Shit hits fan

[dantes]

The saddest thing is I will have to pretend to take Evra's side tomorrow in order to effectively antagonize the shit out of a Marseille supporting friend.

 

[dee]

Surely the thread title should be
"Shit hits fan"

If you still do the annual awards then this is it . Handover the trophy now

 

[Atlas]

Can't wait to hear about his Monday motivation vids now

 

[Dreambeliever]

Can't wait to hear about his Monday motivation vids now

Some of those were funny in fairness

 

[Jack D Rips]

Has it been said why he kung fu'd the "fan"?

 

[Rosco]

Imagine that FA backed this scumbag back then.....

It wasn't him v. Suarez.

It was Evra + Commoli + Kuyt + the Ref v. Suarez - whose story changed a few times and was at odds with Commoli and Kuyt's evidence and the video evidence.

But it doesn't really suit you to be accurate about it

 

[Hansern]

And to be accurate, Evra changed his story too.

 

[Insignificance]

It wasn't him v. Suarez.

It was Evra + Commoli + Kuyt + the Ref v. Suarez - whose story changed a few times and was at odds with Commoli and Kuyt's evidence and the video evidence.

But it doesn't really suit you to be accurate about it

Suit me? Haha. I don't need a fucking story. You however need Evra to back your story.... fucking pussy.

 

[Brizzle]

I didn't really get too involved in that whole situation - what role did Kuyt & Commoli play in it?

Seeing Glen Johnson wearing a 'team suarez' or whatever tshirt was tough to watch. The whole episode is a painful one to keep reliving.

 

[Insignificance]

I didn't really get too involved in that whole situation - what role did Kuyt & Commoli play in it?

Seeing Glen Johnson wearing a 'team suarez' or whatever tshirt was tough to watch. The whole episode is a painful one to keep reliving.

They played no part. But since it pretty much came down word against word Rosco took Fergie and Evra's side.....

 

[dantes]

It wasn't word against word, because Rosco is a lawyer he has an almost religious reverence of the legal process, and cannot separate the outcome of a process from the truth. The FA, with the assistance of our fucking retarded solicitor, bent over backwards to define the process they wanted to follow in such a way that it would lead to the panel finding in favour of Evra. Then once they all agreed the rules and definition are just right, they applied the agreed process, and oh god who would ever have believed it, we found in Evra's favour, well guess that's that then, Suarez you're... guilty.

They decided he was guilty, then figured out a way to make it happen. Rosco will never admit that because he's a lawyer. But it's how things happen, and it's why I'm undefeated and will remain undefeated because no lawyer alive can propose a process to me which won't take me 30 seconds to immediately run through in my brain and determine the outcome of.

 

[Rosco]

And to be accurate, Evra changed his story too.

Which was explained by a translation error of the word 'negro'

 

[Rosco]

I didn't really get too involved in that whole situation - what role did Kuyt & Commoli play in it?

Seeing Glen Johnson wearing a 'team suarez' or whatever tshirt was tough to watch. The whole episode is a painful one to keep reliving.

I'm willing to bet i'm the only one who read the FA report.

