FA release report on Suarez, Evra incident.

[GazX]

http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/p...-times-123111/


The trouble flared when Evra asked Suarez why he had been kicked.

''Porque tu eres negro,'' Suarez replied in Spanish, which translates as ''because you are black.''

When Evra challenged him to repeat the answer and said he would ''punch him'', Suarez responded in Spanish: ''I don't speak to blacks.''

After Evra threatened to hit him again, Suarez replied with a phrase that the report said translates as ''OK, blackie, blackie, blackie''.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And tuh think people still wan defend di likkle WC handballing teef!!

[Mosiah]

And Liverpool defends that. Well, I won't defend Liverpool.

[Paul Marin]

And Liverpool defends that. Well, I won't defend Liverpool.

Mo, if this was your club, and your player is being accused of something which is extremely serious, would you cut the player loose if you thought the accusation was unfair?

Management 101 says that you don't defend the indefensible, but in this case, if they believe that the player is being branded a racist when they have a deep-seated belief that he is not, should they just cave?

For example, if your brother, mother, sister, or close friend etc. were called a thief based on their own exercise in misjudgment or a stupid mistake that may have left them looking like thieves when they had no intention to steal, would you defend them? I would hope you would not condone the action, but fight to uphold their true character if you do indeed believe that they are not of that stripe.

As I see it, Liverpool does not believe Suarez is a racist and are using the club's resources to clear his name. It is exactly what I would do if I ran the club. However, if I believed he was a racist, then, yes, cut him loose. That time to me has not yet come.

[TheDread]

http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/p...-times-123111/


The trouble flared when Evra asked Suarez why he had been kicked.

''Porque tu eres negro,'' Suarez replied in Spanish, which translates as ''because you are black.''

When Evra challenged him to repeat the answer and said he would ''punch him'', Suarez responded in Spanish: ''I don't speak to blacks.''

After Evra threatened to hit him again, Suarez replied with a phrase that the report said translates as ''OK, blackie, blackie, blackie''.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And tuh think people still wan defend di likkle WC handballing teef!!

If this is correct then it clearly shows ill intent and is by no means a cultural issue. If correct then an 8 game ban was too short.

[Paul Marin]

If this is correct then it clearly shows ill intent and is by no means a cultural issue. If correct then an 8 game ban was too short.

No question, but I have my reservations about one man's testimony over another as the sole source (if indeed it is I don't know) and secondly, not having any other player stand up is a concern. I am about to start reading the report (not sure if I'll finish it) but the rule (FA RULE E3) that Suarez was found guilty of breaching reads:

GENERAL BEHAVIOUR

RULE 3

(1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.

(2) In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an “aggravating factor”), a Regulatory Commission shall consider the imposition of an increased sanction, taking into account the following entry points:

For a first offence, a sanction that is double that which the Regulatory Commission would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present.

For a second offence, a sanction that is treble that which the Regulatory Commission would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present. Any further such off ence(s) shall give rise to consideration of a permanent suspension. These entry points are intended to guide the Regulatory Commission and are not mandatory. The Regulatory Commission shall have the discretion to impose a sanction greater or less than the entry point, according to the aggravating or mitigating factors present in each case.

Full rules & regs:

http://www.thefa.com/thefa/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Rules_Regs/RulesOfTheAssociation201112.ashx/RulesOfTheAssociation201112.pdf

[Sickko]

One report had said Suarez used the phrase 10 times but now the FA says it was seven....still serious

[GazX]

And the response from LFC after the release of this report is ?......

[Gamma]

you are defending the indefensible IMHO. True I don't like Suarez but I did not write the report. He was exposed by the level of sophistication used by the FA. By his own declaration Poyet's life should be forfeit and Barnes has, yet again, made a premature utterance which has embarrassed him.

He claim he did nothing wrong and that Negritos is a term of endearment. Given the circumstances that was a bold faced dare to the FA!!!

[Paul Marin]

you are defending the indefensible IMHO. True I don't like Suarez but I did not write the report. He was exposed by the level of sophistication used by the FA. By his own declaration Poyet's life should be forfeit and Barnes has, yet again, made a premature utterance which has embarrassed him.

He claim he did nothing wrong and that Negritos is a term of endearment. Given the circumstances that was a bold faced dare to the FA!!!

To be clear, I am patently not defending or condemning Suarez, but only saying that we should not condemn anyone on such a serious allegation without knowing facts. There are so many people that have come down on either side of this issue who in my opinion have come to their conclusions carelessly. I am not about to do that.

I have not read the report, so I don't know the basis of the Commission coming to the conclusion that he was racially abusive. If anyone has NOT read the report, they can't either (other than basing their conclusions on data obtained through some vector like the press). Maybe you have read the report and know more than me, but based on what I know, I am not about to try the man and hang him based on Evra's word alone (which is all I have to go on).

Liverpool has to defend Suarez if they believe he is innocent. Clearly, they have read the report and believe that an appeal is warranted. They are doing the very same thing you would do were you in their position (assuming you believed he was not guilty).

[Dunny]

And the response from LFC after the release of this report is ?......

They are eating humble pie, better they accept and move on!