Victimpool FC - Klopp leaving, grown men crying

[totman]

black in spanish is negro - so a spaniard saying negro (when referring to a person) is no different to an english man saying black man

What are you on about? An English man is not Spanish so of course its different. If the spanish word for a nun was 'C#nt", would you her one? Different language, different context.

That doesnt excuse Suarez though, because he said it with intent to insult.

 

[totman]

The people who are saying the conviction is unfair, have you any no evidence to the contrary?

No, thought not.

 

[billyiddo]

What are you on about? An English man is not Spanish so of course its different. If the spanish word for a nun was 'C#nt", would you her one? Different language, different context.

That doesnt excuse Suarez though, because he said it with intent to insult.

er.....what ?
Suarez speaks spanish - so him using the term 'Negro' when referring to a person that has black skin is the same as an English speaking person using the term 'black man' or whatever

 

[billyiddo]

The people who are saying the conviction is unfair, have you any no evidence to the contrary?

No, thought not.

and what does this even mean ?

evidence to the contrary of what ?

there isn't enough evidence in that report to punish Suarez for making racist remarks IMO - its all hear say and second hand accounts of what might have been said apart from one exchange that both players agreed took place - if you can be arsed to actually read through what has been posted before you just posted that load of nonsense you'll see what im referring to


if you accuse someone of saying something you need to be able to prove that they said it in order for them to be punished - they don't need to prove they didn't say it in order to be considered innocent

 

[milo]

er.....what ?
Suarez speaks spanish - so him using the term 'Negro' when referring to a person that has black skin is the same as an English speaking person using the term 'black man' or whatever

Again, the report covers this in a lot of detail. The expert witnesses say that it can be both offensive and unoffensive in South America but that context is key to whether it is a pejorative term. It was a heated exchange between the two players and this is inconsistent with it being used in a friendly manner.

 

[billyiddo]

Again, the report covers this in a lot of detail. The expert witnesses say that it can be both offensive and unoffensive in South America but that context is key to whether it is a pejorative term. It was a heated exchange between the two players and this is inconsistent with it being used in a friendly manner.

this is going back to something Mick asked on the last page - i wasn't using it as a base for Suarez's innocence obviously it can be used in a negative context.

however, Milo id like to know what your view is on my posts at the bottom of the last page

why should Evra be allowed to say "don't touch me Sudamericano" which is bordering on a racial insult ? but Suarez replying "why is that, Negro?" isconsidered punishable by an 8 match ban ?

double standards

to be honest its a total non event which shouldn't have gone any further than the two having a go at each other on the pitch

 

[linnet_spur]

in english, no you wouldn't - but in other countries/languages maybe you would. herein lies the problem.

Did you know the age of consent in Spain is 13 years of age? so if a Spanish man was to sleep with a girl under 16 in this country it would be ok? Ignorance of a countries laws and ways is not a defence.

 

[milo]

look, this isn't about what was said or what wasn't said - it's about what can be proved and i haven't seen enough evidence in that report for them to be able to dish out the punishment that they did.

if Suarez was caught saying what Evra alleged him to say, fine - ban away, he deserves it. but the phrase above (which both parties agreed was said) is as much an insult from Evra as it was from Suarez and i find it ludicrous that one sole party is seen as the offender and punished whilst the other, who also made a negative racial comment gets away without anything being said and is seen as a victim.

reading through that report backs up my stance that Suarez was always going to be found guilty and made an example of

It is the most detailed investigation into a case like this ever. The report is very detailed and covers all of the arguments against the verdict they found and how the panel came to the decision that they did. I think it is greatly to the FA's credit that they published the report and hope that this sets a president for future cases.

The report covers the South American comment from page 71 onwards. On page 76 the report says

"In fact, Mr Suarez told us that he did not consider being described as South American to be derogatory, so it is difficult to understand why this was referred to as a "taunt"."

 

[billyiddo]

ah come on man you're ganging up on me now

 

[billyiddo]

It is the most detailed investigation into a case like this ever. The report is very detailed and covers all of the arguments against the verdict they found and how the panel came to the decision that they did. I think it is greatly to the FA's credit that they published the report and hope that this sets a president for future cases.