By the time witness statements were served, Mr Suarez and the Liverpool management
had become aware of the apparent discrepancy between Mr Suarez's present case on his
use of the word “negro” on the one hand, and what Mr Comolli and Mr Dalglish had told
the referee on the other.
292. Mr Suarez said this in his witness statement:
"After the match, Damien Comolli spoke to me and explained that Ferguson and
Evra had complained to the Referee that I had racially insulted Evra five times
during the game. He asked me to tell him what happened. I told him that Evra had
said to me "Don't touch me, South American". I said I had replied "Por que negro?" I
said that was the only thing I had said. There seems to have been a
misunderstanding on Mr Comolli's part because he interpreted what I said to him to
mean that I said the equivalent of "Why can't I touch you? Because you are black?".
This was not, in fact, what I said but, even if I had said it, it would have made sense
at the time and would not have been intended to be offensive or racially offensive.
Nonetheless, I did not say it."
293. Mr Comolli dealt with the matter in this way in his witness statement:
"[M]y recollection was that LS had replied to PE "Why, because you are black?". I
thought he had said "Por que, tu eres negro?" or "Por que es negro?". "Por que" can
mean both "Because" and "Why" in Spanish. I thought that LS had said "Por que"
meaning "Because" and therefore assumed that he would have used the words "you
are" to say "Because you are black?". Instead LS said "Por que" to mean "why" as in
"Por que negro?". I therefore accept LS's version that he said "Por que negro?" in
reply to PE's request that he should not touch him."
294. Mr McCormick submitted that this explanation is credible and we should accept it. In
support of this submission, he pointed to the translation by the independent interpreter of
one of Mr Suarez's answers in his interview with the FA on 2 November. In the extract
below, LS is Mr Suarez, HP is the interpreter, and JK is Jenni Kennedy of the FA. We
include the Spanish words only where relevant to this point.
"JK: And can you tell me, in Spanish, exactly what you said to Patrice?
LS: Por que negro?
HP: Why, Black? Why because your (sic) black.
JK: "Por que, negro?" no other words?
LS: No.
HP: Solamente? Por que negro?
LS: Por que negro.
HP: Just "But why, Black?" But I think the meaning is, "Why, because you're
black?" (inaudible) in English, it doesn't make sense.
295. There is some force in Mr McCormick's submission but it faces two difficulties. The first is
that there is an important difference between the situation of the interpreter and that of Mr
Comolli. In the interview on 2 November, the interpreter was seeking to translate the
Spanish phrase "Por que, negro?" into English. However, when Mr Comolli spoke to the
referee he told him the Spanish words that Mr Comolli understood from his conversation
in Spanish with Mr Suarez that Mr Suarez had used. It would be surprising if, in asking
Mr Suarez about a serious allegation and wanting to take care how the matter was dealt
with, Mr Comolli did not carefully note the exact Spanish words that Mr Suarez used. It
would also be surprising if Mr Suarez told Mr Comolli that he had said "Por que, negro?"
and Mr Comolli told the referee that Mr Suarez had said "Porque tu es negro". It is, of
course, possible, that Mr Comolli heard what Mr Suarez said in Spanish, and interpreted it
to mean something else, or translated it into another language (whether French or English)
and back again into Spanish before telling the referee. But, this was not suggested to us
and we doubt that Mr Comolli, as a Spanish speaker, would have gone about things in
that way. In addition, Mr Comolli told Mr Dalglish the Spanish words that Mr Suarez said
he had used, which Mr Dalglish said were "Tu es negro". Mr Suarez was still in the room
when Mr Comolli reported his words in Spanish to Mr Dalglish, and it is perhaps
surprising that Mr Suarez did not correct Mr Comolli if he got it wrong.
296. The second difficulty in the way of Mr McCormick's submission is Mr Kuyt's evidence.
When Mr Kuyt was interviewed by the FA on 2 November, he said that he had spoken to
Mr Suarez after the game about Mr Evra's complaint. Mr Kuyt said that Mr Suarez speaks
Dutch very well and so they always speak to each other in Dutch. Mr Kuyt had heard
about Mr Evra's complaint and asked Mr Suarez what he had said to Mr Evra. Mr Kuyt
told the FA in Dutch what he recalled Mr Suarez saying to him in the dressing room. The
interview with Mr Kuyt was recorded, and the FA subsequently transcribed the Dutch
words used by Mr Kuyt and had these translated by an independent interpreter. This
means that we were able to consider what Mr Kuyt then recalled Mr Suarez having said to
him in Dutch, together with a translation from the Dutch into English.
297. According to Mr Kuyt, Mr Suarez said to him that he had touched Mr Evra on the head
and he (Mr Evra) said something along the lines of "get away from me South American",
to which Mr Suarez replied "because you're black can't...why can't I touch you then". The
Dutch words which Mr Kuyt recalled Mr Suarez using were "omdat je zwart bent
mag...waarom mag ik je daarom niet aanraken". Mr Kuyt explained to us that the initial
phrase in this passage means "because you are black", i.e. omdat (because) je (you) zwart
(black) bent (are).
298. Mr Suarez gave evidence about the conversation he had with Mr Kuyt after the game. By
the time of his witness statement, Mr Suarez had clearly become aware of what Mr Kuyt
had said to the FA in his interview. As with Mr Comolli's account given to the referee after
the game, what Mr Kuyt had told the FA was potentially difficult for Mr Suarez given the
case he was now putting forward.
299. Mr Suarez dealt with this discrepancy in the following way in his witness statement:
"Dirk Kuyt also spoke to me after the match and I explained to him in Dutch what
had happened. His Dutch version of what was said appears to have lost something
in translation because he, too, is supposed to have heard from me that I said "Why
can't I touch you? Because you're black?" but all I said was "Por que negro?".
300. When Mr Suarez said in this passage that Mr Kuyt "too" misheard Mr Suarez, that is a
reference to Mr Comolli also "mishearing" what Mr Suarez said.
301. Mr Kuyt also dealt in his witness statement with the discrepancy between what he told the
FA on 2 November that he had understood Mr Suarez had said and what Mr Suarez
claimed he told Mr Kuyt after the game. Mr Kuyt said:
"I am aware that LS will state in evidence that what he actually said in response to
the remark from PE was (translated into English) "Why, black?" or "Why, negro?"
and I am perfectly happy to accept that this is what he said. I may have
misunderstood what he was saying or perhaps sought to interpret what he was
saying as what I thought LS might have said when, in fact, it was not what he said."

