Suarez

Ben6899

Pross wrote:

Wasn't that supporter in Bulgaria subsequently found to be not guilty?

He was Pross and I am glad that it looks like justice has been served. But at the time, LFC were basically campaigning for the release of a convicted man - undermining Bulgaria's justice system. And that is dodgy ground.

amaferanga

This only goes to show how much racism and prejudice there is in football. I'm really not a fan of the sport and have no preference between Liverpool or Man United (unlike most commenting on this thread by the sounds of it). Simple fact is that Suarez said something that was deemed to be totally unacceptable, was punished and that should have been it. Cue Evra acting like a kid at the handshakes and then at full time, doing everything he could to provoke Suarez. Then add Ferguson into the mix, who blindly backs his players, but then criticises another manager/club for doing the same. I'd actually apportion blame for the farce at the weekend as 50/50 Liverpool/Man United, only it seems that only one club has apologised. Now, it does seem they were forced to apologise, but still why have Man United not apologised for fanning the flames and for Evra's childish behaviour?

How come Johnny Terry got to avoid the awkwardness of pre-match handshakes, but Johnny Foreigner doesn't?

Pross

Ben6899 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Wasn't that supporter in Bulgaria subsequently found to be not guilty?

He was Pross and I am glad that it looks like justice has been served. But at the time, LFC were basically campaigning for the release of a convicted man - undermining Bulgaria's justice system. And that is dodgy ground.

But the argument was that they had locked him up with virtually no evidence and a trial where he had poor representation. I think LFC did a good job of keeping it in the public eye as otherwise he would still be rotting in a Bulgarian cell. The Government should have been doing more of the same but didn't which is a bit worrying for any British nationals who find themselves in a similar situation.

Cleat Eastwood

amaferanga wrote:

This only goes to show how much racism and prejudice there is in football. I'm really not a fan of the sport and have no preference between Liverpool or Man United (unlike most commenting on this thread by the sounds of it). Simple fact is that Suarez said something that was deemed to be totally unacceptable, was punished and that should have been it. Cue Evra acting like a kid at the handshakes and then at full time, doing everything he could to provoke Suarez. Then add Ferguson into the mix, who blindly backs his players, but then criticises another manager/club for doing the same. I'd actually apportion blame for the farce at the weekend as 50/50 Liverpool/Man United, only it seems that only one club has apologised. Now, it does seem they were forced to apologise, but still why have Man United not apologised for fanning the flames and for Evra's childish behaviour?

How come Johnny Terry got to avoid the awkwardness of pre-match handshakes, but Johnny Foreigner doesn't?

Thats pretty much it. What suarez said wasn't a racist term in his country - a rebuke and an apology would have covered it, evra said he wasn't unduly bothered by the comments, the managers agreed to move on from the incident.....sadly, the exchange took place after blatters "you can say what you like and settle it like men on the field" cue the FA getting all pc and 'socially responsible' and needing a scapegoat. It couldnt be John Tery because english captains dont behave that way. And for what its worth the so called tensions between man u fans and liverpool fans or even lfc an defc are are all media fiction.

And the bulgarian incident - an innocent man was locked for a crime he blatantly didn't commit, why shoudnt a club show support for an innocent supporter in jail.

amaferanga

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

....What suarez said wasn't a racist term in his country....

I don't know much about Uruguay language, but have been to plenty of countries where the norm for a white foreigner is to be addressed as 'whitey' (e.g. muzungu in East Africa, ferenji in Ethiopia). It's not racist though as there's no derogatory intent.

Ben6899

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

And for what its worth the so called tensions between man u fans and liverpool fans or even lfc an defc are are all media fiction.

This is very true.

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

And the bulgarian incident - an innocent man was locked for a crime he blatantly didn't commit, why shoudnt a club show support for an innocent supporter in jail.

We know he's innocent now - after new evidence came to light - but at the time he was just a convicted attempted murderer who claimed to have not done it. In my opinion, LFC were on dodgy ground and in danger of undermining a European Union country's justice system with their support. No doubt there was public pressure for them to get involved and they could have provided legal aid for the lads family perhaps, but players wearing t shirts with the print "Free Michael Shields" wasn't the best idea.

rick_chasey

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

....What suarez said wasn't a racist term in his country....

