Duracell Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Thing is, it's purely Evra's word against Saurez's. He wouldn't be found guilty in any civlised court on the evidence put forward. I think the FA know that, and my guess is they'll repeal the ban. Wouldn't surprise me if the initial sentence is just a warning shot from the FA about how seriously they take this stuff. They haven't had an opportunity to demonstrate a hardline approach in quite a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 It will be reduced to 3 matches on appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Thing is, it's purely Evra's word against Saurez's. He wouldn't be found guilty in any civlised court on the evidence put forward. I think the FA know that, and my guess is they'll repeal the ban. Wouldn't surprise me if the initial sentence is just a warning shot from the FA about how seriously they take this stuff. They haven't had an opportunity to demonstrate a hardline approach in quite a while. Saurez admitted the words used and argued the context of them not that he didn't say them, so that line in the Liverpool statement is a red herring. It is not a court of law it is the FA disciplinary code which everybody signs up for the burden of proof is totally different. His only hope is that the appeal judge, who you would expect to be different views the context of it all a different way. If he remains guilty I don't see a lighter ban on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Saurez admitted the words used and argued the context of them not that he didn't say them, so that line in the Liverpool statement is a red herring. It is not a court of law it is the FA disciplinary code which everybody signs up for the burden of proof is totally different. His only hope is that the appeal judge, who you would expect to be different views the context of it all a different way. If he remains guilty I don't see a lighter ban on this. What words did he use? mono? negro? If it's 'negro' then the FA can do one basically, as this term is used all the time in Spanish without it being offensive, and who are they to interpret terms in another language.. If it's mono then 8 games isn't enough.. As that is racist, different language or not.. Suarez should know better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsilks Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 When in Rome and all that..... There is no place for racism at all in this country. What they do in their country is irrelevant. 8 games may seem harsh but sends a clear signal that racism will not be tolerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 When in Rome and all that..... There is no place for racism at all in this country. What they do in their country is irrelevant. 8 games may seem harsh but sends a clear signal that racism will not be tolerated. I think your misquoting 'country' for 'language' There are forms of foul language in every country but they're all different.. There is a racist word in spanish and another word in spanish that can be translated as racism wen it isn't.. He spoke the words in Spanish, therefore it can be interpreted incorrectly.. For example if I said you're a f*cking idiot then you'll take offence.. But if I then call another Spanish native speaker 'pinche tonto' (which translates as f*cking idiot) then they wouldn't take offence as much as this is used in a different form.. Like I said with Suarez, the FA need to be 100% certain he used the word mono in a geniune racist term otherwise the whole situation could be very embarrssing for them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsilks Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I think your misquoting 'country' for 'language' There are forms of foul language in every country but they're all different.. There is a racist word in spanish and another word in spanish that can be translated as racism wen it isn't.. He spoke the words in Spanish, therefore it can be interpreted incorrectly.. For example if I said you're a f*cking idiot then you'll take offence.. But if I then call another Spanish native speaker 'pinche tonto' (which translates as f*cking idiot) then they wouldn't take offence as much as this is used in a different form.. Like I said with Suarez, the FA need to be 100% certain he used the word mono in a geniune racist term otherwise the whole situation could be very embarrssing for them.. I'm not misquoting anything at all. My quotes don't require your analysis. There is no place for racism in Britain in any language. He has been found guilty of using a highly derogatory word toward Evra. The FA are satisfied he used offensive words. He should have known better. Let this be a lesson to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I'm not misquoting anything at all. My quotes don't require your analysis. There is no place for racism in Britain in any language. He has been found guilty of using a highly derogatory word toward Evra. The FA are satisfied he used offensive words. He should have known better. Let this be a lesson to all. ooo err get you Luis Suarez said that he never used a sentence or a word in a highly derogatory way.. But seeming as your the language expert you along with the FA knew exactly what he meant and exactly the way it was intended.. Like I said, if he said it in a derogatory way he should be banned for longer.. If he said it in a way that it is used within the Spanish language then he has every right to do so and The FA should not be jumping to any silly conclusons.. The FA have found him guilty, Liverpool and Suarez are dismissing the idea.. Either one is blatantly lying and should be banned further or the other is jumping to conclusions and will ultimately end up embarrassed. I expect an appeal soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsilks Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 ooo err get you Luis Suarez said that he never used a sentence or a word in a highly derogatory way.. But seeming as your the language expert you along with the FA knew exactly what he meant and exactly the way it was intended.. Like I said, if he said it in a derogatory way he should be banned for longer.. If he said it in a way that it is used within the Spanish language then he has every right to do so and The FA should not be jumping to any silly