 

[Rosco]

They played no part. But since it pretty much came down word against word Rosco took Fergie and Evra's side.....

Insig - totally wrong as usual

 

[Insignificance]

Insig - totally wrong as usual

Dig Lazarus, dig!

 

[Insignificance]

I'm willing to bet i'm the only one who read the FA report.

By the time witness statements were served, Mr Suarez and the Liverpool management
had become aware of the apparent discrepancy between Mr Suarez's present case on his
use of the word “negro” on the one hand, and what Mr Comolli and Mr Dalglish had told
the referee on the other.
292. Mr Suarez said this in his witness statement:
"After the match, Damien Comolli spoke to me and explained that Ferguson and
Evra had complained to the Referee that I had racially insulted Evra five times
during the game. He asked me to tell him what happened. I told him that Evra had
said to me "Don't touch me, South American". I said I had replied "Por que negro?" I
said that was the only thing I had said. There seems to have been a
misunderstanding on Mr Comolli's part because he interpreted what I said to him to
mean that I said the equivalent of "Why can't I touch you? Because you are black?".
This was not, in fact, what I said but, even if I had said it, it would have made sense
at the time and would not have been intended to be offensive or racially offensive.
Nonetheless, I did not say it."
293. Mr Comolli dealt with the matter in this way in his witness statement:
"[M]y recollection was that LS had replied to PE "Why, because you are black?". I
thought he had said "Por que, tu eres negro?" or "Por que es negro?". "Por que" can
mean both "Because" and "Why" in Spanish. I thought that LS had said "Por que"
meaning "Because" and therefore assumed that he would have used the words "you
are" to say "Because you are black?". Instead LS said "Por que" to mean "why" as in
"Por que negro?". I therefore accept LS's version that he said "Por que negro?" in
reply to PE's request that he should not touch him."
294. Mr McCormick submitted that this explanation is credible and we should accept it. In
support of this submission, he pointed to the translation by the independent interpreter of
one of Mr Suarez's answers in his interview with the FA on 2 November. In the extract
below, LS is Mr Suarez, HP is the interpreter, and JK is Jenni Kennedy of the FA. We
include the Spanish words only where relevant to this point.
"JK: And can you tell me, in Spanish, exactly what you said to Patrice?
LS: Por que negro?
HP: Why, Black? Why because your (sic) black.
JK: "Por que, negro?" no other words?
LS: No.
HP: Solamente? Por que negro?
LS: Por que negro.
HP: Just "But why, Black?" But I think the meaning is, "Why, because you're
black?" (inaudible) in English, it doesn't make sense.
295. There is some force in Mr McCormick's submission but it faces two difficulties. The first is
that there is an important difference between the situation of the interpreter and that of Mr
Comolli. In the interview on 2 November, the interpreter was seeking to translate the
Spanish phrase "Por que, negro?" into English. However, when Mr Comolli spoke to the
referee he told him the Spanish words that Mr Comolli understood from his conversation
in Spanish with Mr Suarez that Mr Suarez had used. It would be surprising if, in asking
Mr Suarez about a serious allegation and wanting to take care how the matter was dealt
with, Mr Comolli did not carefully note the exact Spanish words that Mr Suarez used. It
would also be surprising if Mr Suarez told Mr Comolli that he had said "Por que, negro?"
and Mr Comolli told the referee that Mr Suarez had said "Porque tu es negro". It is, of
course, possible, that Mr Comolli heard what Mr Suarez said in Spanish, and interpreted it
to mean something else, or translated it into another language (whether French or English)
and back again into Spanish before telling the referee. But, this was not suggested to us
and we doubt that Mr Comolli, as a Spanish speaker, would have gone about things in
that way. In addition, Mr Comolli told Mr Dalglish the Spanish words that Mr Suarez said
he had used, which Mr Dalglish said were "Tu es negro". Mr Suarez was still in the room
when Mr Comolli reported his words in Spanish to Mr Dalglish, and it is perhaps
surprising that Mr Suarez did not correct Mr Comolli if he got it wrong.
296. The second difficulty in the way of Mr McCormick's submission is Mr Kuyt's evidence.
When Mr Kuyt was interviewed by the FA on 2 November, he said that he had spoken to
Mr Suarez after the game about Mr Evra's complaint. Mr Kuyt said that Mr Suarez speaks
Dutch very well and so they always speak to each other in Dutch. Mr Kuyt had heard
about Mr Evra's complaint and asked Mr Suarez what he had said to Mr Evra. Mr Kuyt
told the FA in Dutch what he recalled Mr Suarez saying to him in the dressing room. The
interview with Mr Kuyt was recorded, and the FA subsequently transcribed the Dutch
words used by Mr Kuyt and had these translated by an independent interpreter. This
means that we were able to consider what Mr Kuyt then recalled Mr Suarez having said to
him in Dutch, together with a translation from the Dutch into English.
297. According to Mr Kuyt, Mr Suarez said to him that he had touched Mr Evra on the head
and he (Mr Evra) said something along the lines of "get away from me South American",
to which Mr Suarez replied "because you're black can't...why can't I touch you then". The
Dutch words which Mr Kuyt recalled Mr Suarez using were "omdat je zwart bent
mag...waarom mag ik je daarom niet aanraken". Mr Kuyt explained to us that the initial
phrase in this passage means "because you are black", i.e. omdat (because) je (you) zwart
(black) bent (are).
298. Mr Suarez gave evidence about the conversation he had with Mr Kuyt after the game. By
the time of his witness statement, Mr Suarez had clearly become aware of what Mr Kuyt
had said to the FA in his interview. As with Mr Comolli's account given to the referee after
the game, what Mr Kuyt had told the FA was potentially difficult for Mr Suarez given the
case he was now putting forward.
299. Mr Suarez dealt with this discrepancy in the following way in his witness statement:
"Dirk Kuyt also spoke to me after the match and I explained to him in Dutch what
had happened. His Dutch version of what was said appears to have lost something
in translation because he, too, is supposed to have heard from me that I said "Why
can't I touch you? Because you're black?" but all I said was "Por que negro?".
300. When Mr Suarez said in this passage that Mr Kuyt "too" misheard Mr Suarez, that is a
reference to Mr Comolli also "mishearing" what Mr Suarez said.
301. Mr Kuyt also dealt in his witness statement with the discrepancy between what he told the
FA on 2 November that he had understood Mr Suarez had said and what Mr Suarez
claimed he told Mr Kuyt after the game. Mr Kuyt said:
"I am aware that LS will state in evidence that what he actually said in response to
the remark from PE was (translated into English) "Why, black?" or "Why, negro?"
and I am perfectly happy to accept that this is what he said. I may have
misunderstood what he was saying or perhaps sought to interpret what he was
saying as what I thought LS might have said when, in fact, it was not what he said."

