Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 38 of 48 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast
Results 1,111 to 1,140 of 1428

Thread: FA release Suarez evidence reasons

  1. #1111  
    cravenz is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaythered View Post
    I hate to dissapoint you but none. Financial background. But it is not a legal mind that is required to see this, a logical one is all. It's not as complicated as you would think. I have been on this thread the whole time and the issues have not been pointed out yet or on any other forum. Paragraphs 85-106 are the crux of the matter and there is a glaring issue within them. But the people who have put the report together have done so in a manner that leads you away from it. I had a moment of clarity and it brings everything Suarez has stated in line and everything Evra (almost everything) into dispute as well as point the finger at the panel for knowing this and misleading people.
    I'll have a look and hope for something good mate That said, the problem with appeals is that even if something has been "wrongly" decided or discretion in such a case has been exercised "wrongly", it needs to be manifestly unjust. Unless you are pointing out an error in applying a test or law. However, if the courts in England, if we appeal to them, if they do not view the Panel/hearing as a judicial one, then they could go to town on them on any matter.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #1112  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    12,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaythered View Post
    I am working on how to deliver the information to you all in a way that allows everyone to sit back in amazement and with clear clarity say "xxxx me, oh yeah, he's right". At which point we hit the press and social media.

    With that said, it will take me a couple of hours and intend to post this at five o'clock. Having studied the report once more I have identified the evidence that this is a miscarriage of justice. I wish now to go over these findings and bring them to you in a chronological and logical manner instead of the time, event and quote flip flopping the report leads you down to distract you from this fact.

    Should anyone wish to examine the evidence and uncover the truth themselves it is contained betweeen paragraphs 85-106.

    I promise I am not grandstanding and believe the evidence is there clear as day. By 5 o'clock I will prove this to you all or admit myself I am wrong and duly apologise and beg your forgiveness.
    Why dont you outline this to cravenz on the kop and prepare something together.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #1113  
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,853
    Quote Originally Posted by DontBelieveThePress View Post
    I've read it few times myself.

    I think those pages are quite obviously one sided. They dismiss everything Suarez says on a hunch that it is wrong.

    It was obvious from the start they were being biased, when they pointed out the foul in which Evra got a knock on his knee.

    Why mention that he was kicked on his bad knee, making it out that Suarez had tunnel vision on his poor knee and proceeded to injure it.

    Its a joke, all 115 pages of it. I am 99% certain a lawyer would go to town on this.

    If I made a complaint to the police the day of the game that Suarez said something racist and this was the evidence after a months worth of work, they would laugh at me and throw it in the bin.
    Totally agree that the whole thing is biased and wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. But it wouldn't get examined. They'd ask for the actual evidence, realise there is none and throw the case out without bothering with the report and it's double standards.

    But as the report states he is not racist and the case was dismissed without a judge ripping the document and it's authors to pieces it will still hold water with the media on the basis of probability. They are ignoring that for now but will come to rely on it in the future to keep the smoke over the non-existent fire.

    Anyway, I'll be back at 5 with some interesting facts that could blow that smoke away. Making it public will be the challenge.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #1114  
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,853
    Quote Originally Posted by cravenz View Post
    I'll have a look and hope for something good mate That said, the problem with appeals is that even if something has been "wrongly" decided or discretion in such a case has been exercised "wrongly", it needs to be manifestly unjust. Unless you are pointing out an error in applying a test or law. However, if the courts in England, if we appeal to them, if they do not view the Panel/hearing as a judicial one, then they could go to town on them on any matter.
    The appeal process is a joke. It means you can't challenge the overall findings and context they have put to it even if you have the procedural error or the wrong test application. If we have that, the media will jump all over - got him off by a technicality stance and the overall content will still be assumed.

    You need to change public opinion AND have it over turned in a criminal court. My worry is that as the club may think it impossible to now change public opinion through the courts they wont bother.

