Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 40 of 48 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... LastLast
Results 1,171 to 1,200 of 1428

Thread: FA release Suarez evidence reasons

  1. #1171  
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,093
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post
    I will quote first the FA document on the key point:

    “90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr
    Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that
    comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a ******". He now says
    that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".”

    End quote.

    I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

    This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don't know what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...

    What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.
    Exactly.

    I'm Costa Rican and we would never say "Porque tú eres negro".

    The majority of us would say "Porque usted es negro" and a small minority would say "Porque sos negro".

    Suarez said "¿Por qué, negro?", but Evra, in the heat of the moment and not being a native Spanish speaker, probably thought Suarez said "Porque tú eres negro" or "Porque eres negro".

    It's as simple as that.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #1172  
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post

    I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

    This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don't know what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...

    What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.

    ***

    That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.

    “138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He
    said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him
    "Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had
    replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
    that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
    had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"." Endquote.

    “Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.

    And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:

    "141. Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli
    explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that
    Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr
    Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him
    "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por que negro?". Mr Suarez told
    Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said."

    What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words…

    The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:

    "284 (...) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you
    are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as
    "you are black"." Endquote.

    It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means.

    In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.
    Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.

    ***

    Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the "negro" word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.

    Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:
    1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
    2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
    3) They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means they don't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.

    A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.

    Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.
    Thank you very much for posting this and explaining in detail the nuances of river plate Spanish. I read the entire ruling, and found it seriously wanting in all manner of aspects but thought there was no way we could appeal to the same body since they would stick to their line of reasoning, and without the possibility of going to the CAS the result would be the same. However, this shows that despite their attempts to appear to have done all possible research, they clearly haven't in what is possibly the most important element - what was actually said. By removing the issue of intent and focusing solely on what was allegedly said (in combination with the decision to define evra as a more reliable witness),it seemed their position was unassailable. Your argument goes right to the heart of that argument and invalidates it. It leaves me hopeful because I imagine lfc's first port of call will be to gather testimony to that effect, and perhaps there is room for appeal.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #1173  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    55,268
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post
    I will quote first the FA document on the key point:

    “90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr
    Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that
    comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a ******". He now says
    that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".”

    End quote.

    I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

    This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don't know what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...

    What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.

    ***

    That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.

    “138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He
    said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him
    "Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had
    replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
    that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
    had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"." Endquote.

    “Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.

    And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:

    "141. Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli
    explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that
    Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr
    Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him
    "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por que negro?". Mr Suarez told
    Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said."

    What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words…

    The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:

    "284 (...) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you
    are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as
    "you are black"." Endquote.

    It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.

    In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.
    Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.

    ***

    Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the "negro" word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.

    Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:
    1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
    2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
    3) They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means they don't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.

    A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.

    Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.
    I have no idea about the validity of your claims but that's a phenomenal rebuttal.

    If you aren't already on a plane over here, you should be.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #1174  
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7,645
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    I have no idea about the validity of your claims but that's a phenomenal rebuttal.

    If you aren't already on a plane over here, you should be.
    He should be our lawyer.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #1175  
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,687
    Quote Originally Posted by LivingProof View Post
    He should be our lawyer.
    If not then at the very least we need a fluent Spanish speaking lawyer for the appeal.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #1176  
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    I have no idea about the validity of your claims but that's a phenomenal rebuttal.

    If you aren't already on a plane over here, you should be.
    I agree completely. Dear Mr Henry, please use some of your frequent flyer miles to buy this gentleman a ticket.

    However, will the FA not most likely say he is biased as a result of being Uruguayan? They're the only ones that are allowed to be politically motivated after all hmy:
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #1177  
    graham-47 is offline Never fought alone
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,959
    Quote Originally Posted by phidelta42 View Post
    I wasn't disagreeing with you at all or suggesting the point not important. Just thought it worth quoting the report since it was mentioned.

    I think the Panel worked from the idea that Suarez has been living in Europe for four years and that his Spanish could have easily been diluted in that time.
    I live in the uk my spanish hasnt been diluted I cant speak it.
    louis was living in the netherlands how is that going to dilute his spanish unless the dutch speak spanish.
    Last edited by graham-47; 2-1-12 at 20:41. Reason: whoops cant speak it was ment to be
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #1178  
    Paullfc1976 is offline LFC Hall of Fame Resident
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    103,307
    Mzz's post should be used as evidence should we launch an appeal.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #1179  
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,167
    mzz, I've added your posts into the thread I'm using to collate actual evidence of errors in the panel's report that we as a group find together, pop in if you can! (And of course everyone else!)

    I didn't think criticising the panel or the experts was a road we should go down given that we didn't disagree to their appointments to begin with, but if what mzz says is true, then we should be looking at our options.

