by the laws and regulations of the country you are in.

Yes I agree with that upto a point but you are forgetting that in Suarez's evidence he says he uses 'negro' when addressing Glen Johnson and has stated that other players at Man U and Man City have used it as well and it hasn't been taken as a racist slur by anyone else so doesn't that send out the wrong message to him and the rest of the South Americans playing in England.

How on earth is this remotely relevant? He can call Glenn Johnson every name under the sun if Johnson doesn't care. It doesn't mean that he can call other people that.

I call my fiancee a dirty bitch all the time. If someone else calls her a dirty bitch I'll knock them out. Its all about relationship and context.

johnson2 wrote:

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

slyadams wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:Hampo as you say it appears to be Evra's word against Suarez's but if they did use tv footage in making their decision they should make it public and if it proves Suarez pinched Evra as was claimed and he used the word more than once then I will accept that he is guilty but until that time I choose to believe Suarez over Evra especially when there are experts who backed up his claim that in Uruguay it is not classed as racist.

You repeatedly miss the point. Its racist HERE. He lives and works HERE. A German cannot drive down the M1 at 200mph. People can't kiss on the streets of Dubai. You can't chew gum or spit in Singapore. You MUST abide by the laws and regulations of the country you are in.

Yes I agree with that upto a point but you are forgetting that in Suarez's evidence he says he uses 'negro' when addressing Glen Johnson and has stated that other players at Man U and Man City have used it as well and it hasn't been taken as a racist slur by anyone else so doesn't that send out the wrong message to him and the rest of the South Americans playing in England.

How on earth is this remotely relevant? He can call Glenn Johnson every name under the sun if Johnson doesn't care. It doesn't mean that he can call other people that.

I call my fiancee a dirty bitch all the time. If someone else calls her a dirty bitch I'll knock them out. Its all about relationship and context.

I do too...

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:As far as I am aware, Liverpool FC are accepting the ban to bring things to an end, but do not believe that Suarez said 'negro' the ten times as claimed.