    But if we have logical and clear evidence that can go publically viral then we could potentially do both. Back at 5pm.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #1115  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by cravenz View Post
    Personally speaking, the FA or the PFA or whatever should be the one administering racism education, not the club because that way the FA can define finitely what can or cannot be said. Whereas if clubs run their own, they should have an automatic defence that the classes were run, but no one knew that word "xyz" would be racist and the club has done their part and their player was unaware. Then again, this case will be precedence that it probably doesn't matter what the defendant says or believes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Roshi98 View Post
    I completely agree. Frankly, it's shocking negligence in the extreme that the FA set forth a "zero tolerance" policy yet failed to implement any kind of standardized integration of and cultural awareness program for clubs to follow/emulate, particularly for foreign players. Had such a system been in place, Luis' use of "negro", no matter the cultural context, would have resulted in a ban without any real controversy or drama. Instead we're all here talking law, ethics, credibility, and socio-linguistics. It's utterly mad! :blink:
    I totally disagree on whom should be doing the education. It should be the responsibility of the club. Otherwise it is just abdicating responsibility. Just as in business it is the responsibility of the business to ensure employees comply with whatever rules, e.g. take the data protection or some financial compliance acts, if they don't have strong enough education or compliance measures then the business gets punishment as well as the individual. Just think of the many miss-selling cases recently when in your theory it would have been easy for the company to say it was “nothing to do with us guv”, not our job to ensure compliance with whatever rules apply.

    An example nearer to this topic, many business have been fined for their employees not acting appropriately and racially abusing other colleagues (bullying another employment tribunal example). It is accepted that the business should have the appropriate procedures and education in place. Certainly in the case of the multi-national company I worked for we all had compulsory education on various matters and procedures to ensure compliance.

    Of course the FA and PFA can offer guidance and indeed any club could ask the FA or PFA or whomever else for guidance.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #1116  
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,379
    Quote Originally Posted by redjonn View Post
    I totally disagree on whom should be doing the education. It should be the responsibility of the club. Otherwise it is just abdicating responsibility. Just as in business it is the responsibility of the business to ensure employees comply with whatever rules, e.g. take the data protection or some financial compliance acts, if they don't have strong enough education or compliance measures then the business gets punishment as well as the individual. Just think of the many miss-selling cases recently when in your theory it would have been easy for the company to say it was “nothing to do with us guv”, not our job to ensure compliance with whatever rules apply.

    An example nearer to this topic, many business have been fined for their employees not acting appropriately and racially abusing other colleagues (bullying another employment tribunal example). It is accepted that the business should have the appropriate procedures and education in place. Certainly in the case of the multi-national company I worked for we all had compulsory education on various matters and procedures to ensure compliance.

    Of course the FA and PFA can offer guidance and indeed any club could ask the FA or PFA or whomever else for guidance.
    The problem with leaving it to individual clubs is that there won't be any set standard. If the powers that be, had a standard form of "inducting" a foreign player, that could then be implemented by the club, then everybody would be on the same hymn sheet.

    It wasn't so long ago, that 50,000 booklets on coping with depression, were given out to former players, so they have the resources.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #1117  
    cravenz is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25,058
    Quote Originally Posted by redjonn View Post
    I totally disagree on whom should be doing the education. It should be the responsibility of the club. Otherwise it is just abdicating responsibility. Just as in business it is the responsibility of the business to ensure employees comply with whatever rules, e.g. take the data protection or some financial compliance acts, if they don't have strong enough education or compliance measures then the business gets punishment as well as the individual. Just think of the many miss-selling cases recently when in your theory it would have been easy for the company to say it was “nothing to do with us guv”, not our job to ensure compliance with whatever rules apply.

    An example nearer to this topic, many business have been fined for their employees not acting appropriately and racially abusing other colleagues (bullying another employment tribunal example). It is accepted that the business should have the appropriate procedures and education in place. Certainly in the case of the multi-national company I worked for we all had compulsory education on various matters and procedures to ensure compliance.

    Of course the FA and PFA can offer guidance and indeed any club could ask the FA or PFA or whomever else for guidance.
    Understand where you are coming from. That said, there are always two ways of doing this. One is to let the club/company deal with it, which happens and sometimes the governing body does as well. However, if it is the former, the governing body must still set guidelines or utilise a guide book or have some guiding rules for the club/company to know what to do.