It was, and it was proven beyond any doubt in the report that came with the 8 match ban.

Cleat Eastwood

How could it be proven beyond doubt?

Do you have proof of this, not you specifically, but the fa....or was it more 'in my opinion it's racist as it contains the letter negr which is suspiciously close inmy small mind to negro'?

The term negrito isn’t a specific race term in uruguay - It’s like mate or pal, from what I gather.

But if you are white middle class 'investigator' in the FA looking to increase the moral standing of 'working class' sport, then yes you would probably say the term is racist beyond doubt - because to say otherwise would put johnny foreigner on an equal footing with us honourable sporting brits. Hence the 8 match ban for a man with dark skin, whilst Terry is still allowed to play.

Ben6899

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

...Hence the 8 match ban for a man with dark skin, whilst Terry is still allowed to play.

John Terry is being dealt with outside of the FA's jurisdiction. If he is found guilty in June, then you can rest assured he'll serve more than 8 matches on the sidelines.

rick_chasey

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

How could it be proven beyond doubt?

Do you have proof of this, not you specifically, but the fa....or was it more 'in my opinion it's racist as it contains the letter negr which is suspiciously close inmy small mind to negro'?

The term negrito isn’t a specific race term in uruguay - It’s like mate or pal, from what I gather.

But if you are white middle class 'investigator' in the FA looking to increase the moral standing of 'working class' sport, then yes you would probably say the term is racist beyond doubt - because to say otherwise would put johnny foreigner on an equal footing with us honourable sporting brits. Hence the 8 match ban for a man with dark skin, whilst Terry is still allowed to play.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... uis-suarez

"In all the circumstances, we preferred the evidence of Mr Evra. His account was clear and consistent in all material respects. There is no basis for saying that he lied or was mistaken in what he heard," the report says.

The words are nothing like as complimentary when it comes to Suárez. The commission found that Suárez used the word "negro" or "negros" seven times during the flashpoint with Evra in the second half of the 1-1 draw and described the Uruguayan's evidence as "unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance", highlighting "inconsistencies between his accounts given at different times as to what happened".

blah blah blah

The third exchange alleged by Evra was that he said: "OK, now I think I'm going to punch you." To which Suárez replied, "Dale, negro, negro, negro", meaning "OK, blackie, blackie, blackie". Suárez disputed this was the case and claimed that he only said "negro" once during his confrontation with Evra, which was when the United player was alleged to have said "Don't touch me South American", when the referee, Andre Marriner, blew his whistle to stop the corner being taken. Suárez said that it was used in a way that was not intended to be racially offensive when he replied: "Por que, negro," meaning "Why, black?"

The commission, however, found several holes in this argument. Although it was accepted that "negro" could have a different meaning in Uruguay and Latin America in certain situations and that Suárez himself had used it on previous occasions in a friendly way, the experts that the FA instructed to prepare a written report on the linguistic and cultural interpretations of the words "negro and negros" in Rioplatense Spanish, told the commission "that if Mr Suárez said the things that Mr Evra alleged, they would be considered racially offensive in Uruguay and other regions of Latin America", not least because of the acrimonious context in which they occurred.

Cleat Eastwood

Yes I'd read that - I thought you'd read something more along a theoretical linguistic line that the words have no cross cultural area for mis-interpetation

Aye "the experts in the FA" - says it all really - the white male middle classes at it again.

Tom Butcher

Seems to depend on which linguistic experts you believe. There were certainly other South Americans who backed Suarez's version that the terms he admitted using aren't necessarily loaded with racist intent - off the top of my head Poyet is one that backed him.

One thing is for sure - the reaction amongst football fans seems far more mixed than the BBC pundits would have us believe. There seems no recognition amongst them that the public aren't 100% squarely behind the FA on this.

Ben6899

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Yes I'd read that - I thought you'd read something more along a theoretical linguistic line that the words have no cross cultural area for mis-interpetation

Aye "the experts in the FA" - says it all really - the white male middle classes at it again.

Cleat, the report actually reads: "the experts THAT the FA..." So these experts are not FA employees. They're linguistic experts.

ddraver

Again - "dont touch me south American" = fine

"dont touch me blackie" = racist

For anyone to suggest that evra or manchester united are entirely guilt free is rubbish, both are equally unacceptable

siamon

When Liverpool F.C. continued to spout the deluded nonsense about how Suarez was the innocent victim, after the enquiry took the unusual step of deeming it necessary to comment on the fabricated and contradictory evidence submitted by Suarez and LFC, the FA should have deducted them 50 points.

Anyone who thinks Suarez didn't know what he was doing when making the comments needs to be sectioned.

Surely the fact that Sir Alex Ferguson has the moral high ground should give LFC a clue about level of their behaviour.

And Suarez should have been forced to shake hands, because not doing so indicates he still retains unacceptable views. Sky thought it worthwhile to put the second camera on Evra for the handshakes, so they realised there could be some juicy footage.

Ben6899

ddraver wrote:

Again - "dont touch me south American" = fine

"dont touch me blackie" = racist

For anyone to suggest that evra or manchester united are entirely guilt free is rubbish, both are equally unacceptable

You really think "South American" has the same connotations as "Blackie"?

I am not claiming Evra and United are guilt-free in this whole sorry mess, but the two terms above don't begin to compare to each other.

Ben6899

siamon wrote:

... the fabricated and contradictory evidence submitted by Suarez and LFC...

Perhaps the most damning element, for me.

siamon

If Suarez thought he was being friendly the first time, Evras reaction was pretty hard to misinterpret. Yet Suarez continued to say it time and time again. He obviously knew it was offending Evra, and sought out every opportunity to repeat it.

Or are the LFC apologists going to claim that Evra's reaction is how South Americans show happiness so Suarez repeated it nine times because he thought he was making Evra happy?

CiB

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

....What suarez said wasn't a racist term in his country....

It was, and it was proven beyond any doubt in the report that came with the 8 match ban.

It wasn't actually.

I found this interesting... Blog doing the rounds

Ben6899 wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Yes I'd read that - I thought you'd read something more along a theoretical linguistic line that the words have no cross cultural area for mis-interpetation

Aye "the experts in the FA" - says it all really - the white male middle classes at it again.

Cleat, the report actually reads: "the experts THAT the FA..." So these experts are not FA employees. They're linguistic experts.

See link above. A different language expert - native Uruguayan Spanish speaker no less - disagrees. What are we to make of different experts with differing opinions?

Ben6899

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

....What suarez said wasn't a racist term in his country....

It was, and it was proven beyond any doubt in the report that came with the 8 match ban.

It wasn't actually.

I found this interesting... Blog doing the rounds

Ben6899 wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Yes I'd read that - I thought you'd read something more along a theoretical linguistic line that the words have no cross cultural area for mis-interpetation

Aye "the experts in the FA" - says it all really - the white male middle classes at it again.

Cleat, the report actually reads: "the experts THAT the FA..." So these experts are not FA employees. They're linguistic experts.

See link above. A different language expert - native Uruguayan Spanish speaker no less - disagrees. What are we to make of different experts with differing opinions?

It's a shame for LFC, that the FA didn't employ that fella then.

CiB

The FA had already made their minds up. "Oi Blatter. Look. This is how to deal with racists."

ddraver

Ben6899 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Again - "dont touch me south American" = fine

"dont touch me blackie" = racist

For anyone to suggest that evra or manchester united are entirely guilt free is rubbish, both are equally unacceptable

You really think "South American" has the same connotations as "Blackie"?

I am not claiming Evra and United are guilt-free in this whole sorry mess, but the two terms above don't begin to compare to each other.

I'm saying that abusing someone based on their race is unacceptable, no matter what race they are.

Ben6899

ddraver wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Again - "dont touch me south American" = fine

"dont touch me blackie" = racist

For anyone to suggest that evra or manchester united are entirely guilt free is rubbish, both are equally unacceptable

You really think "South American" has the same connotations as "Blackie"?

I am not claiming Evra and United are guilt-free in this whole sorry mess, but the two terms above don't begin to compare to each other.

I'm saying that abusing someone based on their race is unacceptable, no matter what race they are.

Yep. I, of course, agree with you on that one. I don't agree that calling someone "South American" constitutes being abusive.

rick_chasey

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

....What suarez said wasn't a racist term in his country....

It was, and it was proven beyond any doubt in the report that came with the 8 match ban.

It wasn't actually.

I found this interesting... Blog doing the rounds

Ben6899 wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Yes I'd read that - I thought you'd read something more along a theoretical linguistic line that the words have no cross cultural area for mis-interpetation

Aye "the experts in the FA" - says it all really - the white male middle classes at it again.

Cleat, the report actually reads: "the experts THAT the FA..." So these experts are not FA employees. They're linguistic experts.

See link above. A different language expert - native Uruguayan Spanish speaker no less - disagrees. What are we to make of different experts with differing opinions?

In the context of what he's saying, he hardly means it in either a neutral or friendly way does he?

They're trading insults, and Suarez brings Evra's racial background into it.

Pretty sure if I called Evra an "Afro-Caribbean c*nt" or whatever the term is, it's still clear I'm insulting him on the grounds of his racial background, however correct or not the term used is.

It's all about context.


Edit: having looked at the blog - most of the issues are dealt with in the report: i.e. "Evra by and large from the evidence we obtained was a reliable witness. Suarez was not a reliable witness, and neither were his team mates" (to paraphrase).

rick_chasey

In more important football news, van Basten is now coach for Heerenveen.

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

In the context of what he's saying, he hardly means it in either a neutral or friendly way does he?

They're trading insults, and Suarez brings Evra's racial background into it.

Pretty sure if I called Evra an "Afro-Caribbean c*nt" or whatever the term is, it's still clear I'm insulting him on the grounds of his racial background, however correct or not the term used is.

It's all about context.


Edit: having looked at the blog - most of the issues are dealt with in the report: i.e. "Evra by and large from the evidence we obtained was a reliable witness. Suarez was not a reliable witness, and neither were his team mates" (to paraphrase).

Rick, you're so naive. When you're a little older, you will realise that Liverpool FC is never to blame.

Cleat Eastwood

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

In the context of what he's saying, he hardly means it in either a neutral or friendly way does he?

They're trading insults, and Suarez brings Evra's racial background into it.

Pretty sure if I called Evra an "Afro-Caribbean c*nt" or whatever the term is, it's still clear I'm insulting him on the grounds of his racial background, however correct or not the term used is.

It's all about context.


Edit: having looked at the blog - most of the issues are dealt with in the report: i.e. "Evra by and large from the evidence we obtained was a reliable witness. Suarez was not a reliable witness, and neither were his team mates" (to paraphrase).

Rick, you're so naive. When you're a little older, you will realise that Liverpool FC is never to blame.

finally someone speaks the truth

One a different note, everyone involved wanted the issues buried so they could move on - the media wanted more and so fans turn to making points in creative ways which are open to more misinterpretation than suarez's comments. Never mind that fergie donates to liverpools alder hey or that rooney does tremendous work for childrens charities. shame really.

rick_chasey

Hold the presses, football manager partisan and hypocritical in aftermath of controversial derby.

No way.

TrickyGB

slightly off topic but this did make me laugh:

http://i.minus.com/ibicUo6e9nMMN2.gif

CiB

Rick Chasey wrote:

Edit: having looked at the blog - most of the issues are dealt with in the report: i.e. "Evra by and large from the evidence we obtained was a reliable witness. Suarez was not a reliable witness, and neither were his team mates" (to paraphrase).

Nope. You misread it. The FA report claimed Evra was reliable, LS not. The blog makes clear that this was a tad biased towards Evra, in one place pointing out that Evra's evidence was considered reliable because he was a reliable witness. Win win eh?