seasidelatic Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 So calling someone a negro once without any racist intent (even if it was used in an argument and after being called your "sister's c*nt) is deserving of an unprecedented 8 match ban? Not sure that is the way to go in tackling racism. And I can almost guarantee you Terry will not get worse than a 2 match ban. Just wait and watch. In terms of the bunker mentality I think it's due to us feeling that one of our players has been harshly and unfairly treated and branded a racist when he is no such thing. We believe his account of the incident, we know he isn't a racist (even Evra and the FA admit that- despite their nonsensical sentencing) so why can't we offer him some support. After all our anthem is You'll Never Walk Alone and we will stick by that. Does that mean the club is racist? It isn't an unprecedented eight match ban; it is a very lenient eight match ban. It should have been a life ban from English football and a one-way ticket to a country of Suarez' choosing. This thing about Evra saying 'your sister is a plum' doesn't have a literal English translation - it's a general insult dished out all the time, like calling someone a knobhead. Suarez was proven to be an 'unreliable witness' and on that basis he was shown to not only be a racist, but a liar too. His statement changed three or four times throughout the hearing; though if, as you say, you've read the report in its entirety then you'll know that too. Your manager, Comolli and Suarez all gave conflicting evidence; what Dalglish and Comolli told the referee is what Suarez initially admitted, he then changed his story thrice. The fact of the matter is this: Suarez said "I kicked you because you are black" - "I don't talk to blacks" and then pinched Evra's skin and said "see! blackie! blackie! blackie!". If you think that is acceptable, then fine. But I think that puts you firmly in the minority and might well explain the behaviour of your coaching staff and fans. Suarez STILL hasn't apologised, in his words "I cannot apologise when I don't feel I have done anything wrong." I think that tells us everything we need to know about him as a person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) So calling someone a negro once without any racist intent (even if it was used in an argument and after being called your "sister's c*nt) is deserving of an unprecedented 8 match ban? It's not the cleverest retort, is it? Personally I'd suggest nutmegging him at the next opportunity and then curling a worldy in to the top corner. Not sure that is the way to go in tackling racism. So no ban? How would you deal with it? Ignore it and brush it under the carpet? And I can almost guarantee you Terry will not get worse than a 2 match ban. Just wait and watch. If he's found guilty by the courts the FA has pretty much established the minimum ban. I'd hope they ban him from international football for a period too. You will be proved wrong with that statement though - assuming a guilty verdict. In terms of the bunker mentality I think it's due to us feeling that one of our players has been harshly and unfairly treated and branded a racist when he is no such thing. You say you've read the report. He's not been branded a racist by those who heard the case. You know the difference, so why muddy the waters? We believe his account of the incident, we know he isn't a racist (even Evra and the FA admit that- despite their nonsensical sentencing) so why can't we offer him some support. If you choose not to sack him, supporting him is appropriate. Apology, disappear for a few weeks and come back a better man for it. What's wrong with that? It's the ridiculous way the support has been shown that embarrasses a supposedly great football club. I saw the Shankley Gates and the Hillsborough Memorial for the first time the other night. The initiative that created this thread. Classy examples of what Liverpool Football Club is / what their fans are. The football club's response to the Suarez situation is quite the opposite. After all our club anthem is You'll Never Walk Alone. Does that mean the club is racist? No. It means they have an anthem. I agree certain things could have been handled better like not wearing the Suarez T-shirts but showing support for a player you firmly believe in not to be racist is nothing wrong in my opinion. As I say, it's the way they chose to do it. Edited January 10, 2012 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 You can't defend a racist on one hand, then attempt to wash your hands of the other. Depends if one is replacable and the other isn't. No one likes a knobhead ... unless the knobhead can score goals. Please see the case of Lee Hughes for further reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liverpoolfan Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) It isn't an unprecedented eight match ban; it is a very lenient eight match ban. It should have been a life ban from English football and a one-way ticket to a country of Suarez' choosing. This thing about Evra saying 'your sister is a plum' doesn't have a literal English translation - it's a general insult dished out all the time, like calling someone a knobhead. Suarez was proven to be an 'unreliable witness' and on that basis he was shown to not only be a racist, but a liar too. His statement changed three or four times throughout the hearing; though if, as you say, you've read the report in