    The bigger the population, the harder it is for the central authority to do anything. Football Associations...I don't think are as big as those MNCs.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #1118  
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    6,691
    has anybody researched the procedural mechanisms for appeal

    i saw something suggesting we could only appeal sentence
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #1119  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by cravenz View Post
    Understand where you are coming from. That said, there are always two ways of doing this. One is to let the club/company deal with it, which happens and sometimes the governing body does as well. However, if it is the former, the governing body must still set guidelines or utilise a guide book or have some guiding rules for the club/company to know what to do.

    The bigger the population, the harder it is for the central authority to do anything. Football Associations...I don't think are as big as those MNCs.
    Understand and accept what you are saying but either way the club have the ultimate responsibility and cannot abdicate that responsibility. If the FA did as you suggest and provided guidelines to all and sundry personally it is still the clubs responsibility to ensure compliance by its employee's. It is ultimately the clubs reputation just as it is in the case of a business that they have to consider.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #1120  
    graham-47 is offline Never fought alone
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,959
    I saw this link on fans messages last night it shows evra dived the FA used the event to say louis kicked Evra and if he didnt how can Evras statement be true, this is the so called reliable evidence this youtbe has to be shown to the FA because this is what they basicly based there case on to show Evra was a reliable witness, its not skysport footage but it could be the footage that sinks the FAs case.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH50lwwBRms
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #1121  
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    724
    I have just watched the incident a few times on the 90 minute footage.

    When the whistle blows on the corner, and the referee brings the players together, there is no way on earth that Evra thinks he has just been called the N word 5 times. It is just not plausible, he looks bemused at the situation when talking to the referee, and there is no way he would not of brought it up in that conversation with the ref.

    Something does not add up!

    Has anybody seen the quacking hand gesture? As this would not seem to fit in with the dialogue that Evra has said.
    Last edited by adbee; 2-1-12 at 17:17.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #1122  
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,706
    Quote Originally Posted by graham-47 View Post
    I saw this link on fans messages last night it shows evra dived the FA used the event to say louis kicked Evra and if he didnt how can Evras statement be true, this is the so called reliable evidence this youtbe has to be shown to the FA because this is what they basicly based there case on to show Evra was a reliable witness, its not skysport footage but it could be the footage that sinks the FAs case.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH50lwwBRms
    You just can't see it from that angle mate, watch the match vid ther is a link a few pages back, he definitley kicks his knee, but as Luis said it was just a normal foul.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #1123  
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,706
    Quote Originally Posted by adbee View Post
    I have just watched the incident a few times on the 90 minute footage.

    When the whistle blows on the corner, and the referee brings the players together, there is no way on earth that Evra thinks he has just been called the N word 5 times. It is just not plausible, he looks bemused at the situation when talking to the referee, and there is no way he would not of brought it up in that conversation with the ref.

    After the head patting incident, and they finally go there seperate ways, Suarez says something then, that Evra looks quite shocked by. This is when Suarez says he used the word in question, but if Evra had heard him use it five times already then why would he looked so shocked?

    Something does not add up
    !
    As Judge Judy says-"If something doesn't make sense, it's usually not true."
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #1124  
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    724
    Quote Originally Posted by graham-47 View Post
    I saw this link on fans messages last night it shows evra dived the FA used the event to say louis kicked Evra and if he didnt how can Evras statement be true, this is the so called reliable evidence this youtbe has to be shown to the FA because this is what they basicly based there case on to show Evra was a reliable witness, its not skysport footage but it could be the footage that sinks the FAs case.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH50lwwBRms
    Yeah Suarez definately kicks Evras knee. Not alot in it though.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #1125  
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by redjonn View Post
    I totally disagree on whom should be doing the education. It should be the responsibility of the club. Otherwise it is just abdicating responsibility. Just as in business it is the responsibility of the business to ensure employees comply with whatever rules, e.g. take the data protection or some financial compliance acts, if they don't have strong enough education or compliance measures then the business gets punishment as well as the individual. Just think of the many miss-selling cases recently when in your theory it would have been easy for the company to say it was “nothing to do with us guv”, not our job to ensure compliance with whatever rules apply.

    An example nearer to this topic, many business have been fined for their employees not acting appropriately and racially abusing other colleagues (bullying another employment tribunal example). It is accepted that the business should have the appropriate procedures and education in place. Certainly in the case of the multi-national company I worked for we all had compulsory education on various matters and procedures to ensure compliance.