The only fact is that there was some word exchanges between two footballers (which happens from time to time) and Fergie saw it as a chance to hit out at Liverpool. Numerous Mancs fans in addition to Fergie started to mean something about was fit to wear the Liverbird on their chest. Surprise surprise there were also Liverpool fans jumping into Evra and Fergies corner hitting out at Suarez. You can't gode behind those facts. Bringing up any legal issues and try hiding behind them for supporting the Manc scumbag just show me that you probably are the type that after hester word exchange in the schoolyard runs to the headmasters office to have the other guy expelled.... fucking pussy....

 

[Rosco]

So you would agree with Suarez's story that he used the term negro in a friendly way towards Evra - whilst the cameras show clearly their was angry exchanges between the two ?

You need to be quite dumb to believe that but you'd be far from alone in your stupidity.

 

[Insignificance]

So you would agree with Suarez's story that he used the term negro in a friendly way towards Evra - whilst the cameras show clearly their was angry exchanges between the two ?

You need to be quite dumb to believe that but you'd be far from alone in your stupidity.

I don't give a fuck in what tone he used. I hope he was just as friendly as Kevin Keegan was when he went head to head with Billy Bremner.... and for Patrice Evra, of all scumbags out there, to find allies among Liverpool fans is fucking schocking. A man hated so much by his own fans in Marseilles that they bother to show their hate by the unfolding the banners they did are backed by Liverpool fans in his Quest to punish Suarez?! Yeah sure... I am the stupid one....

 

[Rosco]

Interesting response.

It's notable that you can't say you believe Suarez's story

 

[Insignificance]

Interesting response.

It's notable that you can't say you believe Suarez's story

Sure I believe him. And one of the main arguments for believing him is that Evra is the counterpart.

 

[Judge Jules]

I didn't read the whole of the "judgment" from beginning to end but I did read quite a bit of it, including the bit where the allegedly "independent" panel - whose three members were a lawyer who made a nice little earner from doing these panels for the FA, an FA official, and a personal friend of Ferguson's - bigged up Evra's character and his credibility as a witness, despite the fact that a previous FA panel had branded him a liar when he had a tear-up with a Chelsea groundsman. Questionable as Suarez' evidence may have been, the panel was clearly parti pris against him from the off.

 

[Insignificance]

I didn't read the whole of the "judgment" from beginning to end but I did read quite a bit of it, including the bit where the allegedly "independent" panel - whose three members were a lawyer who made a nice little earner from doing these panels for the FA, an FA official, and a personal friend of Ferguson's - bigged up Evra's character and his credibility as a witness, despite the fact that a previous FA panel had branded him a liar when he had a tear-up with a Chelsea groundsman. Questionable as Suarez' evidence may have been, the panel was clearly parti pris against him from the off.

So I guess with a few more judges and a few less lawyers this world would have been a better place.... 😉

 

[rubans]

I don't give a fuck in what tone he used. I hope he was just as friendly as Kevin Keegan was when he went head to head with Billy Bremner.... and for Patrice Evra, of all scumbags out there, to find allies among Liverpool fans is fucking schocking. A man hated so much by his own fans in Marseilles that they bother to show their hate by the unfolding the banners they did are backed by Liverpool fans in his Quest to punish Suarez?! Yeah sure... I am the stupid one....

Don't want to open this whole can of worms again but just because some LFC fans didn't like Suarez's behaviour doesn't make us any worse a Liverpool fan. I do care totally what tone he used (if used 🙂 and top of all his other shit we had to put up with him throughout the 4yrs. He was an amazing player and probably the best I have seen in a LFC shirt in the last 10 yrs in terms of ability but let's face it, we won't be sitting her still arguing about the tone or the what he said 6 yrs on still if it was someone Sakho or Moreno. His behavior at times was embarrassing but the dive in front of Moyes did make me laugh . He's moved on, he got his move to Barca.

 

[Jack D Rips]

Has it been said why he kung fu'd the "fan"?

Anyone?