its entirety then you'll know that too. Your manager, Comolli and Suarez all gave conflicting evidence; what Dalglish and Comolli told the referee is what Suarez initially admitted, he then changed his story thrice. The fact of the matter is this: Suarez said "I kicked you because you are black" - "I don't talk to blacks" and then pinched Evra's skin and said "see! blackie! blackie! blackie!". If you think that is acceptable, then fine. But I think that puts you firmly in the minority and might well explain the behaviour of your coaching staff and fans. Suarez STILL hasn't apologised, in his words "I cannot apologise when I don't feel I have done anything wrong." I think that tells us everything we need to know about him as a person. It seems to me like you have just read the conclusion of the report as opposed to going through it in entirety. Suarez's statement did not change 3 or 4 times. Minor specifics of it changed and that is to be expected seeing as the trial was a few weeks after the incident. And if you read through the entire report as to what conclusions it came to in the end you would see that Evra's statements also varied a bit in their exact specifics especially when compared to his witnesses. And in the end no actual evidence was produced showing Suarez had called Evra those things besides what Suarez admitted himself. Also another thing the FA used to show that Evra was a more credible witness was the fact that Evra gave a more calm and composed statements in English. Now that would not be a surprise considering he is more familiar with the English language and has been involved with quite a few similar cases before (in one of them- Chelsea- in which he was reported to be a grossly unreliable witness by the FA themselves). If you have time to read it you will see some more of the bias first hand in how they arrived to their conclusions. In terms of the 8 match ban you say it is not unprecedented. Now would you tell me how many games players have been banned in the past in England for such incidents (even when there was actual evidence available)? Edited January 10, 2012 by liverpoolfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 In terms of the 8 match ban you say it is not unprecedented Not what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liverpoolfan Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 It's not the cleverest retort, is it? Personally I'd suggest nutmegging him at the next opportunity and then curling a worldy in to the top corner. Defintely not. So no ban? How would you deal with it? Ignore it and brush it under the carpet? Are you serious? I would say a 2 match ban for using the term without intent + education regarding the use of such terms in England + warning that if he does it from now on he will get in more trouble. If he's found guilty by the courts the FA has pretty much established the minimum ban. I'd hope they ban him from international football for a period too. You will be proved wrong with that statement though - assuming a guilty verdict. I guess we will just have to wait and see. You say you've read the report. He's not been branded a racist by those who heard the case. You know the difference, so why muddy the waters? Have you read the articles and the headlines in the media? That is what I was referring to. Despite the FA and even Evra admitting to him not being a racist has it stopped the media and thus thousands of people who blindly follow it from accusing him of such? If you choose not to sack him, supporting him is appropriate. Apology, disappear for a few weeks and come back a better man for it. What's wrong with that? It's the ridiculous way the support has been shown that embarrasses a supposedly great football club. I am almost certain if the FA had handled it a bit better and not given such a lengthy ban for something for which there was no conclusive evidence we would not have opposed it with such vigor. I saw the Shankley Gates and the Hillsborough Memorial for the first time the other night. The initiative that created this thread. Classy examples of what Liverpool Football Club is / what their fans are. The football club's response to the Suarez situation is quite the opposite. No. It means they have an anthem. May just be an anthem to you. Wouldn't have expected opposing fans to understand. As I say, it's the way they chose to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Actually its not unprecidented, someone else got an 8 match ban for racism a few years back I believe, just trying to remember who. Edit - UEFA have given 5 match bans for UEFA games in the past. Edited January 10, 2012 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) So appeal the length of the ban then. (I attended numerous Liverpool home games in the late 1970s and early 1980s, standing in the main stand paddock and later the Anfield Road End to watch them beat Villa 4-1 to win the title. Fairclough scored the first goals I ever saw in a football match, coming off the bench in an FA Cup 3rd round win over Bury. I "get" some of what the place is about even if it's not bred in to me) Edited January 10, 2012 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liverpoolfan Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 So appeal the length of the ban then. Yeah some of us were hoping for that mate but the way the FA have worded their report it made it hard to find grounds of appeal. Also the FA warned that if we appeal he could