Terry will either get off completely or get a much more lenient punishment. It's guaranteed.
The Suarez/Evra Racism Row
- Thread starter Stulikesdrums
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=47188.msg1461197#msg1461197 date=1326206953]
[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=47188.msg1461193#msg1461193 date=1326206693]
[quote author=acejmk link=topic=47188.msg1461184#msg1461184 date=1326205908]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=47188.msg1461098#msg1461098 date=1326197726]
Does everyone agree on the following:
Evra changed his testimony from 10 times to 7 times (the word being used).
Suarez said he said it once (porque negro)
4 Manchester United gave different testimonies of what Evra told them, not what they heard. The Spanish used there, as per the Brown University professor, isn't used in Uruguay.
Not one player heard this on the pitch.
I'd conclude that Suarez used the term once - and hence, should be banned (as it is considered racist) for x games. The club should have handled this better, and it's a learning experience I'd say. We reacted fine with what happened in the Oldham game.
[/quote]
This is all very true.
Also i still think the FA used this to help when Terry is found to be guilty they can just give him an 8 game ban to and that will be that.
[/quote]
I think you are wrong there. Suarez got 8 matches for ( as per the findings of the commission) using the word 7 times. As far as I know Terry is only accused of one case.
[/quote]
But surely using an added derogatory adjective ups the stakes? I'm sure it does. There is also another precedent of a chap who admitted using a racial slur and got an 8 match suspension (with 4 of those suspended).
[/quote]
You are missing what Suarez was "convicted" of. He was found to have used a lot worse than Terry is accused of.
[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=47188.msg1461193#msg1461193 date=1326206693]
[quote author=acejmk link=topic=47188.msg1461184#msg1461184 date=1326205908]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=47188.msg1461098#msg1461098 date=1326197726]
Does everyone agree on the following:
Evra changed his testimony from 10 times to 7 times (the word being used).
Suarez said he said it once (porque negro)
4 Manchester United gave different testimonies of what Evra told them, not what they heard. The Spanish used there, as per the Brown University professor, isn't used in Uruguay.
Not one player heard this on the pitch.
I'd conclude that Suarez used the term once - and hence, should be banned (as it is considered racist) for x games. The club should have handled this better, and it's a learning experience I'd say. We reacted fine with what happened in the Oldham game.
[/quote]
This is all very true.
Also i still think the FA used this to help when Terry is found to be guilty they can just give him an 8 game ban to and that will be that.
[/quote]
I think you are wrong there. Suarez got 8 matches for ( as per the findings of the commission) using the word 7 times. As far as I know Terry is only accused of one case.
[/quote]
But surely using an added derogatory adjective ups the stakes? I'm sure it does. There is also another precedent of a chap who admitted using a racial slur and got an 8 match suspension (with 4 of those suspended).
[/quote]
You are missing what Suarez was "convicted" of. He was found to have used a lot worse than Terry is accused of.
[quote author=Halmeister link=topic=47188.msg1461204#msg1461204 date=1326207933]
Terry will either get off completely or get a much more lenient punishment. It's guaranteed.
[/quote]
He'll get off scot free i reckon.
Terry will either get off completely or get a much more lenient punishment. It's guaranteed.
[/quote]
He'll get off scot free i reckon.
I hinted elsewhere in this thread (and have said in another) that Evra is called negro by his team mates. The very word he took such offence at. This is why I find Evra a hypocritical cunt and why I feel his complaint is completely exaggerated. If he was so offended by the word he would have taken his team mates to task a long time ago. Even if he was offended by the phrase he could have had a word with Suarez instead of causing this utter shitfest. I think he's a lying manipulative and devious little shit and he's hung a fellow pro out to dry and caused him to be labelled a racist forever by subjecting him the FA witch trials when the reality couldn't be further from the truth. Twat.
As Aldo says we need to draw a line under it but I hope a few realise what a cunt Evra has been in all of this.
I hinted elsewhere in this thread (and have said in another) that Evra is called negro by his team mates. The very word he took such offence at. This is why I find Evra a hypocritical cunt and why I feel his complaint is completely exaggerated. If he was so offended by the word he would have taken his team mates to task a long time ago. Even if he was offended by the phrase he could have had a word with Suarez instead of causing this utter shitfest. I think he's a lying manipulative and devious little shit and he's hung a fellow pro out to dry and caused him to be labelled a racist forever by subjecting him the FA witch trials when the reality couldn't be further from the truth. Twat.
As Aldo says we need to draw a line under it but I hope a few realise what a cunt Evra has been in all of this.
