• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

KanhojiAngre's Playground

Just now reading thru the report...

"On 21 November, Mr Suarez submitted his Reply Form (A) stating that he denied the
Charge, and requesting a personal hearing. By letter of the same date, Mr McCormick
applied for an extension of time for Mr Suarez to submit the further documentation and
witness statements on which he intended to rely in defence of the Charge. He sought an
extension of 14 days until Thursday 8 December. He relied on the following arguments in
support of this application. First, that Mr Suarez required further particulars in relation to
the Charge. In fact, he requested these from the FA on 21 November, and the FA provided
them to him on 22 November. Secondly, that the material served by the FA with the
Charge letter was substantial and required careful consideration by Mr Suarez and his
advisers, especially in view of the serious nature of the Charge, for which additional time
was required. Thirdly, Mr McCormick, who was Mr Suarez's chosen representative for
these proceedings, had a number of pre-existing professional commitments over the
relevant period."



And then Dalglish had the gall to complain about how long it was taking?! What a joke.

So they asked for an extension and then complained that the entire process was taking too long? That takes some nerve...
 
Enjoy reading 450 pages of dreck. I stopped around page 35.
 
Evra even admitted that he made instigating remarks toward Suarez before the supposed racial remark. Suarez then referenced Evra's race in a manner that is not offensive in Latin America, although it could be construed as offensive because their interaction was not exactly cordial. This is what was known and admitted by each party. Somehow, Evra's testimony was deemed more reliable. The evidence they have does not seem to warrant an 8 game suspension, and it seems like this is as much about the FA making a "statement" about racism as it is about Suarez's actions.

Suarez's foul on Evra can be seen here at the 1:15 mark, and was emphasized in the report. As you can see there is absolutely nothing there, just Evra being Evra. Wouldn't expect anything else from him, really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH50lwwBRms&feature=youtu.be
In short, the report is borderline farcical. Evra's version is basically accepted as fact, while Suarez's defense is completely dismissed.
 
Last edited:
355. We rejected the evidence of Mr Suarez on these points. The pinching of the skin, and Mr Suarez's admitted use of the word "negro" when speaking to Mr Evra, took place in the context of heated exchanges between the players. Mr Suarez had fouled Mr Evra in the 58th minute. Mr Evra confronted Mr Suarez in the 63rd minute and complained forcefully about the foul. Their facial expressions, gesturing and physical movement showed their mutual animosity throughout these exchanges.
356. Mr Suarez's pinching of Mr Evra's skin was not an attempt to defuse the situation. On the contrary, it was an attempt to aggravate Mr Evra and to inflame the situation. Mr Suarez's admitted use of the word "negro" when speaking to Mr Evra was not conciliatory and friendly. It was unfriendly and was used as part of Mr Suarez's attempt to wind up Mr Evra. The whole tenor of the exchanges was confrontational and argumentative. Adopting the words used by the Spanish language experts, Mr Suarez did not use "negro" with any sense of rapport or in an attempt to create such rapport.
357. Not only did we reject this evidence of Mr Suarez, but we found it remarkable that he sought to advance a case that was so clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of what happened. Even Mr McCormick accepted in his closing submissions that the pinching could not reasonably be described as an attempt to defuse the situation. To suggest otherwise, as Mr Suarez did, was unarguable. Mr Suarez's evidence on these topics, which was shown to be flawed, profoundly undermined our confidence in the reliability of his evidence.
 
raf44 said:
Evra even admitted that he made instigating remarks toward Suarez before the supposed racial remark, referring to his South American origin.
Click to expand...

"363. Mr Evra denied using the words "South American" when speaking to Mr Suarez. When it was put to him that he had done so, he seemed genuinely bemused. He said to address someone as "South American" in this way is not something he would do. He said "What's the sense? What's the point?". There was no evidence of Mr Evra using this phrase on any other occasions."
 
raf44 said:
Suarez's foul on Evra can be seen here at the 1:15 mark, and was emphasized in the report. As you can see there is absolutely nothing there, just Evra being Evra. Wouldn't expect anything else from him, really.