be banned for more matches. In the end the club decided against it in the hope that the media attention will wear off soon + we have a busy schedule this month so he will be back before the Spurs and United games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seasidelatic Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 It seems to me like you have just read the conclusion of the report as opposed to going through it in entirety. Suarez's statement did not change 3 or 4 times. Minor specifics of it changed and that is to be expected seeing as the trial was a few weeks after the incident. And if you read through the entire report as to what conclusions it came to in the end you would see that Evra's statements also varied a bit in their exact specifics especially when compared to his witnesses. And in the end no actual evidence was produced showing Suarez had called Evra those things besides what Suarez admitted himself. Also another thing the FA used to show that Evra was a more credible witness was the fact that Evra gave a more calm and composed statements in English. Now that would not be a surprise considering he is more familiar with the English language and has been involved with quite a few similar cases before (in one of them- Chelsea- in which he was reported to be a grossly unreliable witness by the FA themselves). If you have time to read it you will see some more of the bias first hand in how they arrived to their conclusions. In terms of the 8 match ban you say it is not unprecedented. Now would you tell me how many games players have been banned in the past in England for such incidents (even when there was actual evidence available)? The incident at Stamford Bridge has absolutely no relevance whatsoever and you know it. Evra refused to give evidence about it as he hadn't heard anything. Not an 'unreliable' witness; not a witness at all. Trying to drag Evra's name through the mud to exonerate Suarez is a new tactic, fair dos. I have actually read the whole thing, I am a student with plenty of spare time and it wasn't nearly as complicated to digest as I intially feared. If you give me a few minutes I will find the quote from an independent panel who conclude that Suarez was guilty of using racist language. You can try and play the 'it's not racist in Uruguay' thing all you like, but that isn't an excuse. Not at all. And as for this: "And in the end no actual evidence was produced showing Suarez had called Evra those things besides what Suarez admitted himself". If Suarez has admitted it, what further evidence is needed?! "Yeah your honour, I told him I don't talk to blacks - doesn't make me a racist though." There was absolutely no bias in the report whatsoever, why would there be? Or are you claiming this is some big Anti-Liverpool Pro-United conspiracy from the FA, as usual? That isn't very likely considering who the FA Chairman is; care to remind us all who he used to be the Chairman of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seasidelatic Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Here we go my Kopite friend, the points relating to Suarez' evidence: - Suarez spoke in Spanish to Comolli soon after the game about this serious allegation. Suarez also spoke in Dutch to Kuyt. Both Comolli and Kuyt understood Suarez to have told them that when he spoke to Evra he said words which translate into English as, “Because you are black”. According to Suarez, Comolli misheard what Suarez said in Spanish, and Kuyt misheard what Suarez said in Dutch. - Dalglish told the referee that Suarez responded with “you are black” having first been taunted with “you are South American”. Comolli is not recorded as using the word “taunted”, but said that Evra said “you are South American” to Suarez who responded with “Tues negro” which translates “you are Black”. There is no suggestion here that Evra had said “Don’t touch me”, yet this seems now to be an essential part of Suarez’s evidence. We were not given any explanation as to why the referee was not told that Evra had said “Don’t touch me, South American”, as opposed to “you are South American”. Secondly, at least as expressly reported by Dalglish, Suarez’s remark was a riposte to being taunted by Evra. If that is correct, it would suggest that Dalglish understood Mr Suarez’s comment to be in the nature of retaliation for having been called “South American”. But that would suggest that the riposte “You are black” was used in a derogatory sense, which is contrary to Suarez’s case. In fact, Suarez told us that he did not consider being described as South American to be derogatory, so it is difficult to understand why this was referred to as a “taunt”. -The discrepancies between what Dalglish and Comolli reported to the referee on the one hand, and Suarez’s evidence as to what he said on the other hand, have not been satisfactorily explained. - The impression created by these inconsistencies was that Suarez’s evidence was not, on the whole, reliable. He had put forward an interpretation of events which was inconsistent with the contemporaneous video evidence. He had changed his account in a number of important respects without satisfactory explanation. As a result, we were hesitant about accepting Suarez’s account of events where it was disputed by other credible witnesses unless there was solid evidence to support it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 This has been doing my head in for ages - I've got to