Nail on head as far as Im concerned - well said Sunny, although dont underestimate Fergeson's influence in the complaint.
As Aldo says we need to draw a line under it but I hope a few realise what a cunt Evra has been in all of this.
Nail on head as far as Im concerned - well said Sunny, although dont underestimate Fergeson's influence in the complaint.
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=47188.msg1461061#msg1461061 date=1326193723]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1461059#msg1461059 date=1326193568]
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=47188.msg1461055#msg1461055 date=1326193173]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=47188.msg1461053#msg1461053 date=1326193118]
'evidence'
[/quote]
Well, yeah, but on the little evidence they had, they tried to make a best guess as to what happened. They banned him based on that, not on the one remark he admitted to.
[/quote]
"Best guess" is not NEARLY good enough to condemn a man of an offence, or wouldn't be in a properly regulated system.
[/quote]
He's not gone to prison, he misses a few games of football, and if it helps with the racism problem in football, then it's no big deal. People are talking as if this is life or death, missing a few games of football is not the end of the world.
[/quote]
No that's only about 5 million in player wages wasted. To many in the world, that's life or death...not to Suarez. Many football clubs have gone under for not having that much in liquid cash....that's not the case for Liverpool either. But for a club just recovering from financial disaster only a year ago, it still is a sizable blow.
Then there is the little case of opening up an avenue for the tabloids to slander a player at will...
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1461059#msg1461059 date=1326193568]
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=47188.msg1461055#msg1461055 date=1326193173]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=47188.msg1461053#msg1461053 date=1326193118]
'evidence'
[/quote]
Well, yeah, but on the little evidence they had, they tried to make a best guess as to what happened. They banned him based on that, not on the one remark he admitted to.
[/quote]
"Best guess" is not NEARLY good enough to condemn a man of an offence, or wouldn't be in a properly regulated system.
[/quote]
He's not gone to prison, he misses a few games of football, and if it helps with the racism problem in football, then it's no big deal. People are talking as if this is life or death, missing a few games of football is not the end of the world.
[/quote]
No that's only about 5 million in player wages wasted. To many in the world, that's life or death...not to Suarez. Many football clubs have gone under for not having that much in liquid cash....that's not the case for Liverpool either. But for a club just recovering from financial disaster only a year ago, it still is a sizable blow.
Then there is the little case of opening up an avenue for the tabloids to slander a player at will...
5 million, how much is he on?
Lol...what was i thinking...i should hit the sack...
Whaddapie, I've never called anyone a racist slur, I'm glad that you haven't. That makes you not a blatant racist asshole.
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=47188.msg1461338#msg1461338 date=1326219987]
Whaddapie, I've never called anyone a racist slur, I'm glad that you haven't. That makes you not a blatant racist asshole.
[/quote]
WTF are you on about, Ali..? If you have something to say, say it.
Whaddapie, I've never called anyone a racist slur, I'm glad that you haven't. That makes you not a blatant racist asshole.
[/quote]
WTF are you on about, Ali..? If you have something to say, say it.
I have been hoping that something would turn up that would expose the failings of the FA's disciplinary procedures. I have just heard on the news that a committee of Westminster MP's is to examine the subject of racism in sport following recent events. Unfortunately they won't even start until March.
I would hope that when a group of intelligent men and women actually get to grips with the FA committee's report, and realise how that superficially impressive document was actually put together, they would have to admit that, in parliamentary jargon, it is a load of bollox.
I would hope that when a group of intelligent men and women actually get to grips with the FA committee's report, and realise how that superficially impressive document was actually put together, they would have to admit that, in parliamentary jargon, it is a load of bollox.
[quote author=Portly link=topic=47188.msg1461368#msg1461368 date=1326222634]
I would hope that when a group of intelligent men and women actually get to grips with the FA committee's report, and realise how that superficially impressive document was actually put together, they would have to admit that, in parliamentary jargon, it is a load of bollox.
[/quote]
Yeah but it's a gang of MPs so that's your hopes dashed.
I would hope that when a group of intelligent men and women actually get to grips with the FA committee's report, and realise how that superficially impressive document was actually put together, they would have to admit that, in parliamentary jargon, it is a load of bollox.
[/quote]
Yeah but it's a gang of MPs so that's your hopes dashed.
S
Squiggles
Guest
Guardian
Rotheram is a Red, isn't he? Could be interesting if it goes ahead.
The FA needs to be brought to book both for the way it decides matters and the failure of it's appeals procedure. The fact that you cannot appeal a decision (only the penalty) and that the record shows a near 100% upholding of initial decisions when appealed cannot be right. Are they really expecting us to believe they get every decision correct all the time?
