Football 2011-2012

[thetime]

I didn't bring it back up. I was talking Man United injuries etc.

In fact I even refrained from an article which backed up everything I'd been saying and shot down for over the last few days.

Don't blame me

[eFestivals]

The important facts regarding the Suarez things are these

1. Suare did use the phrase Negro

2. It was clearly not just 'friendly banter'. Banter in the middle of an argument between rivals?

3. If Liverpool seriously believed they are in the wrong, they should have appealed on the basis that they were not allowed to put their points across fairly.

4. Liverpool's general behaviour in this has been stupid. They need to take tips from chelsea on how to deal with these things.

the guardian link above does explain Evra's disreprancies.

1. using that word proves nothing about whether it was used in a racist manner.

2. they could have had an argument without any racist language.

3. an appeal to the FA wouldn't overturn the verdict. An appeal elsewhere would still have Suarez serve the ban even if the verdict was eventually overturned. I can see why against those facts they've chosen not to appeal.

4. Liverpool's stupid behaviour proves nothing towards the racism allegations.

Those are simple responses to your points, which get to show that those points don't necessarily mean anything towards the incident.

That Guardian link explains Evra's discrepancies as being the result of him misunderstanding what was said. As a result of his misunderstanding he made the complaint of racist abuse by Suarez.

1. If he'd properly understood, would he have ever made the complaint? We can't really know.

2. Having made the complaint as the result of a misunderstanding, might he have felt the need to follow thru on his allegations, and falsify his account of things? Again, we can't know - but I would think that his past history of false allegations needs to be considered against this, because it becomes of far more relevance in the light of that misunderstanding leading to the complaint.

I'm far less sure that the panel got things right in light of the uneven treatment of the players, and Evra's 'misunderstanding' (or changed story?).

[eFestivals]

Someone threw him a bone... but to be frank... Not much has changed... Still guilty...

one day it might get to sink into that rather dull brain of yours that a guilty verdict doesn't necessarily get to mean that a defendant is actually guilty.

There's a quite a few Irishmen as well as many others who could help get you straight about that.

[5co77ie]

good article here www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=16839

Edited January 5, 2012 by 5co77ie

[Kowalski]

Lord Ouseley comments

"Liverpool need to take a hard look at themselves and how they have responded to the complaint and the investigations into the allegations of abuse in the Patrice Evra/Luis Suarez case.

"Throughout the entirety of the proceedings, over the past three months, all we have heard are denials and denigration of Evra.

"Since the publication of the 115-page report of the findings of the FA's independent commission, Liverpool's vitriol has increased.

"Suarez's attempt at a belated apology is nothing short of lamentable.

"I cannot believe that a club of Liverpool's stature, and with how it has previously led on matters of social injustice and inequality, can allow its integrity and credibility to be debased by such crass and ill-considered responses.

"Liverpool have been particularly hypocritical. You can't on the one hand wear a Kick It Out T-shirt in a week of campaigning against racism when this is also happening on the pitch: it's the height of hypocrisy.

"Liverpool players wore a T-shirt saying: 'We support Luis Suarez', seemingly whatever the outcome. This was a dreadful knee-jerk reaction because it stirs things up."

Bit in bold could easily apply to some who have posted in this thread.

[Kowalski]

I'm far less sure that the panel got things right in light of the uneven treatment of the players, and Evra's 'misunderstanding' (or changed story?).

[The Nal]

Says who and using what measurememt to compare with others. They probably are the best payers which should mean they get the best, but its not always as easy as that. Hargreaves seemed to think there were some flaws, i wouldnt just assume he is wrong and saf right or vice versa. As I have said I don't really have a clue which clubs have the best medical staff but think fans of any club would be naive to assume theres no room for improvement, just because they are told.

[strummer77]

Lord Ouseley comments

"Liverpool need to take a hard look at themselves and how they have responded to the complaint and the investigations into the allegations of abuse in the Patrice Evra/Luis Suarez case.

"Throughout the entirety of the proceedings, over the past three months, all we have heard are denials and denigration of Evra.

"Since the publication of the 115-page report of the findings of the FA's independent commission, Liverpool's vitriol has increased.

[strummer77]

But his "misunderstanding" has lead to a softening of the interpretation of what Suarez said, so I don't see what you're getting at. What Evra appeared to have initially thought was far worse.

Edited January 5, 2012 by strummer77

[eFestivals]

But his "misunderstanding" has lead to a softening of the interpretation of what Suarez said, so I don't see what you're getting at. What Evra appeared to have initially thought was far worse.