say, this argument that Suarez didn't understand that the term would cause offence here (and plenty of other countries) is an absolute crock of :censored:. He's been in England for long enough and has been playing in Europe for over five years. He knew better. Of course he :censored:ing did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Actually its not unprecidented, someone else got an 8 match ban for racism a few years back I believe, just trying to remember who. Mackie (the ex-Reading player) but 5 of his eight games were suspended, which considering he admitted the charge, apologised to the extent that Sheff Utd and the player he abused didn't want to take it any further. He also voluntarily donated money (2 weeks wages) to kick-it out campaign, is probably justified in getting a more lenient sentence. Suarez has done none of those, if he had done so immediately he might have gotten a reduced sentence instead he gets eight games and conveniently some of them are against sides Liverpool should beat without him including a cup game against a League 1 team. But he will be fit and rested for the game against Man Utd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liverpoolfan Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) The incident at Stamford Bridge has absolutely no relevance whatsoever and you know it. Evra refused to give evidence about it as he hadn't heard anything. Not an 'unreliable' witness; not a witness at all. Trying to drag Evra's name through the mud to exonerate Suarez is a new tactic, fair dos. The fact that the entire evidence against Suarez is based on who was the more relevant witness I think it more than relevant. This was the exact quote from that report: "We find Mr Evra’s account exaggerated and unreliable. It is an attempt to justify a physical intervention by him which cannot reasonably be justified." What it shows is that Evra has been found in the past to give exaggerated and unreliable accounts. However this was not at all taken into account when the FA were drawing up their conclusions. I have actually read the whole thing, I am a student with plenty of spare time and it wasn't nearly as complicated to digest as I intially feared. If you give me a few minutes I will find the quote from an independent panel who conclude that Suarez was guilty of using racist language. You can try and play the 'it's not racist in Uruguay' thing all you like, but that isn't an excuse. Not at all. And as for this: "And in the end no actual evidence was produced showing Suarez had called Evra those things besides what Suarez admitted himself". If Suarez has admitted it, what further evidence is needed?! "Yeah your honour, I told him I don't talk to blacks - doesn't make me a racist though." Wrong. This is what Suarez admitted to: Mr Suarez denied the Charge. His case, in short, was as follows. He agreed with Mr Evra that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. When Mr Evra asked why he had kicked him, Mr Suarez replied that it was a normal foul and shrugged his shoulders. Mr Evra then said that he was going to kick Mr Suarez, to which Mr Suarez told him to shut up. As Mr Kuyt was approaching, Mr Suarez touched Mr Evra's left arm in a pinching style movement. According to Mr Suarez, at no point in the goalmouth did he use the word "negro". When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra spoke to Mr Suarez and said (in English) "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez replied "Por que, negro?". He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar from his upbringing in Uruguay. In this sense, Mr Suarez claimed, it is used as a noun and as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned (or even just blackhaired). Thus, it meant "Why, black?" Mr Suarez maintained that when he said "Por que, negro?" to Mr Evra, it was intended in a conciliatory and friendly way. Mr Suarez said this was the only time that he used the word “negro” in his exchanges with Mr Evra during the match. No where did he admit to saying "I told him I don't talk to blacks". There was absolutely no bias in the report whatsoever, why would there be? Or are you claiming this is some big Anti-Liverpool Pro-United conspiracy from the FA, as usual? When did I mention an anti-Liverpool conspiracy? What I did say was that this trial was biased and unfair. And personally I feel they had deemed Suarez "guilty until proven innocent" ever since the allegations were brought forward. That is not the way to go. That isn't very likely considering who the FA Chairman is; care to remind us all who he used to be the Chairman of? Manchester City. Your point being? Now for your other quote I do not have enough time to write out a detailed response but I will copy and paste a previous response on an LFC forum. 1. The committee states that the burden of proof is as for a civil matter, ie "on the balance of probabilities", not as for a criminal matter, ie "beyond reasonable doubt. 