Click to expand...

Do you have another angle? Looks to me like Suarez knocks him knee-to-knee (though not intentionally) which hurts like a bitch and can cause pretty bad injuries.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
It's only 115 pages.
Click to expand...

Something that was sent to me or linked somewhere had like 450. Maybe that was including the bonus pack containing the opinions of every Manchester United employee including ticket office workers and someone scouting Turkmenistan.
 
raf44 said:
E
In short, the report is borderline farcical. Evra's version is basically accepted as fact, while Suarez's defense is completely dismissed.
Click to expand...

Bottom line.

It appears that the FA is overstepping British law as well.
 
KanhojiAngre said:
Something that was sent to me or linked somewhere had like 450. Maybe that was including the bonus pack containing the opinions of every Manchester United employee including ticket office workers and someone scouting Turkmenistan.
Click to expand...

The numbering on the table of contents is by paragraph, not page. That's probably where you got 450 from.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
The "shocking" Spanish phrase that Evra used was "your sister's cunt."
Click to expand...

I don't know if there's been an official scientific study on this or anything, but my guess is most people would find that more offense than a reference to what part of the world you're from. Might even be moreso than a benign reference to one's skin color.

"He called me a (expletive) black!"

Would have been awesome if the ref had said "um...you are black, Patrice. On with the game."
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
The numbering on the table of contents is by paragraph, not page. That's probably where you got 450 from.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Way too damn long in any event. Must have learned it from the US Congress.

Still don't understand why half the payroll of Man U was included as evidence but only Kuyt's statement was taken from Liverpool's players.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Do you have another angle? Looks to me like Suarez knocks him knee-to-knee (though not intentionally) which hurts like a bitch and can cause pretty bad injuries.
Click to expand...

That's the only angle I've seen. I didn't see it there myself, but yeah the knees could've knocked. I don't know why the FA would even mention that foul though since there was clearly nothing intentional there from what I can see.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Do you have another angle? Looks to me like Suarez knocks him knee-to-knee (though not intentionally) which hurts like a bitch and can cause pretty bad injuries.
Click to expand...

I wish I still had the match on my DVR. Suarez's foot obviously hits Evra right below his knee. Clear, clear foul.


I cannot believe anybody would even dispute that.
 
KanhojiAngre said:
I don't know if there's been an official scientific study on this or anything, but my guess is most people would find that more offense than a reference to what part of the world you're from. Might even be moreso than a benign reference to one's skin color.

"He called me a (expletive) black!"

Would have been awesome if the ref had said "um...you are black, Patrice. On with the game."
Click to expand...

"266. In our judgment, Mr Suarez's use of the term was not intended as an attempt at conciliation or to establish rapport; neither was it meant in a conciliatory and friendly way. It was not explained by any feeling on Mr Suarez’s part that a linguistic or cultural relationship had been established between them or that the context was one of informal social relations. The video footage, when viewed in detail and when looked at as a whole, shows that the players continued their animosity throughout this incident. Their hostility is shown in their actions and demeanour before, at the moment of, and after Mr Suarez's admitted use of the word."
 
All you need to know about how reliable Luis Suarez's words in this is his defense of pinching Patrice Evra:

96. As to the pinching of Mr Evra's arm, Mr Suarez said this in paragraph 27 of his witness
statement:
"Evra did not back off and Dirk Kuyt was approaching us to stand between us. At this point I touched PE's left arm in a pinching type movement. This all happened very quickly. I was trying to defuse the situation and was trying to intimate to Evra that he was not untouchable by reference to his question about the foul. Under no circumstances was this action intended to be offensive and most certainly not racially offensive. It was not in any way a reference to the colour of PE's skin.”



How anybody can be taken seriously in saying that they were pinching another person's arm in an effort to calm a situation down is beyond me. Truly laughable.


Suarez said and did some racist shit to get Patrice Evra to think about that instead of the match at hand. It's pretty obvious after having read that report.
 
So Suarez was suspended 8 games because of the tone of the conversation. Seems fair to me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top