But was it really a misunderstanding? After all, (from posts made here) Evra's first complaint was to the ref, and he complained that he'd been called 'black', not 'nigger'.

He then complained that he'd been called 'nigger'. He might have felt that he had to step back from that because it would have been an unsustainable allegation, and so to sustain the allegation (something he might have felt under pressure to do, because of his past history of false allegations) he then made up loads of bollocks about what exactly was said.

I posted previously that Evra's claim of Suarez saying "Dale, negro, negro, negro" sounded like a real and childish response to Evra's threat to punch him, and not the sort of thing that someone would be likely to make up. I'm now looking at that in a new light and thinking perhaps it was made up, so that the 'negro' count got up to something like the number that Evra alleged when he came off the field.

These are possibilities.

Those aside, the fact that the panel seems to have given uneven treatment to the players in the hearing of their evidence could certainly be a strong factor in them concluding that it was Suarez that was lying.

I don't know what to think now. I was previously quite happy to side with the report's conclusions, but I'm far less inclined to do that now.

[5co77ie]

good article here www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=16839

[eFestivals]

Hargreaves was talking waffle by the way. He wasn't forced to play. And if he was, and wasn't 100%, why didn't he say something?

it's pretty normal for an employee to feel obliged to follow thru on a request from their employer against their better judgement.

While that might be less the case with highly paid and feeling-powerful footballers, I'd have thought that Hargreaves long absence with injury would have more than counter-acted that.

[eFestivals]

Edit: Another article from the Telegraph. Coming out thick and fast now

http://www.telegraph...ry-process.html

Here's even more reason to have less faith in the process.....

Liverpool are unhappy that Evra was granted three meetings with the FA and given access to video evidence well in advance of the December hearing.

[strummer77]

Oh theres no "proof" of course. I just mean its the general consensus among the people in the know.

Hargreaves was talking waffle by the way. He wasn't forced to play. And if he was, and wasn't 100%, why didn't he say something?

[kaosmark2]

Souness' teams always got injured a lot too, was that something to do with the staff he chose or took with him?

[strummer77]

Training plans. Half our players got injured in training when that complete failure of a manager was at Newcastle.

[Stash]

Comolli and Kuyt could both have easily mistranslated 'porque negro' into 'por que tues negro' (or whatever it was) as easily as Evra could have mistranslated "Negro" into "Nigger". In fact he told the ref he was being called "black". Although in point 271 of the report he explains how he did not report to the ref it was 'Nigger' as he didn't like saying it- which has already been proved to be bollocks.

And can you still not get your head around the fact no-one is arguing 'because you are black' is a cultural misunderstanding. Suarez claims he said 'Porque, Negro?'. Which very much might not be.

[thetime]

Was sure he had something to do with it. Had it at Liverpool and I think Blackburn too.

[strummer77]

Its not like a liverpool fan to blame souness strummer.

My best mate still blames souness for liverpool's faliures in the last 15-20 years.

[kaosmark2]

Its not like a liverpool fan to blame souness strummer.

My best mate still blames souness for liverpool's faliures in the last 15-20 years.

[eFestivals]

Sorry, but doesn't that argument loose ground when you remember that Suarez and Kuyt were speaking in Dutch:

Section 297:

"According to Mr Kuyt, Mr Suarez said to him that he had touched Mr Evra on the head and he (Mr Evra) said something along the lines of "get away from me South American", to which Mr Suarez replied "because you're black can't...why can't I touch you then".

"The Dutch words which Mr Kuyt recalled Mr Suarez using were "omdat je zwart bent mag...waarom mag ik je daarom niet aanraken".

"Mr Kuyt explained to us that the initial phrase in this passage means "because you are black", i.e. omdat (because) je (you) zwart (black) bent (are).

Are you suggesting that the mistranslation happened in two languages with the same outcome, yet was a coincidental mistake?

That "because you're black can't...why can't I touch you then" .....

The break in the middle of that loses (to me) a little of what was being got at, but if it was an attempt at saying "because you're black can't I touch you then?", while it could be said that there's the smallest hint of racism within it (tho it could also be taken as pisstake against racism), it reads to me like it far more like it's a pisstake of Evra as a person, who Suarez seemingly feels is saying is too important (or whatever) to be fouled as players are just by the fact they play football.

Edited January 5, 2012 by eFestivals

[strummer77]

And yep. Fucking awful manager.

[kaosmark2]

Agree. Not a bad pundit though I find. Oddly.

[The Nal]

Agree. Not a bad pundit though I find. Oddly.

[pink_triangle]

they may not have the best medical staff, but your under lying argument seems to be there to blame for the injuries where clearly there not.