    Of course the FA and PFA can offer guidance and indeed any club could ask the FA or PFA or whomever else for guidance.
    But football has differences to that of normal employment in that the governing bodies namely FA and Premier League make alot of money so they should have a role and responsibility to educate.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #1126  
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    11,619
    Quote Originally Posted by adbee View Post
    I have just watched the incident a few times on the 90 minute footage.

    When the whistle blows on the corner, and the referee brings the players together, there is no way on earth that Evra thinks he has just been called the N word 5 times. It is just not plausible, he looks bemused at the situation when talking to the referee, and there is no way he would not of brought it up in that conversation with the ref.

    Something does not add up!

    Has anybody seen the quacking hand gesture? As this would not seem to fit in with the dialogue that Evra has said.
    As we have all said ..very strange if they believe the whole timing of the events as portraited by evra.

    and esp. if he told giggs and he then talked to the ref and also said nothing
    or if he just did not tell the ref
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #1127  
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    730
    Quote Originally Posted by RedRob67 View Post
    As we have all said ..very strange if they believe the whole timing of the events as portraited by evra.

    and esp. if he told giggs and he then talked to the ref and also said nothing
    or if he just did not tell the ref
    Thats the bit that has me suspecting Evra statement is full of holes.

    Why was the ref not told of this ASAP to getthe situation resolved by sending Suarez off - I know I would report it if someone abused me in the way suggested
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #1128  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,434
    Quote Originally Posted by graham-47 View Post
    I saw this link on fans messages last night it shows evra dived the FA used the event to say louis kicked Evra and if he didnt how can Evras statement be true, this is the so called reliable evidence this youtbe has to be shown to the FA because this is what they basicly based there case on to show Evra was a reliable witness, its not skysport footage but it could be the footage that sinks the FAs case.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH50lwwBRms
    as the other posters have said, if you check out the LFC match video then the reverse angle looking down the pitch shows Suarez kicked out (trying to get the ball that had already gone) and it is clearly a foul, however there is no malicious intent. You'll also see Evra as he walks off the pitch after treatment blow a kiss to the fans along the main stand before kissing the Manc badge on his shirt. if you fast forward a few more minutes you see the beginning of what it's all about unfortunately you see Evra say something to Suarez and Suarez shrugging his shoulders then the production crew cut to another camera, I'm assuming that the extra video the FA got hold of is a continuation of the shot before they cut to another camera (very annoying as it was showing everything being played out )
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #1129  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,145
    I just love the fact that Evra says in his statement that he doesn't like to use the N word, this being the reason he didn't tell the ref he thought he had been called the N word. Then you watch the youtube video and you think, hypocrite!
    Last edited by MekizLFC; 2-1-12 at 17:39.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #1130  
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    14,953
    Quote Originally Posted by redjonn View Post
    I totally disagree on whom should be doing the education. It should be the responsibility of the club. Otherwise it is just abdicating responsibility. Just as in business it is the responsibility of the business to ensure employees comply with whatever rules, e.g. take the data protection or some financial compliance acts, if they don't have strong enough education or compliance measures then the business gets punishment as well as the individual. Just think of the many miss-selling cases recently when in your theory it would have been easy for the company to say it was “nothing to do with us guv”, not our job to ensure compliance with whatever rules apply.

    An example nearer to this topic, many business have been fined for their employees not acting appropriately and racially abusing other colleagues (bullying another employment tribunal example). It is accepted that the business should have the appropriate procedures and education in place. Certainly in the case of the multi-national company I worked for we all had compulsory education on various matters and procedures to ensure compliance.

    Of course the FA and PFA can offer guidance and indeed any club could ask the FA or PFA or whomever else for guidance.
    I think you've missed the point of that particular exchange. I don't believe either one of us meant that the FA would manage such an effort, only that they would provide a guideline and standard that ALL clubs would agree follow and implement. In my view each club would be responsible for deploying a version of the framework that fit their profile, but would have to demonstrate to the FA that benchmarks had been met.