2. They state that all they need is to show that the words used were OBJECTIVELY offensive. The words themselves were offensive, not that they were meant to be offensive. We argued that it should be shown that they were SUBJECTIVELY offensive, that intent must be proved. They rejected that. Which is quite funny really when taken OBJECTIVELY Evra made a refernce to Suarez' sisters c*nt, and also said he said it "ten times" in a Canal + interview. The committee accepted Evras statement that when he made the reference to Suarez's sister the phrase is just another way of saying ":censored:ing hell!" and that "ten times" just refers to "a lot". Such cultural and linguistic leeway were not afforded to Luis. 3. There is no objective evidence ( evidence from other witnesses, video footage, and so on) that proves Suarez says what Evra says he says. The case relies entirely on Evras word versus Suarez's. 4. The committee found Evra to be a reliable witness and Suarez's restimony to be inconsistent. They found that Evra was calm and assured on the stand, and his evidence was consistent throughout. Suarez on the other hand, appeared anxious, and his initial statements when interviewed about the matter differed from what he said on the stand. This is probably true. But probably understandable and not too big a deal. However, it doesn't look good. But all of this happened over a few minutes in a tense game. The committee accept that it is unreasonable to expect that players would have a complete and accurate recall of exactly what happened in a fast moving and tense environment. But yet they still chose to punish Luis for such inconsistencies (with regards to reliablity). 5. They did not rely just on Evras word against Suarez's. The committee was at pains to point out that because the charge was so serious it was unfair to rely just on one players account over anothers. They used as supplemental evidence video footage of the goalmouth incident. Nobody could say what exactly happened but they put a lot of weight on the fact that Evra was very upset several times when interacting with Luis. They said this supports Evras account of the words exchanged. Such extra evidence included this: "Nonetheless, Mr Haughan does remember Sir Alex saying five times. This is the sort of detail that Mr Haughan might remember given the unusual circumstances in which he overheard the complaint and the fact that Mr Haughan reported what he had heard to the Liverpool management. In our judgment, this lent some weight to the credibility of Mr Evra's evidence that Mr Suarez used the word five times in the goalmouth." So just because Evra tells Ferguson that Suarez said it 5 times that adds credibility to his account? What about when Suarez told Kenny that he only said it one time? 6. The expert testimony. The linguistic experts consulted said that Suarez's words could be construed as offensive or inoffensive depending on the context. That in Uruguay or South America in general the way he used the words could be taken either way. The committee accepted this expert testimony and found that because Luis was trying to wind Evra up, he meant it to be offensive. I have a lot of issue with this. They said that the argument was acrimonious and tense. That Suarez's argument that he was just trying to calm Evra down was not believable. They are probably right. I can't imagine Luis was trying to calm Evra down. I am sure he was hoping it would put Patrice off his game. But that doesn't mean he was trying to racially abuse him. He was using what he thought was inoffensive language but in a tone that would make Evra more angry. I don't see why the committee found this so hard to understand? But they did. So citing the expert evidence the committee decided that because the context in which Luis said these words to Patrice was acrimonious, the intent was to be racially offensive. You could argue it either way but that's the conclusion they came to. 7. The penalty. Apparently, using insulting language carries a 2 match ban. If it is found to be racially motivated that is then doubled. So four matches all up. The committee then has leeway to go in either direction depending on multiple factors. The committee decided to double it again to 8 matches because they wanted to "send a message" that this sort of behaviour was unacceptable. They concluded that Luis deserved extra penalty in part because Liverpool is such a big and respected club, and is looked up to by lots of fans, including youngsters. They also were willing to hear mitigating factors on Luis' behalf that include the facts that: -Luis has never been charged or accused of racism before -He is of mixed heritage himself, with a black grandfather -He grew up in a multicultural background and seemingly never had a problem with black people in Uruguay -He plays in the Uruguyan national team with black players and doesn't seem to have a problem with them -He played in the Dutch league with lots of black players, socialised with them, and was friends with many of them. -He would never have been made captain of Ajax there was ever any suggestion of racism or prejudice in his character considering so many of his players were black. -He has been involved in several high profile campaigns to bring people of all heritages closer together. They seemed to not care about any of this to be honest. They accept that this is going to have a devastating effect on Luis's reputation and his charity work but feel that they need to hand down a harsh sentence. They don't believe Luis is a racist. They believe he has shown all his life he is not. They don't know why he said what he said and their only explanation in essence seems to be that despite him being of good character and this going against everything else they know and have heard about him, sometimes int he heat of the moment good people do bad things. Also some evidence withled by the FA from Suarez and his team: 8. As a result of a question raised by