Luis Suarez

Would you accept it if the ban was halved?

Barnes 10 wrote:Would you accept it if the ban was halved?

Anyone?

Apparently Thommo was on SS saying Liverpool should accept it apologise to Evra and move on.

There has been a solicitor on twitter saying it should be appealed, but only the length of the ban, even though there are a lot of holes in the report

I imagine the FA expect us to appeal the ban, hence giving him 8, so if we get 4, I think that's the easiest option. but on the other side of it I do not for 1 minute believe that Luis said blackie, blackie, blackie to Evra, I do believe he said something that would antagonize him, but not with any racist intent.

Evra has himself said from the beginning that Luis said it 10 times, but then retracted that as a figure of speech. Why should he be allowed to change his mind and Luis not?

Our defence lawyers didn't seem up to par either. Luis will be forever labeled a racist, even though he hasn't been "convicted" of it.It will have massive effects on his business, sponsors, charity etc, then there is the club itself.

Really, it should be what Luis wants to do

Well therein lies the problem, the Mancs have previous in front of these racism tribunals and were therefore better prepared for it compared to us.

Barnes 10 wrote:Would you accept it if the ban was halved?

Sorry Chris, I tried to reply last night, got suspicious activity thing.

No, what would that be saying, that he is half less a racist.

Dallas wrote:

Barnes 10 wrote:Would you accept it if the ban was halved?

No, what would that be saying, that he is half less a racist.

That doesn't make sense and im not being smart about that, He has made the remarks and admitted making them, the exact remarks said well thats a different matter. I think the FA will push this because they get a high-profile player to be a scapegoat for their kick out racism campaign. I think id personally accept 4 games get it over and done with and move on because the longer this goes on the more bad taste there will be about the whole debacle.

Why should Luis, accept a ban if he truly believes his innocence.
If Luis wants to fight this all the way, fair play to him is what I say.
Fcuk all of a difference between 4 game ban and 8 game. It still says the same thing

But he is going to get banned, this isnt going to go away with an appeal. We have to accept the the club were not prepared for the inquest like they should have been, Evra is a cunt but it looks like his team were better equiped for this and have reaped the rewards so to speak.

Oh i know a solicitor/barrister that is going to look over the report with an impartial viewpoint, I should know what he thinks later and ill post it up here.

Barnes 10 wrote:But he is going to get banned, this isnt going to go away with an appeal. We have to accept the the club were not prepared for the inquest like they should have been, Evra is a cunt but it looks like his team were better equiped for this and have reaped the rewards so to speak.

Maybe he will, but you asked should we accept a reduced ban, and I said No.
I presume your on the same viewpoint as before the report was read ?

No, I dont think the report painted the club in a good light tbh, I think the snippets of info we were fed before the report was read has clouded a lot of our prejudgements, like the word negrito for eg.

Been honest, I still haven't read the report.
But if Luis feels he is not guilty, then I reckon apeal.

So after you have read the report, do you think Luis is guilty ?

Depends with what you want to charge him with because in the report both the FA and Evra say they do not think Suarez is a racist. Suarez himself has admitted saying what he said, Evras account of the altercation is different but like everything in life when these situations arise there are 3 sides to every story, Luis's, Evra's and the truth. Some parts of the report are baffling and hard to understand, like when they take the refs word that Commoli can speak fluent Spanish yet when they interviewed Commoli he told them he couldnt speak fluent Spanish, stuff like that mystify me like how can they take the refs word in that situation?

The charge for racially abusing Patrice Evra.
Do you think he is guilty of this.

Well its not looking too good in his favour, I dont know how he can admit to using this language and not be looked on as racist. The only hope he has is this all being "lost in translation". If this situation was the other way round ie a Manc getting charged for abusing one of ours with the evidence produced before us we would be baying for his blood.

That's fair enough, as I've said, I have not read the report. I have only read snippets over the internet, and nothing has really made me change my opinion.

Professor in Hispanic Studies... dissects the FA’s Suarez report
The following is written by award-winning Professor in Hispanic Studies at Brown University, Aldo Mazzucchelli.

I will first quote the FA document on the key point:

“90. Mr Evra’s evidence was that, in response to his question “Why did you kick me?”, Mr Suarez replied “Porque tu eres negro”. Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean “Because you are a ******”. He now says that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean “Because you are black”.”

I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn’t use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolli apparently stated), which are grammatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Comolli reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don’t know what Comolli heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong–unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish…

What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said–if at all he said anything– “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound implausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.

