Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:54 am  

Just debating this with my bird's dad just now (a United fan). He seems bemused that someone can be found guilty of something without any evidence to prove it. Considering I've not read the full thing and most on here seem to already have, is it actually proven that Suarez said it, or have they taken the decision based on the accuracy/inaccuracy/consistency of statements?

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:08 am  

Roddy B wrote:

Just debating this with my bird's dad just now (a United fan). He seems bemused that someone can be found guilty of something without any evidence to prove it. Considering I've not read the full thing and most on here seem to already have, is it actually proven that Suarez said it, or have they taken the decision based on the accuracy/inaccuracy/consistency of statements?

he admitted (belatedly) to negretito, after at first denying saying anything , this presumably has turned out to be 'negro' & and 'i don't speak to negros' along with pinching Evra in a 'conciliatory' sort of way, it sounds as though skys footage / audio is pretty damning, you have to remember how many mics and cameras there are, whenever there is and unsavoury chant in the football or rugby the producer drops the levels pretty quickly

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:20 am  

From reading the report (albeit after a few drinks) it seems Suarez at one point admits to calling Evra a negro (in a "friendly" way), but then later denies calling him a negro at any point of the exchange.

It's hardly a surprise he is seen as an unreliable witness is it?

Also it seems he gave his evidence in Spanish - no doubt there'll be Liverpool fans will be claiming this conflict is due to the Spanish of the person asking the question being South West Central South American Spanish as opposed to Suarez's Rioplatense Spanish. I believe that can cause a lot of confusion.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:32 am  

Roddy B wrote:

Just debating this with my bird's dad just now (a United fan). He seems bemused that someone can be found guilty of something without any evidence to prove it. Considering I've not read the full thing and most on here seem to already have, is it actually proven that Suarez said it, or have they taken the decision based on the accuracy/inaccuracy/consistency of statements?

I don't know what your problem is with relying on witness evidence. That's how lots of disputes of fact are decided. They did use witness evidence but the fact that Suarez's evidence contradicted the video and audio didn't help.

He's bang to rights. If he has the cheek to appeal that should double the ban.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:35 am  

Ian 77 Redux wrote:

I don't know what your problem is with relying on witness evidence. That's how lots of disputes of fact are decided. They did use witness evidence but the fact that Suarez's evidence contradicted the video and audio didn't help.

He's bang to rights. If he has the cheek to appeal that should double the ban.

Its difficult to see how he could appeal on the basis that he was entirely blameless. If he'd initially accepted that he'd used the phrase inappropriately, but disputed repeating it several times, he might have escaped with a 2 match ban. There doesnt seem that much evidence that he used the phrase repeatedly, but by contradicting his initial statement it appears that the panel simply accepted Evra's version of events in its entirety.

It does appear that he's been very badly advised by the club. As soon as he admitted using the term the club should have issued an apology on behalf of him and the club. The owners must surely be bitterly regretting issuing that statement.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:52 am  

I think we can spend all day arguing about this, but the simple fact is that Suarez is guilty of some very unsubtle baiting, which has come back to bite him on the backside.

The way LFC fans are attempting to defend Suarez over his use of the term 'negro' is laughable.....I think the words 'clutching' and 'straws' spring to mind....

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:12 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Its difficult to see how he could appeal on the basis that he was entirely blameless. If he'd initially accepted that he'd used the phrase inappropriately, but disputed repeating it several times, he might have escaped with a 2 match ban. There doesnt seem that much evidence that he used the phrase repeatedly, but by contradicting his initial statement it appears that the panel simply accepted Evra's version of events in its entirety.

It does appear that he's been very badly advised by the club. As soon as he admitted using the term the club should have issued an apology on behalf of him and the club. The owners must surely be bitterly regretting issuing that statement.

Was it the owners who issued the first, pulled statement?

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Jan 01, 2012 2:38 pm  

Evra's evidence made sense, was consistent and fitted with the video evidence that was produced later. Suarez's didn't.

The only issues I have with the hearing is the fact that they repeatedly make the assessment that Suarez fouled Evra in the first place. IMO he was attempting to dribble past Evra, Evra tackled him and the ball was clearly going out of play, in the process of Evra tackling Suarez there was probably impact between the two players and that's why Evra went to ground holding his knee. There was no foul, it was simply a case of two players fighting for possession in a tight space and a coming together. There was no kicking of the knee by Suarez.

Another point is that in the initial arguments over what took place it wasn't mentioned that Evra started the confrontation with an aggressive comment with literally translated as "sister's cooch" but was quickly downplayed to an equivalent of "effing hell". That only emerged with the evidence of the experts in linguistics. It wasn't mentioned earlier than that and that was strange.

In a way I do have sympathy for Suarez in that Evra started the aggressive confrontation and he simply responded in kind. But the repeated racial comments and his later denial really screwed Suarez. For that it seems correct that he got done for 8 matches, however harsh that seems at first.

One thing that is encouraging is that fact that Evra was so surprised at Suarez's insults and insists that he has never suffered abuse like this in his career. That's a pleasant surprise to me and I think fantastic evidence that the campain to eradicate racism from football has largely worked.

I think Suarez should just take the ban, accept what he did was wrong, apologise for the incident and just move on. I do think his 8 match ban is punishment enough and it shouldn't be a cloud hanging over him for the rest of his career, but I doubt this will be the case.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:00 pm  

Suarez could have avoided all this by just calling Evra an @rsehole like everyone else. (c) The Daily Mash

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:32 pm  

Ian 77 Redux wrote:

I don't know what your problem is with relying on witness evidence. That's how lots of disputes of fact are decided. They did use witness evidence but the fact that Suarez's evidence contradicted the video and audio didn't help.

He's bang to rights. If he has the cheek to appeal that should double the ban.

I never said I had a problem with it, it was my bird's dad that mentioned it. He seems to be in disbelief that someone can be found guilty of something in a word against word thing. I've said before, I've not read the full thing, nor do I know much about law, I was simply raising a point he'd made, something you seem to think is a problem I have.

I'll probably get to have a good read of it on Tuesday or maybe later on tonight.