If MP's can look at this and then make recommendations, I think it's to be welcomed.
If MP's can look at this and then make recommendations, I think it's to be welcomed.
Would be interesting if Kenny is called to this. Would he have "Parliamentary privilidge" to tell the things he reckons we dont know about?
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=47188.msg1461689#msg1461689 date=1326275625]
The FA needs to be brought to book both for the way it decides matters and the failure of it's appeals procedure. The fact that you cannot appeal a decision (only the penalty) and that the record shows a near 100% upholding of initial decisions when appealed cannot be right. Are they really expecting us to believe they get every decision correct all the time?
If MP's can look at this and then make recommendations, I think it's to be welcomed.
[/quote]
Couldn't agree more. The FA would argue that the near-100% stat is valid because its regulatory commissions are "independent". Well, pull the other one, it's got bells on. They appoint the darn commissions themselves, those commissions know exactly what they're expected to say even if it's not written down anywhere (as the Suarez witchhunt makes clear) and the FA themselves sit in judgment on any appeals which might be lodged. If the process WERE independently run, that stat would be impressive. As it is, the stat in question is a clear indication of how rotten the whole thing is. I hope to goodness the MPs' enquiry does go over this good and hard.
The FA needs to be brought to book both for the way it decides matters and the failure of it's appeals procedure. The fact that you cannot appeal a decision (only the penalty) and that the record shows a near 100% upholding of initial decisions when appealed cannot be right. Are they really expecting us to believe they get every decision correct all the time?
If MP's can look at this and then make recommendations, I think it's to be welcomed.
[/quote]
Couldn't agree more. The FA would argue that the near-100% stat is valid because its regulatory commissions are "independent". Well, pull the other one, it's got bells on. They appoint the darn commissions themselves, those commissions know exactly what they're expected to say even if it's not written down anywhere (as the Suarez witchhunt makes clear) and the FA themselves sit in judgment on any appeals which might be lodged. If the process WERE independently run, that stat would be impressive. As it is, the stat in question is a clear indication of how rotten the whole thing is. I hope to goodness the MPs' enquiry does go over this good and hard.
Much though I would love to see the FA get a good arse kicking, this MP enquiry is going to be about racism in general, including sport. I cant really see how the disciplinary procedures at the FA will come into it.
Depends how wide a remit they give themselves, of course, but I'd have thought the question of how the ruling body of the country's most popular sport deals with the racism issue would be a legitimate matter for the enquiry.
R
RedZeppelin
Guest
firstly , when is this Powar chap finally going to shut his pie hole ? Even if some of his points have merit he's wrecking the head now .
Secondly , as a liverpool fan (or any football fan ) do i really have to take responsibility for the actions of every other fan just because we like something that in a sense we are free to pick if we like .
Thirdly , and a serious question , would Tom Adeyemi not have recovered from this by now ? Do we really need to show our support for him . Bad thing to happen but there's a million worse things in the world we need to support then 1 footballer getting abuse , even racist abuse, off some numptie .
finally , what should our mosaic say ? "KKKop" ?
If Powar actually reacted to and acknowledged things like the LFC statements and the Oldham statements he'd warrant a bit more respect, but instead he has decided LFC is wrong on all of the points he asserted and he simply ignores anything that in any way contradicts his position. That's just wrong, and it's high time his various interviewers pointed that out. If he really wants the situation to improve, why is he consistently ignoring all of these positive statements and actions? That's what he should be asked. He's overseen some good campaigns in the past but he's really lost his bearings on this one.
[quote author=gkmacca link=topic=47188.msg1461773#msg1461773 date=1326285390]
If Powar actually reacted to and acknowledged things like the LFC statements and the Oldham statements he'd warrant a bit more respect, but instead he has decided LFC is wrong on all of the points he asserted and he simply ignores anything that in any way contradicts his position. That's just wrong, and it's high time his various interviewers pointed that out. If he really wants the situation to improve, why is he consistently ignoring all of these positive statements and actions? That's what he should be asked. He's overseen some good campaigns in the past but he's really lost his bearings on this one.
[/quote]
I think interviews and publicity is what Powar is after. The more the better.
If Powar actually reacted to and acknowledged things like the LFC statements and the Oldham statements he'd warrant a bit more respect, but instead he has decided LFC is wrong on all of the points he asserted and he simply ignores anything that in any way contradicts his position. That's just wrong, and it's high time his various interviewers pointed that out. If he really wants the situation to improve, why is he consistently ignoring all of these positive statements and actions? That's what he should be asked. He's overseen some good campaigns in the past but he's really lost his bearings on this one.