conclusons.. The FA have found him guilty, Liverpool and Suarez are dismissing the idea.. Either one is blatantly lying and should be banned further or the other is jumping to conclusions and will ultimately end up embarrassed. I expect an appeal soon "ooo er get you"!! Sorry?! Not exactly sure what you mean by that. Bris, why can you not simply accept that Suarez has been found guilty of this crime. That's what racism is now. A criminal act. Instead you decide to have a go at me calling me the "language expert". I'm sorry but when did I imply that I was an expert in linguistics? Am really not sure where you come from with your comments on this forum. So, as I said earlier, stop the analysis and just accept that the player has been found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 "ooo er get you"!! Sorry?! Not exactly sure what you mean by that. Bris, why can you not simply accept that Suarez has been found guilty of this crime. That's what racism is now. A criminal act. Instead you decide to have a go at me calling me the "language expert". I'm sorry but when did I imply that I was an expert in linguistics? Am really not sure where you come from with your comments on this forum. So, as I said earlier, stop the analysis and just accept that the player has been found guilty. You put 'What they do in their country is irrelevant' Assuming you were responding to what I put about the languages.. I said it's incorrect to think this way as words and phrases can be interpreted differently.. It's not a case of calling somone a n*gger in England and then calling someone a n*gger in Uruguay as different forms.. You're talking about languages.. Like I said, the word monkey is racist.. But call someone mono (assuming that is what was said) in Spanish and it doesn't always have the same effect.. Hell someone on the Uruguyan football team is called 'el mono' Your quote of 'my quotes don't need require your anlaysis' is petty.. Especially when it isn't 100% correct and it was in response to mine.. Yes he's been found guilty, I just hope someone has done some proper research and researched the way he said it... If they've just picked up on the word 'mono' translated it to 'monkey' and decided that it's racist then they could end up being embarrassed and they're opening up a whole new can of worms.. I'm not intending to say that he's guilty or not, taht you're right or wrong, I'm just merely replying to your comment regarding countries when it's not the countries that's the issue it's the language. And also, sometimes I don't know why I use this forum.. I sometimes read back at my comments a little shocked at how it can be interpreted.. I don't want to come accross as a moaning git who tries correcting people, I genuinely want to debate.. I might just stop replying to certain people as it seems I'm digging a deeper hole with certain posters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorneoRam Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I got called mono all the time in Colombia - there it referred to white guys/Fair hair, kind of like gringo in Mexico but non-offensive. I had seen it reported the word he used was negrito (makes sense as evra is not the tallest) and Bris is right - in Latin America it is totally accepted and normal and used in affection more than anything else. Question that is raised though is was Suarez using it as a way to wind Evra up/insult him i.e. using the word in a way that is not how it is used in South America (terrible English I know but hopefully you follow) In which case it could be deemed as racist as he has been out of South America long enough to know better. It is a real tough one - Evra himself said he didn't think Suarez was racist (his Grandad is Black apparently) and my honest opinion is that he was trying to wind Evra up but made an error with his choice of words that may be explained by his cultural background - it is tricky though which is why I am a bit surprised (given the amount of mitigating factors and clear lack of conclusive evidence, the last part is an assumption based on how long the hearing took) that they came up with guilty. I am pretty sure they will appeal and it will be pretty tough to make the case stand up in CAS for example (on the evidence I have seen so far) - maybe the FA are expecting this and are trying to send a message or maybe they will release conclusive evidence soon that changes everything - who knows - feels a bit grey and confused right now though, a bit like this post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake n Bake Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Evra has proven to be a ******** before. But as we've seen time and time again in this country, when somebody claims they have been racially abused, whether telling the truth or not the person committing the offence is condemned. When I used to play youth football we used to play a team made up of all black or asian players. They were quite a rough team who used to cause a lot of fights. But they'd always get away with it and other teams would get in trouble because they'd wrongly claim they were racially abused. I'm not standing up for Suarez or saying that Evra is lying. I just think that an 8 game ban based on one players word against another might need investigating better. Maybe Suarez make an awful racial slur at him, or maybe he wound Evra up and Evra misheard what he said in the heat of the moment and decided to get back at him by going to the FA regarding racial abuse. I don't like Suarez, and he deserves the eight game ban if he was racist, but like others have said if it was racial abuse why aren't the police involved? Is this just the FA making an example of someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Evra has proven to be a ******** before. But as we've seen time and time again in this country, when somebody claims they have been racially abused, whether telling the truth or not the person committing the offence is condemned. When I used to play youth football we used to play a team made up of all black or asian players. They were quite a rough team who used to cause a lot of fights. But they'd always get away with it and other teams would get in trouble because they'd wrongly claim they were racially abused. I'm not standing up for Suarez or saying that Evra is lying. I just think