 

[Insignificance]

Don't want to open this whole can of worms again but just because some LFC fans didn't like Suarez's behaviour doesn't make us any worse a Liverpool fan. I do care totally what tone he used (if used 🙂 and top of all his other shit we had to put up with him throughout the 4yrs. He was an amazing player and probably the best I have seen in a LFC shirt in the last 10 yrs in terms of ability but let's face it, we won't be sitting her still arguing about the tone or the what he said 6 yrs on still if it was someone Sakho or Moreno. His behavior at times was embarrassing but the dive in front of Moyes did make me laugh . He's moved on, he got his move to Barca.

You have valid points, only for them to be destroyed by the fact that it was Evra. This piece of dogshite that even his own fans of Marseille can't stand the sight of.

 

[rubans]

You have valid points, only for them to be destroyed by the fact that it was Evra. This piece of dogshite that even his own fans of Marseille can't stand the sight of.

Couldn't care less about Evra, not going to try and score points with a players who will play no part in a history and that includes Evra and Shark toothed twat.

 

[Insignificance]

Couldn't care less about Evra, not going to try and score points with a players who will play no part in a history and that includes Evra and Shark toothed twat.

And I am not opening the can of worms. Which was your opening sentence.

But for the rest of you Evra backing arseholes.... fuck of soft pussies!!! And you know who you are

 

[rubans]

And I am not opening the can of worms. Which was your opening sentence.

But for the rest of you Evra backing arseholes.... fuck of soft pussies!!! And you know who you are

Can was well truly open.It's like picking one over other, Hitler or Pot. Who cares, both cunts and I don't think anyone really cares anymore.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'm willing to bet i'm the only one who read the FA report.