[/quote]
I think interviews and publicity is what Powar is after. The more the better.
He hasnt commented on Chelsea's support for Terry ( presumably his reason would be that it is a legal matter although we all know the real reason), but he has already tried and convicted the guy from Friday night before he even gets to court.
Terrific article Jack:
[size=18pt]When is a remark racist? When spoken by a foreigner[/size]
[size=14pt]The fight against racism in football has not been helped by the savaging of Suarez, Dalglish and Liverpool, writes DAVID ADAMS [/size]
[size=12pt]‘IS CALLING someone a ‘black c***’ racist? Spoke to a black player today who said racism is words like c**n, n-word, w**, etc. Don’t know.” This crass query was posted on Twitter less than two months ago. It refers to what the England and Chelsea football captain, John Terry, has admitted calling QPR’s Anton Ferdinand during a premiership game last October.
Terry will appear in court next month, charged with a racially motivated public order offence. He insists that his remarks were taken out of context, and must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The tweeter, however, appears to suggest that Terry’s outburst might not be racist at all, regardless of context.
Worryingly, the tweet was posted by the chief sports writer of the Daily Mirror, Oliver Holt (who has authored two books on Terry, under the pen names, Ollie and Oliver Derbyshire). Strange that a journalist, of all people, is not entirely clear on what constitutes racism. Stranger still that Holt and his newspaper, along with most of the rest of the British media, have of late been adopting what they imagine to be a high-minded, zero-tolerance approach to this issue.
They have been relentless in condemning Liverpool’s Uruguayan player, Luis Suarez, after he was found guilty by the English FA of “racially abusing” the Manchester United footballer Patrice Evra, by referring to him as “negro”. Aside from the fact that Evra’s South American team mates at Manchester United also call him Negro, I would have thought this word to be far less offensive than what Terry has admitted shouting at Ferdinand.
Increasingly, the media has also been savaging Liverpool and its manager, Kenny Dalglish, for continuing to insist that Suarez is innocent. Oliver Holt went so far as to suggest in a column last Saturday that their support for Suarez makes Dalglish and Liverpool partially culpable for a racist insult directed at a young Oldham player at Anfield the previous night.
Self-evidently, Holt et al believe that Suarez and Liverpool have no right to question an FA ruling. This is another strange position for journalists to adopt. They, of all people, should realise that even a proper court can get it wrong, never mind the FA’s “kangaroo court”, as Everton manager David Moyes recently described it. The FA secures a conviction rate of 99.5 per cent, as Irish sports lawyer (and Liverpool fan) Stuart Gilhooley has pointed out.
An unnamed sports lawyer has told the BBC that the FA acts as “police, judge and jury all rolled into one”. No wonder Suarez, his club and its supporters are up in arms.
Undeterred, the British media is presenting the FA’s handling of the Suarez affair as a shining example of best practice, while doing all it can to shift attention away from the finer details and on to the broader issue of racism. This involves making pantomime villains of Suarez, Dalglish and Liverpool.
In truth, even before the case was heard, the bulk of the media had made plain its position. Suarez was never afforded the same innocent-until-proven-guilty treatment that John Terry has (rightly) enjoyed.
From the moment Evra’s complaint emerged, hardly a day passed without it being highlighted. Yet within days of John Terry being charged, sportswriters and football commentators were commending the Chelsea captain for a “courageous performance”, “despite the pressures he is playing under”.
Suarez was fined €48,500 and banned for eight games by the FA. Somewhat conveniently, Terry was reported to the police by “a member of the public” and shuffled off to a criminal court where the evidential threshold for conviction is massively higher than that of the FA, and the maximum possible penalty decidedly lower (€2,500).
I am not a disinterested observer, having supported Liverpool for more than 40 years. But then, who is? (Lord) Herman Ouseley and Piara Powar, two of the most vocal and widely quoted critics of Suarez, Dalglish and Liverpool, and strident supporters of the FA’s ruling, are both invariably described by the media only as anti-racism campaigners. That the first is also a member of the FA and on the board of the Manchester United Foundation (Evra’s club), and the second is a director of the Chelsea Foundation (Terry’s club), is never mentioned.