The report covers the South American comment from page 71 onwards. On page 76 the report says

"In fact, Mr Suarez told us that he did not consider being described as South American to be derogatory, so it is difficult to understand why this was referred to as a "taunt"."

context

being described as a South American wouldn't be an insult by itself obviously - but saying "don't touch me, south american" is quite clearly an insult, one which brings race in to it which makes it a racial insult, no ? what if it was Suarez saying "don't touch me, African" - i guarantee people would be throwing the book at him for racial abuse then (and rightly so)

reading that report makes me believe Suarez was punished for the things that Evra alleged him to have said but were not backed up with solid evidence - which sets a dangerous precedent, IMO

my argument on this is not to try and proclaim Suarez's innocence, it's more to say that with the evidence provided this verdict should never have been reached and they have let outside pressure influence their decision making, something i think is dangerous

 

[billyiddo]

Did you know the age of consent in Spain is 13 years of age? so if a Spanish man was to sleep with a girl under 16 in this country it would be ok? Ignorance of a countries laws and ways is not a defence.

I didn't but i know where my next holiday is gonnna be

 

[thingonaspring]

being described as a South American wouldn't be an insult by itself obviously - but saying "don't touch me, south american" is quite clearly an insult, one which brings race in to it which makes it a racial insult, no ? what if it was Suarez saying "don't touch me, African" - i guarantee people would be throwing the book at him for racial abuse then (and rightly so)

reading that report makes me believe Suarez was punished for the things that Evra alleged him to have said but were not backed up with solid evidence - which sets a dangerous precedent, IMO

my argument on this is not to try and proclaim Suarez's innocence, it's more to say that with the evidence provided this verdict should never have been reached and they have let outside pressure influence their decision making, something i think is dangerous

except the south american "slur" was conveniently left out of the original detail, and only added to enforce suarez assertion that he used the word negro in a non-derogatory manner.
then when asked (about 4-5 times) whether he said the word to defuse the situation (his entire defence initially), he said "er... half past six. um... belgium. er - potatoes!" then when it was pointed out that it was a straight forward fudging yes or no question, he said himself that NO, he didn't say the word negro in a "friendly manner". that, and changing the timing of when he said it to mean that in fact, he would have had to say it at least 2-3 times in order for the conversations to have made sense.

 

[thingonaspring]

oh, that and both damian comolli AND dirk kuyt both misunderstood suarez with conversations they had immediately after the game. in two entirely seperate conversations where the other person wasn't present. in two entirely seperate languages. that both tied in together with the initial charge, but neither supported his changed story, to say that he only said it once, in a non derogatory fashion.
other than that, they just made it up as they went along.

 

[jimmyb]

Wasn't the point that they made a very basic zero tolerance policy. On the pitch of a football ground the players should just leave any reference to colour out of it. Doesn't matter what context, interpretation, excuses or explanations the players had. Simple rules, zero tolerance, simple to deal with, no confusions and no loop holes to hide in.

I've no idea what players are taught or how they are advised on the matter.

But it isn't entirely far fetched that a foreign player might not fully understand what he had been told. A message can easily get lost in translation or misunderstood by someone not speaking or listening to their first language.

 

[jimmyb]

Originally Posted by jimmyb
You think that if there had been compelling, verifiable evidence that it wouldn't have been made public?????

Really???

So the authorities just arbitrarily decided to withhold this crucial evidence from the public??? Maybe. Or maybe we dont know the context of the whole tribunal. Do you really believe you know as much as a panel member. There is nothing more to it than what was in the papers?

It is a matter of record that the only evidence in this case was what the two players had to say about it. It is also a matter of record that the Tribunal chose to believe Evra and to disbelieve Suarez.

You don't think that they would have been falling over themselves to show us why they had come to their decision??? No, not really. Maybe they deemed the ban enough, and let the case close.

Not a chance. If there was more compelling evidence, it would have been in everyone's interest, bar Suarez's, to make it public.

You don't think that it might have occurred to them that the elimination of doubt might have been a good thing??? Yes I do. My point exactly. I suspect they were in no doubt he meant it based on what came up at the tribunal.

The Tribunal might have had no doubt. But they have utterly failed to explain why that is so. If they had empirical evidence to prove Suarez's guilt, they would certainly have made it public. So the only possible conclusion is that they have no such evidence. Only opinion.