    I want to say I'm disappointed that our legal representation didn't make more of this to begin with, but lets not forget that its possible that they could have and the report has glossed over it. I hope so anyway.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #1180  
    graham-47 is offline Never fought alone
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,959
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post
    I will quote first the FA document on the key point:

    “90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr
    Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that
    comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a ******". He now says
    that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".”

    End quote.

    I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

    This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don't know what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...

    What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.

    ***

    That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.

    “138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He
    said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him
    "Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had
    replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
    that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
    had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"." Endquote.

    “Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.

    And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:

    "141. Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli
    explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that
    Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr
    Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him
    "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por que negro?". Mr Suarez told
    Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said."

    What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words…

    The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:

    "284 (...) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you
    are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as
    "you are black"." Endquote.

    It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.

    In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.
    Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.

    ***

    Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the "negro" word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.

    Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:
    1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
    2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
    3) They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means they don't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.

    A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.

    Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.
    this should be sent to every news paper, tvstation and everyone who has called Louis a racist.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #1181  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    11,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Pleazureman View Post
    Yes not offensive if you are in south america which we are not, in England it' can be deemed as offensive, which is why I said I just don't get how Suarez told the fa he was using it in a friendly term, considering what evra said to him first.
    Where you are in the world doesn't determine what the meaning of the words you use is, the language you are speaking in does.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #1182  
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,786
    And we haven't even touched on the likelihood of anyone, in any language, using the term; 'Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie.'

    This seems solely to be a way for Evra to justify his count of the times Luis said 'negro' and the panel buys into it wholesale and even tacks on a couple more 'negros', so he actually said it MORE times than Evra, SAF and the LFC guy claimed. Astonishing.

    It is akin to one of us saying; "Okay, you idiot, idiot, idiot' or "okay, you prat, prat, prat'. There is just no reasonable instance where anyone repeats an epithet three times in this fashion. It is utterly unlikely and yet was given no examination whatsoever.
    To be fair I cannot see McCormick challenging the phrase either and the less said about hos performance in this matter the better. It's obvious from the start he was way out of his depth.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #1183  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,507
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post
    I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

    This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don't know what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...

    What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.

    ***

    That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.

    “138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He
    said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him
    "Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had
    replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
    that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
    had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"." Endquote.

    “Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.

    And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:

    "141. Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli
    explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that
    Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr
    Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him
    "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por que negro?". Mr Suarez told
    Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said."

    What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words…

    The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:

    "284 (...) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you
    are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as
    "you are black"." Endquote.

    It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.

    In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.
    Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.

    ***

    Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:
    1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
    2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
    3) They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means they don't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.

    A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.

    Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.
    Thats a very interesting, well written and well researched post. Thanks.

    I read the commission report yesterday, im by no means a legal expert but i just feel amazed that after 115 pages, in a situation which basically boils down to one man's word against anothers (even though the commission try to claim that thats not the case) an 8-game ban and £40,000 fine can be dished out because they found Evra to be a more "believable" witness.

    My own opinion on the situation is that Suarez has most likely said something that he shouldnt have said to Evra, but without concrete evidence, surely a charge cannot be made.

    Also, why has the FA taken no action against Evra for using insulting and inciteful language to Suarez about his sister?

    I have NO tolerance for racism of any kind, but no matter what way i think about it, the whole thing just smells of a stitch-up. I am worried about the clubs reputation over this, but I do hope they take it further.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #1184  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    476
    I am really touched by all the comments following my post and I thank you all. I am no lawyer so I cannot have a grounded professional opinion on whether Liverpool should appeal or not. I have always seen the case as a disgrace, in the sense that what is really at stake seems to involve some of the contents of the public imaginary in GBritain --contents that, in some clear ways, are not nice towards us South Americans. The particular image Luis is projecting (I would say he is vaguely perceived by his rivals and the general public, with the exception of the Liverpool fans, as both a cunning and dangerous individual) set him up for this. It was just a matter of when he would make a mistake--or something that could be presented that way. That mistake happened.

    In the football codes of our area of the world, Evra should be considered a pariah --and I wouldn't like to be him in the pitch facing some of the friends or fellow players of the guy he attacked. But in your codes, it seems it is seen the other way around by many--as if Evra was doing "Public Justice" or "the Law" a big favor with his report.

    There are clear codes in football--at least in our football game in South America. Evra has not understood this, or is voluntarily breaking them.

    It is not that we don't see football as an important thing, but (maybe because we have always had much bigger problems than that to cope with) we just cannot understand when somebody crosses the line and makes what was clearly a normal discussion within the limits of the game, occasion for a public lynching of a colleague. Justice is not being served there because the whole thing is completely out of proportion.