the Commission during the course of the hearing, it transpired that the FA had interviewed Mr Evra on 20 October, and that this interview had been recorded. No transcript had been made. The tapes should have been, but were not, included in the schedule of unused material. Upon enquiring into this omission, it also emerged that the FA was in possession of some brief notes of interviews, which also should have been, but were not, included in the schedule of unused material. The purpose of providing it to Mr Suarez was to enable him and his advisers to examine the unused material to see whether, in their view, it was relevant and helpful to Mr Suarez in defending the Charge. For example, the contents of a document amongst the unused material might be thought by Mr Suarez and his advisers to be directly helpful in itself or to set them on a train of enquiry which might lead to their acquiring helpful evidence. The disclosure to Mr Suarez of unused material is intended to achieve fairness and transparency in the process. Edited January 10, 2012 by liverpoolfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heath Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 What Saurez said WAS racist. You can see on Evra's face and his body language from the television coverage that he wasnt very happy, nothing to do with Manc v Scouse rivallary, he was clearly upset about what Saurez had said. Cover it up all you want, blame Evra, Blame Manchester United, Blame John Terry and the FA and even though I havent heard it yet which suprises me but blame Maggie Thatcher, you normally do if someome has a go at Liverpool! for god sake what he said WAS a racist comment. Its all very playground stuff this, well Evra called him this so he called him that back. Look at the wider picture and see that LFC havent come out of this in a good light. Janet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seasidelatic Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 They also were willing to hear mitigating factors on Luis' behalf that include the facts that: -Luis has never been charged or accused of racism before -He is of mixed heritage himself, with a black grandfather -He grew up in a multicultural background and seemingly never had a problem with black people in Uruguay -He plays in the Uruguyan national team with black players and doesn't seem to have a problem with them -He played in the Dutch league with lots of black players, socialised with them, and was friends with many of them. The first one I've highlighted is absolute horse:censored:. "He can't be racist, his Grandfather is black!" By the same token, Andy Gray can't be sexist, because his mother is a woman? The second one is the most laughable. "He can't be a racist, he has some friends who are darkies too!" Come off it. A phrase I have often used is "you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" - and with that I give up. You clearly think Suarez is the innocent party here. That bastard Evra, getting him banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonesyOAFC Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 The first one I've highlighted is absolute horse:censored:. "He can't be racist, his Grandfather is black!" By the same token, Andy Gray can't be sexist, because his mother is a woman? The second one is the most laughable. "He can't be a racist, he has some friends who are darkies too!" Come off it. A phrase I have often used is "you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" - and with that I give up. You clearly think Suarez is the innocent party here. That bastard Evra, getting him banned. And it's that attitude which has lead to me to despise that football club. 'Cultural misunderstanding' or not, he's referred to Evra as black (or the south american equivalent) with the intention of it being derogatory. If that isn't deemed racist, I don't know what is. But no, obviously the FA have an agenda against Liverpool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukers1 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 It's not the cleverest retort, is it? Personally I'd suggest nutmegging him at the next opportunity and then curling a worldy in to the top corner. So no ban? How would you deal with it? Ignore it and brush it under the carpet? If he's found guilty by the courts the FA has pretty much established the minimum ban. I'd hope they ban him from international football for a period too. You will be proved wrong with that statement though - assuming a guilty verdict. You say you've read the report. He's not been branded a racist by those who heard the case. You know the difference, so why muddy the waters? If you choose not to sack him, supporting him is appropriate. Apology, disappear for a few weeks and come back a better man for it. What's wrong with that? It's the ridiculous way the support has been shown that embarrasses a supposedly great football club. I saw the Shankley Gates and the Hillsborough Memorial for the first time the other night. The initiative that created this thread. Classy examples of what Liverpool Football Club is / what their fans are. The football club's response to the Suarez situation is quite the opposite. No. It means they have an anthem. As I say, it's the way they chose to do it. I must agree with nearly every point O4U Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 Adeyemi backed by Liverpool fans and others Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.