You think, instead, that they wanted to leave Liverpool fans with an overwhelming sense of injustice??? I dont think they gave a f#ck. I think took the case for what it was. Pool fans wouldnt feel this way had their club also condemned his behaviour.

The Tribunal didn't give a fudge about explaining to Liverpool fans why they came to their decision? I think not.

That they wanted Evra to be booed and demonised despite being the victim of an easily verifiable racist slur???
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Evra is being demonised by racists. There is no question that Suarez said the offensive word. Its funny how Suarez is the "victim" of a language mix up, but Evra is a big whinging grass, who deliberately got Suarez banned by twisting his insult around another meaning.

Evra wasn't demonised by racists at Anfield any more than Sol Campbell is demonised by racists whenever he comes to the Lane. If Liverpool fans agreed that their player was guilty but still booed Evra for reporting the incident, then you would have a point. But that's not the case, is it? They believe Suarez to be innocent. Regardless of whether or not you think they are right to believe his explanation for what he said, it is ridiculous to accuse them of racism.

Now that does sound genuinely idiotic. They were your points, not mine

My words, yes. But they were merely the logical conclusion to your suggestion that the Tribunal (for mysterious reasons known only to themselves) had somehow covered up the smoking gun that proved Suarez's guilt.

 

[jimmyb]

It was an independent panel made up of Paul Goulding QC, Denis Smith (former manager of Sunderland, Wrexham among others) and Brian Jones (Sheffield and Hallamshire Football Association chairman) why would they decide the verdict before they have heard the evidence and what if the expert evidence contradicted this?

Two possible explanations as to why the Tribunal could have come to an incorrect decision:

1. Cultural differences - no matter how convincingly Suarez tried to explain his case, it is quite possible that the panel members simply could not get their heads around the fact that the word "negro" has an entirely different meaning in his language and culture than it does in ours. Had the panel been made up of Latin Americans rather than Western Europeans, I suspect that there would have been a different outcome.

2. The prevailing atmosphere of a need to be seen to be taking action. Having frequently lectured European governing bodies (and the FIFA president) for their inaction with regard to racism within football, those within the game here would not have wanted to appear soft on racism themselves. Not to mention the need to satisfy anti racism campaigners in this country.

 

[jimmyb]

and note that the video evidence does not back up any of the statements in terms of what was said btw - all the video evidence shows is that there were tussles, words exchanged between the two and how each player reacted. so essentially this is one mans words against the others

Precisely.

 

[jimmyb]

Did you know the age of consent in Spain is 13 years of age? so if a Spanish man was to sleep with a girl under 16 in this country it would be ok? Ignorance of a countries laws and ways is not a defence.

Yes, Suarez should have known better. But since there is no proof that he meant the word "negro" in any way other than that in which he and all other Latin Americans commonly and harmlessly use the word, a little common sense and leniency was called for.

And an equal punishment for Evra - which was not forthcoming.

 

[jimmyb]

The people who are saying the conviction is unfair, have you any no evidence to the contrary?

No, thought not.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Not with the accused.

 

[thfcsteff]

Yes, Suarez should have known better. But since there is no proof that he meant the word "negro" in any way other than that in which he and all other Latin Americans commonly and harmlessly use the word, a little common sense and leniency was called for.

And an equal punishment for Evra - which was not forthcoming.

Sorry mate...I have spent a fair amount of time in Brazil, Argentina, Chile (and Mexico for that matter) and I have never, ever heard anyone use the word 'negrito' in a friendly, happy-go-lucky way (nope, not even in the way tossers here would when trying to sound 'urban' despite being middle class white kids from Cheam)...it was a pathetic defense in the year 2012, furthermore, why aren't there South American players being suspended week after week in the Prem for saying it? Because anyone with a degree of common sense knows there are many many other ways to refer to people than by their skin colour.

As for common sense and leniency, he would absolutely have got it had he held his hands up, apologized and moved one. Ditto his absurd club and their frankly pathetic 'stand' (that t-shirt was just stupid)...you don't believe that with a degree of contrition and apology he wouldn't have got a slap on the wrist and maybe a 2-3 game suspension tops?