• 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

deacvision7 said:
Evra's, Giggs', and Marriner's testimony all adds up and works in conjuction with each other.

Kuyt's, however, does not.
Click to expand...



I see you don't want to address this, probably because it confirms that you are full of racist supporting shit. I'm not surprised, and I continue to suspect your initials are 'SS'.
 
What actually happened? – After the final whistle
- As the players went into the dressing room at the end of the game, Evra was really angry and upset. Valencia said he could see it. He explained that Evra is not normally angry after games. Evra said that he was angry because Suarez had insulted him. “I cannot remember exactly the words Evra used but he said that Suarez had said that he wouldn’t speak to him because he was black. I think the words Evra used
were words similar to “Negro, no hablas conmigo”.”
- Hernandez: “Although I was stood with the medical staff, I could clearly hear Evra as he was speaking loudly. He said that during the game, Suarez said to him words similar to “No voy a platicar contigo porque eres negro”. I understood from what Evra said that Suarez had been racially abusive towards him and that he had told Evra that he would not speak to him because he was black.”
- Nani: “He said that Suarez had said that he wouldn’t talk to him because he was black. When he said this in English I think he used the word “nigger” but in Spanish/Portuguese he used the word “negro” or “preto”, I cannot remember exactly which. Evra was also angry that Suarez had not been booked for saying what he did. Evra said something like, “This is a joke. How is it possible that the referee does nothing when he knows what happened?” Evra said that he had told the referee what Suarez said to him.”
- Anderson: “I cannot remember all the exact words Evra used but he told us that Suarez had said to him on the pitch that he wouldn’t speak to Evra because he was black. I think he used words similar to “no hablo con negro”.”
- Valencia and Anderson told Mr Evra that he must tell the manager and go and see the referee because this was serious. When Sir Alex Ferguson and Evra left the dressing room to go and speak to the referee, Valencia and Anderson followed them. They wanted to support Evra but they were not allowed into the referee’s room, only Evra and Sir Alex Ferguson went in.
- Evra said that he told the referee that Suarez had called him a nigger. According to Evra, the referee said to him “Oh, that is why you were talking about being called black”, referring back to what Evra had said to the referee on the pitch. Evra said “Yes.”
 
Dalglish said, “hasn’t he done this before?”. This was the evidence to us of Dowd. Dowd remembered this as it caused him to consciously stop and think whether he was aware of any previous allegation involving Evra.


No, he hadn't, Kenny. And you are a terrible person with a terrible way of creating an "us vs them" mentality. Dalglish is a fucking shitty person.
 
Only 12% of those polled were aged 18-29.

Of those that said they're strongly committed, 24% preferred Paul. Paul had the 5th highest share of people who said they might end up voting for someone else.

LOL Paul 4th among people that watch Fox News regularly.
 
Dude, I can read the report if I care to. Maybe I did read those passages already.

Suffice it to say we are not going to agree. You're wasting your time, and being a nuisance.
 
KanhojiAngre said:
Dude, I can read the report if I care to. Maybe I did read those passages already.

Suffice it to say we are not going to agree. You're wasting your time, and being a nuisance.
Click to expand...


Translation:

"I refuse to read the report because I do not want to read what it says. I will continue to defend the man accused of saying racist remarks no matter what!"



As for your "suffice it to say" statement.... I suspect you are only saying that because the evidence of proof doesn't support your racist denying beliefs.

SS, you're a racist.
 
- Having said in his witness statement that he was trying to defuse the situation when he touched Evra’s left arm in a “pinching type movement”, Suarez eventually answered, after persistent questioning, that he was not trying to calm down the situation by doing so. It was plain to us that Suarez’s pinching of Evra’s arm was not an attempt to defuse the situation. It could not conceivably be described in that way. In our judgment, the pinching was calculated to have the opposite effect, namely to aggravate Evra and to inflame the situation.
- Whilst Suarez had, in his interview with the FA, said that he had used the word “negro” towards Evra in a “friendly and affectionate” way, the first time that he used the words “conciliation” and “conciliatory” was in his witness statement. This was signed after Suarez had received the experts’ report which referred to the possibility that Suarez’s use of the term was intended as an attempt at conciliation. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Suarez used the words conciliation and conciliatory to describe his use of the word “negro” because the experts had used those terms to describe the circumstances in which the word would not generally be offensive in Uruguay.
 
What is more significant, in our judgment, is the substance of Suarez’s evidence that his use of the word “negro” with Evra “was intended as an attempt at conciliation” and “was meant in a conciliatory and friendly way”. The whole episode in the match starting with Suarez’s foul on Evra, and continuing with their encounter in the penalty area was confrontational and hostile. In the goalmouth, Evra fired the first verbal assault and Suarez responded in a hostile fashion judged by his demeanour as shown on the video footage and his pinching of Evra’s skin. When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, it was less than 10 seconds after the pinching in the goalmouth. This is when Suarez claimed to have used the word “negro” for the one and only time. The players’ demeanour, as shown in the video footage, showed that the exchanges continued to be confrontational. This was followed, after the referee had spoken to the players, by
Suarez putting his hand on the back of Evra’s head in a way which, in our judgment, was intended to aggravate Evra. The whole tenor of the players’ exchanges during this episode was one of animosity. They behaved in a confrontational and argumentative way. Whilst Mr Evra is partly to blame for starting the confrontation at that moment, Suarez’s attitude and actions were the very antithesis of the conciliation and friendliness that he would have us believe.
 