that an 8 game ban based on one players word against another might need investigating better. Maybe Suarez make an awful racial slur at him, or maybe he wound Evra up and Evra misheard what he said in the heat of the moment and decided to get back at him by going to the FA regarding racial abuse. I don't like Suarez, and he deserves the eight game ban if he was racist, but like others have said if it was racial abuse why aren't the police involved? Is this just the FA making an example of someone? It is not one man's word against another Suarez has admitted he used the debated word on a repeated basis but not in a racist way. What Liverpool have put in that statement is a crock of crap and could do the player more harm than good there is no question he made the remarks. The issue is a cultural one the word used is apparently used in as a term of endearment to friends and family but the opposite to others. Suarez is arguing the first point, Evra saw it the other way and as it was in the heat of battle in a Liverpool Manchester United match abuse is the more likely situation and the FA have decided Suarez has gone over the line. The bigger problem is unless the appeal court takes the other view, Suarez is tainted with this for ever even though as Evra says he is no racist. It could be very difficult for him to maintain his career in England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorneoRam Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I wasn't aware that he had admitted to using it repeatedly - he apparently told Uruguayan media that he had used a word that his team-mates (not sure if he meant Evra's Man Utd teammates or his own Liverpool/Uruguay teamates) use as a nickname - but repeatedly would be key as Evra claims that he said it over 10 times and this must make a difference on interpretation but I did not see that Suarez admit to that, I wasn't even sure that Suarez had mentioned the word used. It all seems a bit messy to me as there is a clear cultural difference with the word, over there it is a nickname and there are loads, El Gordo (fatty) El Flaco (skinny) El Blanco (Whitey) even Che Guevara was known as El Chancho in his youth (the pig) they are normal and non-offensive. Also Context is hard to prove and if there is doubt on the context then surely he cannot be guilty, they should not be making assumptions in a case that, as mentioned, could taint someone for life - there are a million different ways he could have said it (whatever it was he said) and given mitigating factors I thought it was harsh - again though there may be something that we are not seeing. Obviously racism cannot be condoned but from what has been released to the public there seems to be reasonable doubt on and around this case and yet a guilty verdict has come back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-JW- Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Apparently the word used was Negrito? According to the radio it is used a lot in South America but not necessarily as an offensive word. Dont shoot me down for this, im just the messenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I wasn't aware that he had admitted to using it repeatedly - he apparently told Uruguayan media that he had used a word that his team-mates (not sure if he meant Evra's Man Utd teammates or his own Liverpool/Uruguay teamates) use as a nickname - but repeatedly would be key as Evra claims that he said it over 10 times and this must make a difference on interpretation but I did not see that Suarez admit to that, I wasn't even sure that Suarez had mentioned the word used. It all seems a bit messy to me as there is a clear cultural difference with the word, over there it is a nickname and there are loads, El Gordo (fatty) El Flaco (skinny) El Blanco (Whitey) even Che Guevara was known as El Chancho in his youth (the pig) they are normal and non-offensive. Also Context is hard to prove and if there is doubt on the context then surely he cannot be guilty, they should not be making assumptions in a case that, as mentioned, could taint someone for life - there are a million different ways he could have said it (whatever it was he said) and given mitigating factors I thought it was harsh - again though there may be something that we are not seeing. Obviously racism cannot be condoned but from what has been released to the public there seems to be reasonable doubt on and around this case and yet a guilty verdict has come back Reasonable doubt is not the issue here. This is an FA misconduct charge not a court of law. It is quite possible as well may happen with John Terry for you to break the FA behavioural rules but there not be conclusive enough proof for a guilty verdict in court. This I believe happened with an Indian cricketer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
froggg Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 If his outburst was racist an 8 match ban is not enough imo, how is that zero tolerance?, just revoke one players permit then I would be surprised if it ever happened again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-JW- Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 He'll score a hat trick tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 If his outburst was racist an 8 match ban is not enough imo, how is that zero tolerance?, just revoke one players permit then I would be surprised if it ever happened again. The punishment has to fit the crime, the level of the offence has to be taken into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorneoRam Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I know this was an FA verdict but will Liverpool not push it all the way to CAS - if so I think the case may fall down. Agree with froggg, if racism is proven then the book needs to be thrown at the offender as examples need to be made but this is not clear cut - if someone stuck two fingers up at you you might be offended but in other places it means something else or nothing at all, you have to look at everything and this case is not black and white (no pun intended) I am not comparing the 2 fingered salute to racism as one is clearly worse than the other but it is just an example of something that is different in one country to another and where you could have a misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.