That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.

“138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him “Don’t touch me, South American” to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had replied “Por que, tu eres negro?”. (…) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he had used to Mr Evra translated as “Why, because you are black”.”

“Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.

And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:

“141. Mr Suarez’s version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him “Don’t touch me, South American”. Mr Suarez had said “Por que negro?”. Mr Suarez told Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said.”

What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words.

The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:

“284 (…) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said “you are South American” to Mr Suarez who responded with “Tues Negro” which translates as “you are black”.”

It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.

In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.

Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.

Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”,

Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions.

Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the “negro” word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation.


I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.

Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:

1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used –even though they grounded the verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.

3) They believe the word “negro” cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion–which means they don’t really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.
A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.

Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the “wild animals” South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey’s famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.

http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/01/professor-in-hispanic-studies-dissects-the-fas-suarez-report/

This is the solicitor I was telling you about

A Solicitors Opinion

The Curious Case of Luis Suarez . . . . . . .

It has become an unavoidable cliche that the Suarez/Evra case cannot be viewed as black or white.* Since New Year's Eve, when a 115 page tome landed in our inboxes, many opinions have been expressed as to whether the FA Regulatory Commission has got it right or wrong. Most have jumped to the conclusion that since the report is well written, very long, detailed and presented in nicely worded legalese, that it must be correct.

The truth, like with many tribunal decisions and, indeed most likely the case itself, lies somewhere in-between. There is much to be admired in the manner in which the commission dissected very complex linguistic issues as well as the nuances of what was said and not said.* They have reported the facts in great detail and the result is that many of us are in a position to draw our conclusions.

That said, the report's findings are somewhat flawed and, in particular, the sanction meted out is completely out of line with the evidence and even the commission's own conclusions.

I should say, at this point, I am a Liverpool fan but also the solicitor for the PFAI, the League of Ireland's players' union. Although my allegiances are naturally with Luis Suarez, I'd like to think that I would take a similar view if a League of Ireland player asked me to represent them in similar circumstances. Indeed, I have defended an Irish player, Jason McGuinness, where allegations of insulting behaviour with racial overtones were made. He received a five match ban.

The Suarez case is unique in its complexity but in the end it comes down to some fairly basic questions.

1. What is the burden of proof?

2. Did Suarez use the word "negro" and, if so, how often?

3. If he did use this word, what should the punishment be?

*

The first question has been the subject of much debate and many commentators seem to believe that the "balance of probabilities" burden is too low. The implication is that the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" should apply.

I don't believe this is correct and instead a hybrid that is often used in tribunals where professional conduct is the subject of review is more appropriate.* It is usually expressed as "highly probable" and it appear that the commission have rather clumsily agreed to this level by stating that this was a serious allegation and the more serious the charge, the greater the burden. It is a great pity that they didn't express this in clearer terms but I think it is fair to say that the test of high probability is what was applied and if so, I believe this was correct.

However, it's one thing to select the right burden of proof and it's quite another to apply it. This is where the commission made its first mistake.* It's patently clear, and admitted by Suarez, that the word "negro" was used at least once. Whether it was used again is a matter of great debate and certainly could not be described as highly probable.

Quite simply, the only evidence that there was more than one use of the word comes from Evra himself and without independent corroboration, in addition to the inevitable linguistic confusion which is central to the whole case, it simply cannot even be described as probable, much less highly probable.

While the commission quite rightly point out inaccuracies in Suarez's evidence, they do not justify their quantum leap from this to believing everything Evra says without a scintilla of independent evidence.

Now, this is not to say Suarez is innocent.* He's not, he deserves a ban for the inappropriate use of the word "negro" that he has admitted but this needs to be proportionate to what can be legitimately proven and not the educated conjecture of the commission.

The range of sanctions available is effectively from two matches upwards. It is clear that he is in breach of regulations and must serve at least a two match ban.* Since there is a racial element, the entry point of four matches seems apposite.* However, the commission have erred by increasing it largely due to the extremely dubious finding that he said the offending word seven times.

However, even if you accept that reasoning, it is very difficult to understand how considering the guidelines recommend a doubling of the sanction for a first offence and trebling for second. The effective quadrupling of the two match standard ban suggests that the Suarez findings were even worse than a standard second offence.* This makes no sense whatsoever unless you reach the obvious conclusion that the commission were seeking to make an example of Suarez rather than employing the usual rules of natural justice.

