Evra v Suarez -the findings in detail

[Gamma]

he states that they have other information which is not being allowed as evidence so they may as well shut up and take it, but because he knows this information, he knows he has to stand by his player.

that may be just a convenient way for Dalglish to gently ease out while still allowing him to publicly say that he backs suarez. let me get this straight, are you saying suarez is innocent of using racist language?

[Paul Marin]

Not kosher, so needs to be stamped out?

Yes, but you can't have innocent victims along the way. I see Suarez's situation as such. If you hear Kenny Dalglish's press conference yesterday, he states that they have other information which is not being allowed as evidence so they may as well shut up and take it, but because he knows this information, he knows he has to stand by his player.

Tribunals and legal systems operate by their own rules that sometimes counter-intuitively abrogate justice (e.g. if a policeman forgets to read a criminal his miranda rights, he's off the hook, despite being guilty). So yes, stamp it out, but not at the expense of the innocent.

[GazX]

Well, to me, I don't think freedom of speech should allow people to use that freedom to abuse others. If you want to say your piece, fine, but not berate or confront others which is what chanting and amounts to. For example, I may believe that people from redtown are vermin, I may even write that they are or make speeches that they are, but for me to shout out vermin in a man from redtown's face in any kind of threatening or abusing way is not kosher.

Not kosher, so needs to be stamped out?

[Paul Marin]

Then some would argued that the current Kick It Out Campaign, to rid the game of racism is also curtailing certain people's freedom/ rights to speak/chant what they want (be it racist) by trying to stamp out the problem of racism in football/ society.
Would you say that this initiative is also not the way to address this problem?
.
[/B]

Well, to me, I don't think freedom of speech should allow people to use that freedom to abuse others. If you want to say your piece, fine, but not berate or confront others which is what chanting and amounts to. For example, I may believe that people from redtown are vermin, I may even write that they are or make speeches that they are, but for me to shout out vermin in a man from redtown's face in any kind of threatening or abusing way is not kosher.

[GazX]

So what are the variations of racial prejudice that we should use as a standard? Is that your measure? Or mine? You can't have it both ways - he is either prejudiced or not. It is like saying someone is "a little pregnant".

Secondly, you have to look at the bigger picture. If you think that stamping out racism comes from restricting a man's rights, then that's your prerogative. However, for me, you can't step on someone's rights just to further an agenda, no matter how noble that might be.

For example, the KKK in the US can march and spew their insipid message all they want, curtailing their freedom to speak what they want however by stamping them out is not the way to address the problem.

Suarez's conduct cannot be condoned, but you can't make an example of him if there is no absolute irrefutable evidence that he is indeed a racist. They used to do that with black Americans in the south with allegations of raping white women where the woman's word was all that was needed to hang a man with vigilante justice.

However, if there is a code of conduct that he violated that says "you can't use language like...." then okay, by that measure he is guilty of violating the policy. That however, does not mean that he is a racist. There does not seem to be (correct me if I'm wrong) any such policy that I know of that he is violation of, so he is being branded a racist based on the evidence of one man...like the white women crying "rape".

We can't have it both ways.

Then some would argued that the current Kick It Out Campaign, to rid the game of racism is also curtailing certain people's freedom/ rights to speak/chant what they want (be it racist) by trying to stamp out the problem of racism in football/ society.
Would you say that this initiative is also not the way to address this problem?
.
[/B]

[Karl]

This article was posted by X in another thread, but it brings up the same point:

If Patrice Evra did indeed start the conversation talking about Luis Suarez’s sister “Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in golpe”, how can that not bring the game to disrepute (specially since the statement is now well known) and not be tantamount to abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting words? It is also to be noted that all parties have agreed that this (or whatever else Evra’s version is) was the starting point of whatever transpired later. In that case, should this not be penalized first and everything that happened later shouldn’t only be seen as a by-product of this first offense?

http://www.empireofthekop.com/anfiel...fking-anarchy/

...on another note: It is strange that the FA did not issue Eanvra some form of punishment for his acknowledged role. At the least Evra's stated actions was a 'red card' offense - At least 1 match ban, no? Could almost be said, Evra gave self that ban?

[Gamma]

it is abusive and and in very poor taste! btw isn't that similar to what materazzi said to zidane? BUT the racial slurs takes it to another level!

[Zeppo]

That's the problem isn't it? There is a slippery slope here that could really create a bizarre precedent on the pitch. Anyone who plays football knows that these exchanges happen and it is a back and forth of continually raising of the stakes. For one man, being called something racial is less offensive than mentioning his mother, sister wife etc. whereas for another it is not.