    You mention compliance at the multinational you work for. I'm in a similar situation and I can tell you, in discussions with our Human Resources team every course in cultural sensitivity, sexual harassment, and personal conduct they produce is dependent on benchmarks set by industry groups as well as regulatory bodies. The same, at a bare minimum, should be expected of/by the FA. They needn't oversee implementation, but they should both set the expectations to be met as well as mandate full reporting from the clubs as to implementation, execution, and documentation.

    Speaking only for myself, this seems only logical in order to avoid future conflagrations that result in pitting players, clubs, and institutions against each other in campaigns of attrition.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #1131  
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,168
    Was going to eventually do my own thread but saw what Jaythered had posted in here and thought I'd just add it in here to help him out:


    Posted by jmbk27:

    102. We examined closely the video footage of this moment which took place in the 64th minute. When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez were standing close to each other, having just run and challenged for the corner. The referee called them over to him. Mr Suarez said something to Mr Evra, then started to walk away. There is a clear reaction by Mr Evra to Mr Suarez's comment. This is apparent in two ways. First, there is a facial reaction by Mr Evra, akin to a look of surprise. Secondly, whilst looking at the referee, Mr Evra points to Mr Suarez, first with his forefinger then with his thumb. Mr Evra walks towards the referee and says something while pointing back at Mr Suarez.

    This was the occasion when Suarez said he called Evra "negro" the first and only time. At this point Evra claimed that Suarez had already called him "negro" 5 times. If what Evra claimed was true, then what could Suarez have said now that would have shocked Evra to such an extent considering what he had already heard 5 times before? Instead, Evra didn't even mention in his testimony what Suarez said at this point. The panel says that they had studied the demeanor of both players the whole time, and this was the only time they mentioned anything about Evra looking surprised. So Evra remembers vividly every other word that was said before but doesn't remember what Suarez said that had so visibly shocked him the 6th time Suarez called him negro?

    Posted by SGBE:

    276. Mr Haughan said that when he overheard Sir Alex Ferguson complain to the referee after the match, he heard him say that Mr Suarez had called Mr Evra a ****** "five times". If that is true, it is probable that Mr Evra was the source for Sir Alex's figure. Mr Evra said in his evidence to us that he had been called "negro" five times, namely (1) "Porque tu eres negro", (2) "No hablo con los negros", and (3) "Dale negro, negro, negro". Thus, it might appear that Mr Haughan's evidence supports Mr Evra's evidence that the word was used five times in the goalmouth.

    277. In a supplemental statement, Sir Alex said that he thought he may have told the referee that Mr Evra had been called the word several times, but did not recall having said specifically that it was five times and thinks it unlikely he would have done so. Mr Evra did not mention in his evidence any specific number that he told Sir Alex at the time.

    278. Nonetheless, Mr Haughan does remember Sir Alex saying five times. This is the sort of detail that Mr Haughan might remember given the unusual circumstances in which he overheard the complaint and the fact that Mr Haughan reported what he had heard to the Liverpool management. In our judgment, this lent some weight to the credibility of Mr Evra's evidence that Mr Suarez used the word five times in the goalmouth.

    You cannot make this stuff up ... the above is how they concluded Suarez said the word 5 times!!!!!

    Posted by dazsolo:

    87. Mr Evra and Mr Suarez are agreed that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. Mr Evra said that he is not exactly fluent in Spanish but that he can easily converse in Spanish. For Mr Suarez, Spanish is his native language as a Uruguayan. Mr Evra told us that he began the conversation by saying "Concha de tu hermana". Mr Evra's evidence was that this is a phrase used in Spanish like when you say "******* hell" in English, but the literal translation is "your sister's pussy". Mr Suarez did not hear Mr Evra say this. One of the video clips that we have seen, taken from a close up angle behind the goal, does appear to support Mr Evra's evidence that he started the conversation with this comment.

    Posted by JaneWarby:

    83. Mr Evra said that while he was lying on the ground, Mr Kuyt came up to him and said "stand up, you f-ing p**ck". Mr Kuyt said "This is untrue. What I did say was something to the effect of "Stand up, stand up", as if to say that it had been a foul but he was making too much of it". The video footage did not show Mr Kuyt speaking to Mr Evra at this time, but Mr Kuyt admitted that he did so. The dispute is about what Mr Kuyt said, not about whether he said anything to Mr Evra at that time. Very little attention was paid to this dispute during the hearing, and we did not find it necessary in reaching our decision to make a finding about what Mr Kuyt had said to Mr Evra.

