Football 2011-2012

[Wooderson]

The statement from LFC HQ reads like a declaration of war. Its ace.

[eFestivals]

Not sure about this, I'm wondering if the delay is due to the FA checking their legal position.

from what's been reported (which might not be fully accurate of course) both before, during and after the hearing & verdict, it seems to be the case that the only properly-damning evidence against Suarez is Evra's word.

Suarez has admitted using the word 'negro', but it's use was alongside another word in Spanish - which puts 'negro' in the Spanish context of meaning just 'black' (in a descriptive sense).

While Suarez's intention might have been derogatory by his choice of words, only he can know that with any certainty, and a defence of "I was speaking my native tongue of Spanish, and using 'negro' as it's used in my native land" is a more than reasonable defence I would think without any further supporting evidence against him.

That's not me saying he's not guilty, that's me saying I find it difficult to accept the verdict as just on what is supposedly the evidence.

And that's not me saying that Evra didn't feel genuinely racially abused; but his feeling of being abused is as much set by his cultural circumstances as him not being abused would be set for Suarez by his own cultural circumstances.

.using racist language in an offensive way is illegal and so the FA has to consider if it does find Suarez innocent what would happen if Evra took it to the police.

nope, I don't think that's of any relevance to things as they stand. The levels of evidence and proof and the offence itself are all set by FA rules and not anything to do with formal legal standing.

I'd say the police complaint is likely to have a bearing on the Terry/Ferdinand case tho, because that complaint has been made before an FA hearing, and I can't see how the FA would feel able to pursue that charge against Terry if the CPS decide against prosecuting him.

There is also a possible minefield of the word negrito then being given legitamacy in this country for anyone to use, fans, other players etc..

it seems to be the case that the word used (or rather, admitted to) was 'negro' and not 'negrito', from what's been reported.

If someone calls someone else a fucking negrito down the pub on a Friday night and they complain to the police what the hell happens then? Does the FA verdict have any baring on the police? If the police found the guy guilty it would put the FA in an impossible position then going forward, if we have issues with racist abuse in Eastern Europe during Euro 2012 for example.

If someone used it down the pub they couldn't reasonably claim a cultural angle in the way that Suarez appears to have done, so I don't think that's got any bearing on anything.

Also, as I've said above, what the FA have done is of no relevance to formal legal matters.

[eFestivals]

My opinion is that is not acceptable for players to use cultural differences as an excuse for behaviour. If you move to a country you have to be willing to except the cultural differences in the country which you move and act accordingly. It should be up to the clubs to educate players about this.

In an ideal world I agree with what you say there.

But it's not an ideal world, and we all should be able to recognise know how easy it can be to upset the local sensitivities abroad over something we'd do with little thought when in the UK.

That's not necessarily any excuse for breaking 'local rules', but it does give reasons for why it's not the same 'bad behaviour' that it would be rightly considered to be if done by a local.

This punishment however will be a farce if as I expect terry ends up getting no suspension at all.

the fact of a police complaint having been made over that ties the hands of the FA to some extent I think.

I think the FA would find it hard to pursue the charge against Terry is the CPS decide there's no case to answer in a formal legal court, or if the case is pursued and Terry is found not guilty.

[eFestivals]

Suarez: "Today is a very difficult and painful day for both me and my family. Thanks for all the support, I'll keep working!"

Liverpool: "We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone when no-one else on the field of play. It is our strong held belief, having gone over the facts of the case, that Luis Suarez did not commit any racist act."

Have the FA got it wrong?

Not necessarily.

If the judgement had gone the other way, I'd have expected similar to come from the other side.

It's one of those things where the cultural angles means it's possible for Evra to genuinely feel racially abused while Suarez feels that no racial abuse happened.

I've said all along that it's probably too culturally messy to come out with what can regarded as a fair verdict by both sides.

[eFestivals]

They've gone down the "some of his best mates are black" route:

oh c'mon - that's a bit unfair. On a British cultural basis Suarez himself is 'black'.

(for a bit of context: my niece is mixed race, with whiter skin than Suarez has. If you want to tell her she's not black I suggest you wear face protection. )

Edited December 21, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

That statement surely didn't come from the club??

This bit made me laugh

"We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult."

since when is there a charge for insulting someone "in the most objectionable terms"

those "objectionable terms" are supposedly something racist that Evra said himself and freely admitted to at the hearing, while Suarez himself told the hearing that he didn't hear those words.

While it's not been clear what those words were, the inference I've taken from what I've read about is that the words being referred to aren't the "you South American" that Evra is supposed to have said - which are in themselves racist under British law.

(the reason for my thinking that it's not the "you south american" words is because I believe those were said in English while the "objectionable" words were supposedly in Spanish).

[eFestivals]

I think this is the best reasoning I have seen so far and its where my feelings sit... Pending appeal of course

Piara Powar, executive director of Football Against Racism in Europe (Fare), believes the governing body's decision is a landmark judgement.

He told BBC Radio 5 live: "This is the first time we have seen an insight into what is said between players on the pitch, and what may have been commonplace between players in the past.

"This is a big moment and I would say that the FA have dealt with this in the right way. They have taken their time and taken independent advice.

"No one takes any pleasure from seeing him found guilty like this but it is an interesting judgement."

Powar said Fare has taken advice on the abusive word used by Suarez and the context of similar words in South American dialect.

He added: "If it is used in a friendly fashion then it is acceptable, it turns immediately to a hostile meaning if it used as an offensive word.