This article was posted by X in another thread, but it brings up the same point:

If Patrice Evra did indeed start the conversation talking about Luis Suarez’s sister “Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in golpe”, how can that not bring the game to disrepute (specially since the statement is now well known) and not be tantamount to abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting words? It is also to be noted that all parties have agreed that this (or whatever else Evra’s version is) was the starting point of whatever transpired later. In that case, should this not be penalized first and everything that happened later shouldn’t only be seen as a by-product of this first offense?

http://www.empireofthekop.com/anfiel...fking-anarchy/

[Paul Marin]

Nonsense, Paul Marin! Just because they did not feel he was acting " out of 'deep-seated racial prejudice'", that does not mean he wasn't acting out of racial prejudice.

Screw Suarez' career! I am more concerned about stamping out racism in all walks of life, not just sport.

So what are the variations of racial prejudice that we should use as a standard? Is that your measure? Or mine? You can't have it both ways - he is either prejudiced or not. It is like saying someone is "a little pregnant".

Secondly, you have to look at the bigger picture. If you think that stamping out racism comes from restricting a man's rights, then that's your prerogative. However, for me, you can't step on someone's rights just to further an agenda, no matter how noble that might be.

For example, the KKK in the US can march and spew their insipid message all they want, curtailing their freedom to speak what they want however by stamping them out is not the way to address the problem.

Suarez's conduct cannot be condoned, but you can't make an example of him if there is no absolute irrefutable evidence that he is indeed a racist. They used to do that with black Americans in the south with allegations of raping white women where the woman's word was all that was needed to hang a man with vigilante justice.

However, if there is a code of conduct that he violated that says "you can't use language like...." then okay, by that measure he is guilty of violating the policy. That however, does not mean that he is a racist. There does not seem to be (correct me if I'm wrong) any such policy that I know of that he is violation of, so he is being branded a racist based on the evidence of one man...like the white women crying "rape".

We can't have it both ways.

[Karl]

Good chat, Sir Paul!

[Dunny]

Nonsense, Paul Marin! Just because they did not feel he was acting " out of 'deep-seated racial prejudice'", that does not mean he wasn't acting out of racial prejudice.

Screw Suarez' career! I am more concerned about stamping out racism in all walks of life, not just sport.

Well said!!, he deserved everything he got and more.

[Mosiah]

In the report, Suarez claimed: "I would refer to Glen Johnson as 'negro' in the same way that I might refer to Dirk Kuyt as 'Blondie' - because he has blond hair, or Andy Carroll as 'Grandote' - 'Big Man' - because he is very tall.

Tek people fi eediat!

[Mosiah]

Nonsense, Paul Marin! Just because they did not feel he was acting " out of 'deep-seated racial prejudice'", that does not mean he wasn't acting out of racial prejudice.

Screw Suarez' career! I am more concerned about stamping out racism in all walks of life, not just sport.

[Mosiah]

Okay. I have heard enough.

I will be walking alone from 2012.

[Paul Marin]

Interesting question. This comes from the BBC article on the report:

According to the report, Evra admitted that he begun the exchange with Suarez by referring to the Uruguayan's sister in Spanish.

So assuming that Evra's remark on Suarez's sister was an insult -- and I'd have a hard time believing it was anything but that -- then wouldn't he be guilty of using "indecent or insulting words or behaviour" according to the same rule also cited in the article?

That's the problem isn't it? There is a slippery slope here that could really create a bizarre precedent on the pitch. Anyone who plays football knows that these exchanges happen and it is a back and forth of continually raising of the stakes. For one man, being called something racial is less offensive than mentioning his mother, sister wife etc. whereas for another it is not. The question therefore becomes the standard of measure - do you base the infraction on the impact on (or interpretations of) "the offended" or the intent of "the offender"? I submit that if it is by the former, then there is no end in sight to the potential litany of complaints that can come the FA's way for everything from racism to making fun of a man's cat. (How dare you insult my cat!!) I would expect that they should have some kind of code of conduct which spells it out - maybe one exists and if so, then that's all that is needed. If one doesn't then the upshot of this incident is that maybe one could be (and should be) created.

Independently of football, racism is a serious allegation and I think should stand alone. However, as I see it, the FA has to be careful to weigh the implications of banning the man for a "racist act" and then at the same time saying that they don't think he's a racist. There is a potential incongruence there.

The bottom line is that the allegations and verdict could have serious implications to the man personally and professionally. The FA's responsibility is to also ensure the protection of him as a player as well, despite the infraction. This is clearly (at least to me) Liverpool's dilemma. I can't see the club having a choice but to launch an appeal.