By the time witness statements were served, Mr Suarez and the Liverpool management
had become aware of the apparent discrepancy between Mr Suarez's present case on his
use of the word “negro” on the one hand, and what Mr Comolli and Mr Dalglish had told
the referee on the other.
292. Mr Suarez said this in his witness statement:
"After the match, Damien Comolli spoke to me and explained that Ferguson and
Evra had complained to the Referee that I had racially insulted Evra five times
during the game. He asked me to tell him what happened. I told him that Evra had
said to me "Don't touch me, South American". I said I had replied "Por que negro?" I
said that was the only thing I had said. There seems to have been a
misunderstanding on Mr Comolli's part because he interpreted what I said to him to
mean that I said the equivalent of "Why can't I touch you? Because you are black?".
This was not, in fact, what I said but, even if I had said it, it would have made sense
at the time and would not have been intended to be offensive or racially offensive.
Nonetheless, I did not say it."
293. Mr Comolli dealt with the matter in this way in his witness statement:
"[M]y recollection was that LS had replied to PE "Why, because you are black?". I
thought he had said "Por que, tu eres negro?" or "Por que es negro?". "Por que" can
mean both "Because" and "Why" in Spanish. I thought that LS had said "Por que"
meaning "Because" and therefore assumed that he would have used the words "you
are" to say "Because you are black?". Instead LS said "Por que" to mean "why" as in
"Por que negro?". I therefore accept LS's version that he said "Por que negro?" in
reply to PE's request that he should not touch him."
294. Mr McCormick submitted that this explanation is credible and we should accept it. In
support of this submission, he pointed to the translation by the independent interpreter of
one of Mr Suarez's answers in his interview with the FA on 2 November. In the extract
below, LS is Mr Suarez, HP is the interpreter, and JK is Jenni Kennedy of the FA. We
include the Spanish words only where relevant to this point.
"JK: And can you tell me, in Spanish, exactly what you said to Patrice?
LS: Por que negro?
HP: Why, Black? Why because your (sic) black.
JK: "Por que, negro?" no other words?
LS: No.
HP: Solamente? Por que negro?
LS: Por que negro.
HP: Just "But why, Black?" But I think the meaning is, "Why, because you're
black?" (inaudible) in English, it doesn't make sense.
295. There is some force in Mr McCormick's submission but it faces two difficulties. The first is
that there is an important difference between the situation of the interpreter and that of Mr
Comolli. In the interview on 2 November, the interpreter was seeking to translate the
Spanish phrase "Por que, negro?" into English. However, when Mr Comolli spoke to the
referee he told him the Spanish words that Mr Comolli understood from his conversation
in Spanish with Mr Suarez that Mr Suarez had used. It would be surprising if, in asking
Mr Suarez about a serious allegation and wanting to take care how the matter was dealt
with, Mr Comolli did not carefully note the exact Spanish words that Mr Suarez used. It
would also be surprising if Mr Suarez told Mr Comolli that he had said "Por que, negro?"
and Mr Comolli told the referee that Mr Suarez had said "Porque tu es negro". It is, of
course, possible, that Mr Comolli heard what Mr Suarez said in Spanish, and interpreted it
to mean something else, or translated it into another language (whether French or English)
and back again into Spanish before telling the referee. But, this was not suggested to us