Why has a basic tenet of good journalistic practice, highlighting possible conflicts of interest, been dispensed with? Ultimately, the FA has scored some imaginary political point against Fifa’s Sepp Blatter; anti-racism campaigners have had their (extremely important) issue raised to stratospheric heights; and the British media has been able to flaunt its supposed anti-racist credentials. That the reputation of a “Johnny Foreigner” has been destroyed in the process, and a great football club and its manager tarnished, is unfortunate. But at least it wasn’t an England captain.[/size]
[size=18pt]When is a remark racist? When spoken by a foreigner[/size]
[size=14pt]The fight against racism in football has not been helped by the savaging of Suarez, Dalglish and Liverpool, writes DAVID ADAMS [/size]
[size=12pt]‘IS CALLING someone a ‘black c***’ racist? Spoke to a black player today who said racism is words like c**n, n-word, w**, etc. Don’t know.” This crass query was posted on Twitter less than two months ago. It refers to what the England and Chelsea football captain, John Terry, has admitted calling QPR’s Anton Ferdinand during a premiership game last October.
Terry will appear in court next month, charged with a racially motivated public order offence. He insists that his remarks were taken out of context, and must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The tweeter, however, appears to suggest that Terry’s outburst might not be racist at all, regardless of context.
Worryingly, the tweet was posted by the chief sports writer of the Daily Mirror, Oliver Holt (who has authored two books on Terry, under the pen names, Ollie and Oliver Derbyshire). Strange that a journalist, of all people, is not entirely clear on what constitutes racism. Stranger still that Holt and his newspaper, along with most of the rest of the British media, have of late been adopting what they imagine to be a high-minded, zero-tolerance approach to this issue.
They have been relentless in condemning Liverpool’s Uruguayan player, Luis Suarez, after he was found guilty by the English FA of “racially abusing” the Manchester United footballer Patrice Evra, by referring to him as “negro”. Aside from the fact that Evra’s South American team mates at Manchester United also call him Negro, I would have thought this word to be far less offensive than what Terry has admitted shouting at Ferdinand.
Increasingly, the media has also been savaging Liverpool and its manager, Kenny Dalglish, for continuing to insist that Suarez is innocent. Oliver Holt went so far as to suggest in a column last Saturday that their support for Suarez makes Dalglish and Liverpool partially culpable for a racist insult directed at a young Oldham player at Anfield the previous night.
Self-evidently, Holt et al believe that Suarez and Liverpool have no right to question an FA ruling. This is another strange position for journalists to adopt. They, of all people, should realise that even a proper court can get it wrong, never mind the FA’s “kangaroo court”, as Everton manager David Moyes recently described it. The FA secures a conviction rate of 99.5 per cent, as Irish sports lawyer (and Liverpool fan) Stuart Gilhooley has pointed out.
An unnamed sports lawyer has told the BBC that the FA acts as “police, judge and jury all rolled into one”. No wonder Suarez, his club and its supporters are up in arms.
Undeterred, the British media is presenting the FA’s handling of the Suarez affair as a shining example of best practice, while doing all it can to shift attention away from the finer details and on to the broader issue of racism. This involves making pantomime villains of Suarez, Dalglish and Liverpool.
In truth, even before the case was heard, the bulk of the media had made plain its position. Suarez was never afforded the same innocent-until-proven-guilty treatment that John Terry has (rightly) enjoyed.
From the moment Evra’s complaint emerged, hardly a day passed without it being highlighted. Yet within days of John Terry being charged, sportswriters and football commentators were commending the Chelsea captain for a “courageous performance”, “despite the pressures he is playing under”.
Suarez was fined €48,500 and banned for eight games by the FA. Somewhat conveniently, Terry was reported to the police by “a member of the public” and shuffled off to a criminal court where the evidential threshold for conviction is massively higher than that of the FA, and the maximum possible penalty decidedly lower (€2,500).
I am not a disinterested observer, having supported Liverpool for more than 40 years. But then, who is? (Lord) Herman Ouseley and Piara Powar, two of the most vocal and widely quoted critics of Suarez, Dalglish and Liverpool, and strident supporters of the FA’s ruling, are both invariably described by the media only as anti-racism campaigners. That the first is also a member of the FA and on the board of the Manchester United Foundation (Evra’s club), and the second is a director of the Chelsea Foundation (Terry’s club), is never mentioned.
Why has a basic tenet of good journalistic practice, highlighting possible conflicts of interest, been dispensed with? Ultimately, the FA has scored some imaginary political point against Fifa’s Sepp Blatter; anti-racism campaigners have had their (extremely important) issue raised to stratospheric heights; and the British media has been able to flaunt its supposed anti-racist credentials. That the reputation of a “Johnny Foreigner” has been destroyed in the process, and a great football club and its manager tarnished, is unfortunate. But at least it wasn’t an England captain.[/size]
Similar threads
-
- Locked