    Well that's OK then, Evra saying Kuyt said something clearly different from what Kuyt said. Lets not look into the this, as it might not make Evra look like a "credible" witness.

    It seems the panel only believe Evra when they need to.

    Posted by SGBE (hoping he might see this and clarify it as this section doesn’t seem to support what he says below, hopefully he can point us to where in the report its made more clear!):

    18. As a result of a question raised by the Commission during the course of the hearing, it transpired that the FA had interviewed Mr Evra on 20 October, and that this interview had been recorded. No transcript had been made. The tapes should have been, but were not, included in the schedule of unused material. Upon enquiring into this omission, it also emerged that the FA was in possession of some brief notes of interviews, which also should have been, but were not, included in the schedule of unused material. When this came to light, Mr Greaney properly offered to provide copies of the tapes and other notes to Mr Suarez and his advisers. This development took place before Mr Evra had started to give evidence. In the circumstances, the Commission directed that this additional unused material should be disclosed forthwith to Mr McCormick; that Mr McCormick should have an adequate opportunity to review the material, including listening to the tapes, to take instructions from Mr Suarez on any matters arising from this additional material, and to review his planned cross-examination of Mr Evra in the light of it.

    So Evra was interviewed 5 days after the match and had the benefit of video ...

    Suarez was interviewed 18 days after the match and, whereas he had watched the Sky footage beforehand, was not allowed to use the video during the interview ...

    Evra's interview transcript was not made available until a day before the hearing ...

    The conclusion: Suarez changed his story to fit the video evidence, whereas Evra told the same story from the start .... flabbergasted is not the word I am looking for here ....

    Now some of my own thoughts:

    316. There were, thus, three changes in this account from what Mr Suarez had said in his 2 November interview: (1) Previously he had said that this exchange took place when they were walking away after the referee had spoken to them, whereas now it was said to have occurred simultaneously with the referee blowing his whistle and before he spoke to them. (2) Previously he had said that the exchange took place in the context of Mr Suarez saying sorry to Mr Evra as required by the referee, whereas now nothing was said about Mr Suarez apologising. (3) Previously Mr Suarez said that he believed that Mr Evra's comment that Mr Suarez should not touch him was a reference to Mr Suarez putting his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head, whereas now it was said to be a reference to the pinching on the goal line.

    These changes that Suarez is accused of making are there, but they seem very slight changes, far from the picture of Suarez as deliberately making things up to get away with it.

    ^^^ The above took me about half an hour to put together. I hadn't even begun to scratch the surface and think about whats already been said in other blogs and the 5,7, 10 claims.
    Last edited by LLS; 2-1-12 at 17:39. Reason: ...
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #1132  
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    165
    Probably best to remove the link, we've pretty much all seen it will just get you in bother
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #1133  
    cravenz is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Roshi98 View Post
    I think you've missed the point of that particular exchange. I don't believe either one of us meant that the FA would manage such an effort, only that they would provide a guideline and standard that ALL clubs would agree follow and implement. In my view each club would be responsible for deploying a version of the framework that fit their profile, but would have to demonstrate to the FA that benchmarks had been met.

    You mention compliance at the multinational you work for. I'm in a similar situation and I can tell you, in discussions with our Human Resources team every course in cultural sensitivity, sexual harassment, and personal conduct they produce is dependent on benchmarks set by industry groups as well as regulatory bodies. The same, at a bare minimum, should be expected of/by the FA. They needn't oversee implementation, but they should both set the expectations to be met as well as mandate full reporting from the clubs as to implementation, execution, and documentation.

    Speaking only for myself, this seems only logical in order to avoid future conflagrations that result in pitting players, clubs, and institutions against each other in campaigns of attrition.
    Yup.

    Edit: after LLS' post and good work...I'm left wondering if I should still finish the report now
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #1134  
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    17,897
    It has been suggested that he was annoyed from before the game when he was waiting in the tunnel to lead the team out.