and we doubt that Mr Comolli, as a Spanish speaker, would have gone about things in
that way. In addition, Mr Comolli told Mr Dalglish the Spanish words that Mr Suarez said
he had used, which Mr Dalglish said were "Tu es negro". Mr Suarez was still in the room
when Mr Comolli reported his words in Spanish to Mr Dalglish, and it is perhaps
surprising that Mr Suarez did not correct Mr Comolli if he got it wrong.
296. The second difficulty in the way of Mr McCormick's submission is Mr Kuyt's evidence.
When Mr Kuyt was interviewed by the FA on 2 November, he said that he had spoken to
Mr Suarez after the game about Mr Evra's complaint. Mr Kuyt said that Mr Suarez speaks
Dutch very well and so they always speak to each other in Dutch. Mr Kuyt had heard
about Mr Evra's complaint and asked Mr Suarez what he had said to Mr Evra. Mr Kuyt
told the FA in Dutch what he recalled Mr Suarez saying to him in the dressing room. The
interview with Mr Kuyt was recorded, and the FA subsequently transcribed the Dutch
words used by Mr Kuyt and had these translated by an independent interpreter. This
means that we were able to consider what Mr Kuyt then recalled Mr Suarez having said to
him in Dutch, together with a translation from the Dutch into English.
297. According to Mr Kuyt, Mr Suarez said to him that he had touched Mr Evra on the head
and he (Mr Evra) said something along the lines of "get away from me South American",
to which Mr Suarez replied "because you're black can't...why can't I touch you then". The
Dutch words which Mr Kuyt recalled Mr Suarez using were "omdat je zwart bent
mag...waarom mag ik je daarom niet aanraken". Mr Kuyt explained to us that the initial
phrase in this passage means "because you are black", i.e. omdat (because) je (you) zwart
(black) bent (are).
298. Mr Suarez gave evidence about the conversation he had with Mr Kuyt after the game. By
the time of his witness statement, Mr Suarez had clearly become aware of what Mr Kuyt
had said to the FA in his interview. As with Mr Comolli's account given to the referee after
the game, what Mr Kuyt had told the FA was potentially difficult for Mr Suarez given the
case he was now putting forward.
299. Mr Suarez dealt with this discrepancy in the following way in his witness statement:
"Dirk Kuyt also spoke to me after the match and I explained to him in Dutch what
had happened. His Dutch version of what was said appears to have lost something
in translation because he, too, is supposed to have heard from me that I said "Why
can't I touch you? Because you're black?" but all I said was "Por que negro?".
300. When Mr Suarez said in this passage that Mr Kuyt "too" misheard Mr Suarez, that is a
reference to Mr Comolli also "mishearing" what Mr Suarez said.
301. Mr Kuyt also dealt in his witness statement with the discrepancy between what he told the
FA on 2 November that he had understood Mr Suarez had said and what Mr Suarez
claimed he told Mr Kuyt after the game. Mr Kuyt said:
"I am aware that LS will state in evidence that what he actually said in response to
the remark from PE was (translated into English) "Why, black?" or "Why, negro?"
and I am perfectly happy to accept that this is what he said. I may have
misunderstood what he was saying or perhaps sought to interpret what he was
saying as what I thought LS might have said when, in fact, it was not what he said."

Yadda Yadda Yadda.

Evra was a Manc = Evra is a cunt.

You can shove your citations, paragraphs and legalistic mumbo jumbo up yer hoop.

 

[Insignificance]

Can was well truly open.It's like picking one over other, Hitler or Pot. Who cares, both cunts and I don't think anyone really cares anymore.

Hitler or Pot? This is Luis