    Let me quote something the great Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges said in one of his essays --and what he says about Argentines applies equally well to Uruguayans, since we are such close and similar countries and basically the same culture:

    "The Argentine, unlike the Americans of the North and almost all Europeans, does not identify with the State. This is attributable to the circumstance that the governments in this country tend to be awful, or to the general fact that the State is an inconceivable abstraction. One thing is certain: the Argentine is an individual, not a citizen. Aphorisms such as Hegel's "The State is the reality of the moral idea" strike him as sinister jokes. Films made in Hollywood often hold up for admiration the case of a man (usually a journalist) who seeks out the friendship of a criminal in order to hand him over to the police; the Argentine, for whom friendship is a passion and the police a mafia, feels that this "hero" is an incomprehensible swine." (Borges, "Our Poor Individualism")

    In our South American vision, Evra falls right into the category of the incomprehensible swine. You might have a discussion in the field, but to go out to the authorities and report a fellow player with the clear purpose of destroying his career is even worse than trying to break his leg. The captain of the Uruguay national team, Diego Lugano, said exactly this: that Evra was breaking all football codes. I think Evra made a huge human mistake, and I can see he is getting away with it, which aggravates me a big deal and is the motivation I had to took the pains of reading the 115 pages of the **** the FA offered the world. I don't understand why Evra did what he did; I do not understand how come he suddenly became so hatred towards a fellow player --especially since Suarez does not seem to have done anything outside what could be consider normal exchanges in any football match --some winding up, some insulting, etc. For us South Americans, football is a GAME, not a High Morals public school or something like that. You need to keep things that happen in the field confined to that dimension, because football IS A GAME. To some extent, players are actors in a public performance. And they are, of course, not serious representatives of the public morals making display of ideal ethics of a given society. They should not be judged on those absolute grounds. It looks to me like the case of those members of primitive theatrical plays that would jump into the stage to defend the actress being assaulted by the villain...

    I perceive a self-righteous attitude in everything surrounding Suarez's case in England that, to some extent, is out of proportion--to the extent is is almost hilarious. Now, making some normal events on a football pitch part of a public discussion on racism and using Suarez as a weapon on that discussion (basically, making Suarez himself a sort of a bomb-man that has been detonated, destroying Suarez's image) is disgusting, at least to me.

    Maybe the best thing would be to negotiate with the FA a way that, after a calculated and silent appeal, the penalty would end up being reduced a little bit, and on the other hand the player and Liverpool would issue a strong statement saying that 1) it has been stated by the FA and by Evra that Suarez is obviously not racist (quoting the FA paragraphs that say that), 2) that it was not the intention of Suarez to offend Evra, or to compromise Liverpool reputation in the battle against racism, and 3) that Luis Suarez will make an extra effort to participate and help even more in campaigns against racism.

    After that, Luis should take the ban, get some rest, and come back for a great final half of the season for Liverpool. He can still do a lot of good to Liverpool and himself, and I guess that this could help him out learning a lesson about how careful you need to be while in such an visible public position. Probably the rivals would start respecting him even more after they see he accepted the penalty and they start perceiving how out of proportion all this issue has grown. People are noble after all, and I am sure many players will feel sympathetic for Luis.

    This scapegoating of Suarez might end up integrating him even more definitely into British football culture, which I don't think would be a bad outcome at all for him --and might help British culture, after it has vented all its anger and prejudice, to take a step in the direction of understanding foreign cultures a little bit more --and start laughing a little bit more about football and what is at stake in it. No wonder it is South American players, used to consider football just a game you play for fun where you intend to defeat your rival through invention and, yes, some level of "cheating", among the ones that are bringing the most imaginative and creative ways of playing into England fields. Or isn't a good dribbling a form of deceiving (cheating) your rival?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #1185  
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post
    I will quote first the FA document on the key point:

    “90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr
    Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that
    comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a ******". He now says
    that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".”

    End quote.

    I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

    This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don't know what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...

    What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.

    ***

    That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.

    “138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He
    said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him
    "Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had
    replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
    that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
    had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"." Endquote.

    “Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.

    And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:

    "141. Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli
    explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that
    Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr
    Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him
    "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por que negro?". Mr Suarez told
    Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said."

    What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words…

    The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:

    "284 (...) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you
    are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as
    "you are black"." Endquote.

    It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.

    In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.
    Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.

    ***

    Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the "negro" word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.

    Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:
    1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
    2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
    3) They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means they don't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.

    A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.

    Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.
    Wow. If only half of this is true the FA potentially have an almightily ....-storm on their hands.

    The big problem to address though is Cormollis AND Kuyts testimony: although even in European Spanish I find what Suarez is meant to have said a little weird.
    Last edited by Jannno; 2-1-12 at 21:19.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #1186  
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,026
    @mzz

    Wow, what a great post. It's actually similar to how an Aussie thinks as well.