Last edited:
- 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.



What an AMAZING coincidence.
 
I hope you don't think I'm still reading this crap.

You should get a job in Nigeria sending spam. You'd be awesome at it.
 
Key points summarised
- Kenny Dalglish trying to sway Marriner and Dowd from the start by saying “hasn’t he done this before?”. Patrice Evra has never made claims of racism against someone, unfounded or otherwise.
- To add further weight to Dalglish’s point, Dirk Kuyt falsely claimed that Evra was telling people he had only been booked by the referee because he was black. The commission found this to be entirely untrue.
- Dalglish claimed that Suarez had been “taunted” by Evra, suggesting that Suarez’s response of “you are black” was following Evra saying “you are South American.” If this was true, Suarez wasn’t using the word “negro” in a friendly way at all, rather as an insult. Regardless, Suarez confirmed that being called “South American” was not an insult.
- Comoli stressed he knew how serious the allegations were so being fluent in Spanish wanted to make sure they had their story straight on what Suarez had said. After speaking to Suarez, he then went to tell Marriner and Dowd Suarez’s version. There was no mention of Suarez calling Evra “negro” in response to Evra telling him not to touch him though, which is what his defence later hinged on. They initially claimed Suarez said “you are black” then in the next set of interviews, Suarez claimed he said “why not, black?” after Evra told him not to touch him.
- Suarez claimed that he did not call Evra a negro when they were in the goal mouth, rather after the referee had called them over to speak to them and he then touched Evra. However, his version of events contradicts the testimony of Evra and referee. Evra says that as soon as the referee called them over, Evra reported the racial abuse he had just received, and the referee confirmed this.
- Suarez initially claimed that he pinched Evra on the arm to “defuse the situation”. When he was cross examined, he admitted this was not true.
- The first time Suarez claimed that his use of the word “negro” was “conciliatory” was after the reports from the language experts were made available, where they claimed if the word “negro” was used in a “conciliatory” way, it wouldn’t be regarded as racist in Uruguay.
- Suarez’s defence claim that Evra made up Suarez saying he kicked him because he was black and that he didn’t talk to blacks. They claim that because Suarez had kicked Evra in the knee, Evra wanted revenge, so fabricated the whole story. This means they are suggesting that Evra feigned outrage after his exchange with Suarez and lied to the referee, that he lied to Giggs on the pitch when he asked him what was the matter, and that he lied to Valencia, Chichartio, Nani, Anderson and Sir Alex Ferguson in the dressing room immediately after the game. The commission rejected the defence’s suggestion that the accusations were just an elaborate plot for Evra to get revenge on Suarez for being kicked.








Go put on your hood, racist cunt.
 
Holy fuck.

DV7, step back from the ledge. You're coming off as a raving lunatic here. You confine KA to one thread (a move I actually agreed with at the time), and allow him to continue to post in that thread. Then you intentionally derail the thread multiple times (with KA taking the bait for some reason, but still).

Then, when KA is really just trying to generate some conversation that doesn't involve your hyper obsessive ass, you just post streams of bullshit and direct more offensive phrases towards him than Suarez or Evra or KA himself ever uttered. All the while, you insist that you don't care whether or not KA posts, despite telling mods not to ban him if he breaks the rules. It's clear that you're just going out of your way to incite him, and as little as I think of KA, that makes you unbelievably pathetic.

You've gone off the deep end. For your own good, please, sit the next few plays out here.
 
RedSoxFaithful said:
Holy fuck.

DV7, step back from the ledge. You're coming off as a raving lunatic here. You confine KA to one thread (a move I actually agreed with at the time), and allow him to continue to post in that thread. Then you intentionally derail the thread multiple times (with KA taking the bait for some reason, but still).
Click to expand...

I did try. Lord knows.
 
raf44 said:
I've read enough, I just don't think there's enough evidence to support the length of the suspension, especially because both players made instigating remarks.
Click to expand...

The report explains the length. The penalty (abusive language and whatnot) starts off at two games and gets multiplied for aggravating factors (reference to color, national origin, etc). The starting point for the ban is 4 games. The commission felt that the aggravating factors (# of times said, "[I kicked you] because you are black", flouting the Kick It Out campaign) outweighed the mitigating factors (Clean record on racism, Evra started the confrontation, charitable work, the intrinsic punishment just from going through the precedings). Deterrence did play a role in the ban.

What I'm now concerned about is that, as thorough and appropriate as these findings seem to me, there's a framework in place for Terry to get a lesser suspension than Suarez. And we all know which player I hate more (Terry).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top