An interesting example of how the commission glossed over certain inconsistencies while focussing on others is the manner in which it examines the motive for Suarez saying what Evra alleges he said. While agreeing that this upbringing, parentage and friends would militate against such behaviour, they can find no reason why he would engage in such behaviour and instead simply dismiss it as being out of character with no reason provided as to why he should suddenly remove himself from his normal characteristics.

This decision was driven by desire to believe either one party or the other, in the entirety.* This was the fatal mistake that the commission made because there was no need for this. It is perfectly feasible for any tribunal to decide that part of the charge was proven and the balance was not.* And quite simply, this is what they should have done.

So what now? In my humble opinion, Suarez should appeal.* He should admit, on the one occasion which he accepts using the word, that he was wrong to do so. He could argue that he did not use it on other occasions and such instances remain unproven in accordance with the burden of proof, but that he regrets the use of the word at all.* He should apologize for this and agree to assist the anti-racism campaigns.* He can then legitimately argue that the ban is excessive and should be reduced to the entry point of four matches.

In my opinion, if he adopts such an approach, he will succeed in reducing the ban, maybe not to four matches but certainly to no more than six. The question now is whether Suarez is prepared to accept any level of contrition, whether football considerations will hold sway (the plethora of upcoming cup matches might provide an opportunity to see out the current ban) or whether he and Liverpool want to get the best result and help combat racism at the same time.

There is still scope for a sensible conclusion to this fiasco but it needs brave decisions. History to date suggests we shouldn't hold our breath.

*

Stuart Gilhooly is the solicitor for the Professional Footballers Association of Ireland and was also recently named Journalist of Year at the Irish Magazine Awards.


He can be followed on twitter @PFAISolicitor

NO APPEAL

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2012/luis-suarez-accepts-charge

Liverpool FC have this afternoon [Tuesday 3 January 2012] informed The FA that they will not be appealing the decision of an Independent Regulatory Commission in relation to the recently proven misconduct charge against Luis Suarez.

Suarez will be suspended with immediate effect for a period of eight matches, starting with this evening’s fixture against Manchester City. Suarez was also fined £40,000 and was warned as to his future conduct.

WOW!!!

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/statement-from-liverpool-fc

Club statement

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/statement-from-luis-suarez

Statement from Luis

Fcuk

On Facebook, will get a translator later


Hola a todos,

Antes de nada me gustaría agradecer enormemente el apoyo que he recibido estas últimas semanas. A mi familia, amigos, compañeros de selección y a todo su staff técnico y por supuesto, a todo el Liverpool (trabajadores, técnico y staff, directivos, mis compañeros y a todo aquel que forma parte del día a día de este gran club), y por supuesto a todos los aficionados que no han dejado que me sintiera solo ni un solo segundo. Estos días he sentido más que nunca el significado que tiene: You never walk alone.

Como muchos de ustedes sabrán nací en una familia humilde, en un barrio trabajador de un país pequeño. Pero nací y crecí desde los valores del respeto, la educación y el sacrificio. Desde mi familia, pasando por el primer club donde empecé a jugar, hasta mi salto a Europa en Holanda, me han inculcado los valores que han marcado la persona que soy a día de hoy. Nunca, repito nunca, he tenido un problema racial con ningún compañero, ni persona, de color o raza diferente al mío. Jamás.

Estoy muy enojado por todo lo que se ha dicho estás últimas semanas sobre mí, todas ellas muy lejos de la realidad. Pero sobre todo por la impotencia que se siente por no haber hecho nada y estar siendo acusado de algo que no hice, ni haría nunca. En mi país, negro, es una expresión que utilizamos comúnmente y que no simboliza ninguna falta de respeto y menos aún de racismo. Todo lo que se ha dicho a partir de aquí es totalmente falso.

Cumpliré la sanción con la resignación de alguien que no ha hecho nada y que se siente tremendamente enojado por lo sucedido. Lo siento por la afición y por los compañeros a los que no voy a poder ayudar en este próximo mes. Será muy duro.

Lo único que espero ahora es poder volver a saltar al estadio y poder hacer lo que más me gusta de nuevo, que es, jugar al fútbol.

Muchas gracias a todos, YNWA Luis Alberto Suárez.

This comes down to politics at end of the day

We have sponsors, endorsers etc to keep happy, plus we will be looking for someone to fork out millions for naming rights if we build new stadium

Thats my opinion anyway

Fork it anyway