    Out of interest is that the first time he looked annoyed or is their any video evidence from the time he arrived or in the warm up? After all the further back in the time line for his annoyance the less likely he was annoyed by sometrhing suarez said
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #1135  
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    11,619
    Wolves 1-chavs 1 hahahahahahahahaha
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #1136  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,145
    Just came across this article on twitter, not sure how legitimate it is but seems to be well written.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #1137  
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,669
    There is a clear reaction by Mr Evra to Mr Suarez's comment. This is apparent in two
    ways. First, there is a facial reaction by Mr Evra, akin to a look of surprise. Secondly,
    whilst looking at the referee, Mr Evra points to Mr Suarez, first with his forefinger then
    with his thumb. Mr Evra walks towards the referee and says something while pointing
    back at Mr Suarez.

    Mr Evra's evidence was that while he was walking towards the referee he said "ref, ref, he
    just called me a ******* black".


    Firstly in this the second incident,in which Suarez openly admits to using the word "negro"why is Evra so "surprised"?if Suarez had said it ["negro"] several times in the first incident on the goal line,why not go to the ref initially?The word JUST in what Evra said to the ref above says alot to me.

    why also does Evra's understanding of what Suarez said change from the "n" word on the goalline to "black" when complaining to the ref?

    I find it incredible that the FA found Luis guilty, "unreliable" and "inconsistent" are words that should pointed at Evra in my book,apart from what ive highlighted,there are many more inconsistancies on Evra's part,and i think the whole case stinks to high heaven,a stitch up of the highest order.LFC should stick to their guns and fight.

    YNWA Luis Suarez.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #1138  
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,168
    Quote Originally Posted by cravenz View Post
    Yup.

    Edit: after LLS' post and good work...I'm left wondering if I should still finish the report now
    Mate I haven't done anything but read through this thread!

    I was going to open a new thread and call it a "Crowdsourcing Thread" or something like that, where we can all just put forward inconsistencies in Evra's testimony and other flaws and holes that we've found ourselves.

    10s or even 100s of minds digesting and dissecting together should mean we could find almost everything without having to pour over every single word of it.

    Problem is I haven't got the time tonight and won't for the rest of the week now. Could someone else do it?!

    I was going to go through the Jim Boardman blog and this one http://joescouse.blogspot.com/2012/0...witnesses.html and add those to the OP.

    Please someone set it up! Was going to say in there if we could just put the legal points in that thread and keep the raging over the injustice of it in this thread.

    I think it might be that we have to go viral "to win hearts and minds" and win back support for Suarez. Sort of instead of saying we'll never walk alone, put our minds together and actually help him in a way we actually can!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #1139  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,145
    Quote Originally Posted by RedRob67 View Post
    Wolves 1-chavs 1 hahahahahahahahaha
    You look a bit silly now, shouldn't count your chickens before they hatch!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #1140  
    cravenz is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25,058
    Quote Originally Posted by LLS View Post
    Mate I haven't done anything but read through this thread!

    I was going to open a new thread and call it a "Crowdsourcing Thread" or something like that, where we can all just put forward inconsistencies in Evra's testimony and other flaws and holes that we've found ourselves.

    10s or even 100s of minds digesting and dissecting together should mean we could find almost everything without having to pour over every single word of it.

    Problem is I haven't got the time tonight and won't for the rest of the week now. Could someone else do it?!

    I was going to go through the Jim Boardman blog and this one http://joescouse.blogspot.com/2012/0...witnesses.html and add those to the OP.

    Please someone set it up! Was going to say in there if we could just put the legal points in that thread and keep the raging over the injustice of it in this thread.

    I think it might be that we have to go viral "to win hearts and minds" and win back support for Suarez. Sort of instead of saying we'll never walk alone, put our minds together and actually help him in a way we actually can!
    The good work was in compiling it. I was thinking the same thing but the thread has just gone on a fair bit and I haven't followed the whole bit.

    My intention was to read through the whole report, summarise the key facts and issues (a little bit). Raise up the issues that may potentially be appealed or brought into question etc and maybe provide a little bit of legal opinion on it. It will take me a fair bit. Maybe a day or more, potentially more. I'm only 20 pages in and I'm about to head to sleep.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •