Victimpool FC - Klopp leaving, grown men crying

[totman]

My overwhelming sense was that Suarez called him a n#gger, and meant it. But there you go.

 

[Spursalot]

The tribunal struck me as something of a kangaroo court. It convicted on the basis of one man's word. Nothing else.

And after all the recent lectures about racism within football from those in the game in this country directed at those in the game in the rest of Europe, there was an overwhelming sense that a guilty verdict was preordained.

One mans word? erm.. Evra said he said it, Suarez admitted he said it, Pretty sure that's at least two people.

 

[jimmyb]

One mans word? erm.. Evra said he said it, Suarez admitted he said it, Pretty sure that's at least two people.

Erm.....yes, Suarez admitted that he used the word "negro".......in its Latin American context. Evra claimed that Suarez used the word as a racist insult. Two very different things.

So I'll repeat: Suarez was convicted on the basis of one man's word.

 

[linnet_spur]

You were there? cool, give us the full lowdown of the case.

 

[Papercut]

I imagine they would have spoken to players/staff/officials too.

 

[jimmyb]

You were there? cool, give us the full lowdown of the case.

Is that directed at me?

If so, I didn't have to be at the tribunal to know that Suarez was convicted on the basis of one man's word.

It is common knowledge that no one else heard anything of the exchange between the two. No one, other than the two of them, would have known about the details had Evra not complained to the FA.

 

[totman]

Is that directed at me?

If so, I didn't have to be at the tribunal to know that Suarez was convicted on the basis of one man's word.

It is common knowledge that no one else heard anything of the exchange between the two. No one, other than the two of them, would have known about the details had Evra not complained to the FA.

You seem very sure that there is no possibility whatsoever that there is a chance, that maybe, just maybe, there are things from the case that came out that we dont know.

We know less than the panel. They decided it was racist an intentional. You want to contest that, based on...........nothing, then fine.

But you are sounding alot like the scousers at the moment, and they sound like idiots.

 

[linnet_spur]

You can't be convicted of anything based on one man's word.

I'm sorry, but if he wasn't guilty Liverpool would have appealed and then taken it to CAS and whoever else will listen. They knew they had no case once they read the report so had to accept the charge.

 

[jimmyb]

You seem very sure that there is no possibility whatsoever that there is a chance, that maybe, just maybe, there are things from the case that came out that we dont know.

We know less than the panel. They decided it was racist an intentional. You want to contest that, based on...........nothing, then fine.

But you are sounding alot like the scousers at the moment, and they sound like idiots.

You think that if there had been compelling, verifiable evidence that it wouldn't have been made public?????

Really???

So the authorities just arbitrarily decided to withhold this crucial evidence from the public???

You don't think that they would have been falling over themselves to show us why they had come to their decision???

You don't think that it might have occurred to them that the elimination of doubt might have been a good thing???

You think, instead, that they wanted to leave Liverpool fans with an overwhelming sense of injustice???

That they wanted Evra to be booed and demonised despite being the victim of an easily verifiable racist slur???

Now that does sound genuinely idiotic.

 

[jimmyb]

You can't be convicted of anything based on one man's word.

I'm sorry, but if he wasn't guilty Liverpool would have appealed and then taken it to CAS and whoever else will listen. They knew they had no case once they read the report so had to accept the charge.

Not in a court of law, you can't.

But in a football tribunal...........apparently, you can.

There are a number of reasons why Liverpool might not have appealed. Knowledge of guilt is only one.

 

[Papercut]

I don't think it was solely based on words (although they may have contradicted themselves in their versions). Wouldn't video evidence have also been used to see if there were contradictions or supporting cases?

 

[billyiddo]

siding with Jimmy on this - i think some of you maybe be missing the point also - Suarez was found guilty before the tribunal had even taken place, no one is saying he didn't say what is alleged - just that as a case and with the evidence for it then there wasn't a whole lot to base the verdict on

 

[jimmyb]

I don't think it was solely based on words (although they may have contradicted themselves in their versions). Wouldn't video evidence have also been used to see if there were contradictions or supporting cases?

According to the reports, only a small part of the exchange was captured on camera. But the little video evidence that they do have was inconclusive.

 

[jimmyb]

siding with Jimmy on this - i think some of you maybe be missing the point also - Suarez was found guilty before the tribunal had even taken place, no one is saying he didn't say what is alleged - just that as a case and with the evidence for it then there wasn't a whole lot to base the verdict on

Bingo.

 

[southstand1882]

Who cares.

He's a cheating, diving clam, with brick teeth.

Oh, and he's a clam.

 

[totman]

You think that if there had been compelling, verifiable evidence that it wouldn't have been made public?????

Really???

So the authorities just arbitrarily decided to withhold this crucial evidence from the public??? Maybe. Or maybe we dont know the context of the whole tribunal. Do you really believe you know as much as a panel member. There is nothing more to it than what was in the papers?

You don't think that they would have been falling over themselves to show us why they had come to their decision??? No, not really. Maybe they deemed the ban enough, and let the case close.

You don't think that it might have occurred to them that the elimination of doubt might have been a good thing??? Yes I do. My point exactly. I suspect they were in no doubt he meant it based on what came up at the tribunal.

You think, instead, that they wanted to leave Liverpool fans with an overwhelming sense of injustice??? I dont think they gave a f#ck. I think took the case for what it was. Pool fans wouldnt feel this way had their club also condemned his behaviour.

That they wanted Evra to be booed and demonised despite being the victim of an easily verifiable racist slur???
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Evra is being demonised by racists. There is no question that Suarez said the offensive word. Its funny how Suarez is the "victim" of a language mix up, but Evra is a big whinging grass, who deliberately got Suarez banned by twisting his insult around another meaning.

Now that does sound genuinely idiotic. They were your points, not mine

 

[braineclipse]

Erm.....yes, Suarez admitted that he used the word "negro".......in its Latin American context. Evra claimed that Suarez used the word as a racist insult. Two very different things.

So I'll repeat: Suarez was convicted on the basis of one man's word.

Wasn't the point that they made a very basic zero tolerance policy. On the pitch of a football ground the players should just leave any reference to colour out of it. Doesn't matter what context, interpretation, excuses or explanations the players had. Simple rules, zero tolerance, simple to deal with, no confusions and no loop holes to hide in.

 

[Modric THFC]

Erm.....yes, Suarez admitted that he used the word "negro".......in its Latin American context. Evra claimed that Suarez used the word as a racist insult. Two very different things.

So I'll repeat: Suarez was convicted on the basis of one man's word.

That not on the basis of one man's word then.
He was convicted because they interpreted that he meant offence by using the word repeatedly during a heated argument.
Suarez reckoned he was trying to calm the situation by calling Evra 'black' as a friendly gesture.

The also reckoned Liverpool had inconsistent evidence and threw evidence by Kuyt and Commoli out as false.

Ideally everyone should read the full 115 page report http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx

 

[mick cooper]

I'd like to ask a question, and there is no hidden intent, its a genuine question because I don't know the answer

Is it considered racist to use the word negro, in conversation?

such as

"Can you tell me where to find Bill Smith?"

"Bill? he's the negro in that group of guys talking, over there."

Would it be any different from

"Bill, he's the Chinese/Indian/Caucasian in that group of guys talking, over there."

 

[Yossarian]

I'd like to ask a question, and there is no hidden intent, its a genuine question because I don't know the answer

Is it considered racist to use the word negro, in conversation?

such as

"Can you tell me where to find Bill Smith?"

"Bill? he's the negro in that group of guys talking, over there."

Would it be any different from

"Bill, he's the Chinese/Indian/Caucasian in that group of guys talking, over there."

I think it has been beyond the pale for about 35 years Mick, although I'm no expert.