"Taking the context of that game, it is difficult to see how he would have used it in a friendly way."

While from one angle I agree with all of that, there's another angle to it all.

If players are 'sledging' each other on the pitch, then it only works if you say something which offends the other player.

Someone might say "your mother is a whore" (hello Materazzi), but how is that better than winding someone up by the using a racial slur? The only thing which puts a different slant on things is that the racial slur is considered completely socially unacceptable for historical reasons - but the depth of offence caused by either can be just as deep.

[eFestivals]

I suppose the question is...

Is it ok for him to refer to Evra as being black... What did being black have to do with what was happening ?

Its seems a pretty iffy defence to me...

Context is everything.

While it might have been wrong, it becomes little more than tit-for-tat as a response to Evra's words of "you South American".

Both can be statements of fact; both can be racial slurs. It's the intent behind the use of the words that makes them bad or not.

[the_hedge]

He has refereed to the colour of his skin 9 times in a match where they were clearly having a go at each other. Difficult for me to see it being anything lese other than racist.

Ignorance is no excuse.

[Wooderson]

If Suarez had said "no comment" following the incident he wouldnt have been banned.

[The Nal]

Ignorance is no excuse.

[eFestivals]

He has refereed to the colour of his skin 9 times in a match where they were clearly having a go at each other. Difficult for me to see it being anything lese other than racist.

Ignorance is no excuse.

What you mean is that Evra has CLAIMED that Suarez made racially based comments a number of times.

It appears to be the case that there's not the evidence to back that up, in a goal mouth during a corner when a number of TV cameras are focused on mostly-still players, and lots of other players are nearby yet none of them heard anything.

Evra claimed that it would be obvious, and it seems to have not been.

Evra is a person who has form for exaggerating claims against others.

None of that proves anything of course - proves anything EITHER WAY. All I'm pointing out here is that things might not be as you're taking them to be.

Things might become a little clearer if the full details are released - tho the FA are currently deciding whether they will be or not, which itself seems very strange for such a controversial case.

[eFestivals]

Within a couple of days they have to provide Liverpool with a full report on the reasons as far as I know... That has also been reported in the press... Otherwise they wouldn't be able to work out if its worth appealing or not...

yep - but that's something different to releasing the same thing into the public domain.

I'm not sure if they do normally make them public, tho I'm under the impression that they do. But I read in one of the papers (I forget which now) this morning that they're considering not releasing this one.

[Wooderson]

If they don't release the details of their findings then we've a shitstorm on our hands. Like all sane Reds fans I will support any judgement when based on solid evidence. If its one persons word against another that is insufficient to my mind at least.

If the Reds withdrew from the FA cup in protest should the findings be kept private I would support that 100%

[The Nal]

If they don't release the details of their findings then we've a shitstorm on our hands. Like all sane Reds fans I will support any judgement when based on solid evidence. If its one persons word against another that is insufficient to my mind at least.

Edited December 21, 2011 by The Nal

[Wooderson]

"Racism" and "Liverpool" in the same sentence. That will stick for a long time. Not great.

It has to be shown to be beyond reasonable doubt which won't be the case if they withhold the evidence.

[Wooderson]

Perhaps an apology for causing offence, a reaffirming that the player did not mean any racial offence and quietly serve the ban would of been /could be the best course of action for all concerned....

[Wooderson]

No chance Gerrard will withdraw IMO...

[The Nal]

I see this is an issue with the player and not the club...

Although, if they carry on with club statements like the one given, they could possible sour their own name as well...

[Kowalski]

I see this is an issue with the player and not the club...

[pink_triangle]

In an ideal world I agree with what you say there.

But it's not an ideal world, and we all should be able to recognise know how easy it can be to upset the local sensitivities abroad over something we'd do with little thought when in the UK.

That's not necessarily any excuse for breaking 'local rules', but it does give reasons for why it's not the same 'bad behaviour' that it would be rightly considered to be if done by a local.

[The Nal]

I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic with that one or not

[eFestivals]

Although, if they carry on with club statements like the one given, they could possible sour their own name as well...

Perhaps an apology for causing offence, a reaffirming that the player did not mean any racial offence and quietly serve the ban would of been /could be the best course of action for all concerned....

Hmmmm, it's a difficult one for the club, and I can see merit with taking either angle from what's in the public domain. Because LFC know details of the case which we don't, then it's perhaps the case that their strong stance is justified.

I can certainly see the point to their demand that Evra is also charged by the FA for what he is supposed to have admitted to within the hearing. And perhaps this would be the best outcome all-round, as it would change the public view of the incident into the context of two players bitching at each other, rather than as one of them being racist when it seems to be the case that the judgement is based on little more than the word of Evra.

Is anyone able to tell me how things work in regard to a charge against a player? Is evidence enough for the FA to make a charge without a complaint from a club or player? Would a complaint by LFC now be considered frivolous, a way of getting back at Evra?

Surely the FA should work on evidence? And it seems to be the case that they have the evidence for a charge against Evra too.

[pink_triangle]

If they don't release the details of their findings then we've a shitstorm on our hands. Like all sane Reds fans I will support any judgement when based on solid evidence. If its one persons word against another that is insufficient to my mind at least.

If the Reds withdrew from the FA cup in protest should the findings be kept private I would support that 100%

[Wooderson]

If the FA has evidence the player racially abused Evra then I think the fine is lenient. If they are just going on the (naive) comments admitted to by Suarez himself then this is a crock of shite.