    Evra IMO is a soft top, & should of been man enough to either leave it on the field, or sort it out personally with Luis.

    Gus poyet summed evra up perfectly as a little cry baby. The excuse of a man disgusts me, but is typical of society in general who feign offence just to get an advantage or make a political point.

    The fa have no problem condoning violence, I.e Rooney, yet a spurious conversation which alledgedly contained a racist comment in their opinion, they are all over it and milk it for maximum political gain, & to say a big ---- you to sepp blatter.

    P.s mzz, please contact the club as I think what you have to say may be of some importance.
    Last edited by Daftvader; 2-1-12 at 21:40.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #1187  
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,389
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post
    I am really touched by all the comments following my post and I thank you all. I am no lawyer so I cannot have a grounded professional opinion on whether Liverpool should appeal or not..................
    Excellent post. Very well explained.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #1188  
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    5,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Have-A-Cigar View Post
    Thats a very interesting, well written and well researched post. Thanks.

    I read the commission report yesterday, im by no means a legal expert but i just feel amazed that after 115 pages, in a situation which basically boils down to one man's word against anothers (even though the commission try to claim that thats not the case) an 8-game ban and £40,000 fine can be dished out because they found Evra to be a more "believable" witness.

    My own opinion on the situation is that Suarez has most likely said something that he shouldnt have said to Evra, but without concrete evidence, surely a charge cannot be made.

    Also, why has the FA taken no action against Evra for using insulting and inciteful language to Suarez about his sister?

    I have NO tolerance for racism of any kind, but no matter what way i think about it, the whole thing just smells of a stitch-up. I am worried about the clubs reputation over this, but I do hope they take it further.
    Given their recent spat with Blatter and his unfortunate comments regarding racism in football it is clear that the FA has been gagging to make an example of a high profile player. When offered the choice of the national team captain or Luis Suarez, there was only ever one candidate. What irks me even more than the way that Suarez has been stitched up is the way that much of the national media has swallowed the FA (and Evra's) version hook, line and sinker. This sort of 'justice' belongs in Iran or North Korea.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #1189  
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    812
    Mzz, another fantastic post, mate. As someone who grew up in over 10+ different countries, I completely agree with your statements about an inverted type of stereotyping and inflexibility, which does nothing to promote integration, but only serves to alienate society. And your comments about football, and footballers, not being a mini-cosm of society, or philosophical role models, I couldn't agree with more. As such the fa's argument about intention not being relevant is just plain stupid, and despite their statement to the contrary does not find precedent in the 1989 act.
    Your suggestion of a solution is also one that should be looked at by the club. And the fa, if their intentions are indeed to bring cultures together on the pitch and promote a better understanding of others no matter their background in order to enrich the game.
    Repped.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #1190  
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    18,293
    The question that the frog asked "why did you foul me" now what kind of answer did he expect
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #1191  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,507
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoDogsRichard View Post
    Given their recent spat with Blatter and his unfortunate comments regarding racism in football it is clear that the FA has been gagging to make an example of a high profile player. When offered the choice of the national team captain or Luis Suarez, there was only ever one candidate. What irks me even more than the way that Suarez has been stitched up is the way that much of the national media has swallowed the FA (and Evra's) version hook, line and sinker. This sort of 'justice' belongs in Iran or North Korea.
    Unfortunately I think you are right. The problem for the club, is how to go about taking this further. I know i wouldnt like to be making that decision. Probably the easy thing would be to accept the ban and move on, but I do hope the club take this further. I dont think they have any choice really, especially after the public display of support for Suarez with the t-shirts and statement.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #1192  
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,883
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post
    I will quote first the FA document on the key point:

    “90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr
    Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that
    comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a ******". He now says
    that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".”

    End quote.

    I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

    This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don't know what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...

    What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.

    ***

    That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.

    “138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He
    said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him
    "Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had
    replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
    that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
    had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"." Endquote.

    “Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.

    And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:

    "141. Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli
    explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that
    Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr
    Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him
    "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por que negro?". Mr Suarez told
    Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said."

    What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words…

    The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:

    "284 (...) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you
    are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as
    "you are black"." Endquote.

    It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.

    In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.
    Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.

    ***

    Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the "negro" word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.

    Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:
    1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
    2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
    3) They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means they don't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.

    A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.

    Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.
    Post of the year! Email that to the FA mate. Repping you when I can.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #1193  
    Gazza74 is online now LFC Hall of Fame Resident
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    100,163
    Ok, here i am nearly 3 months later, i've seen Luis charged, i've seen him found guilty, i've now read a 115 page report into the reasons for both...............

    I still have the same thoughts i had 3 months ago....

    Anyone got any concrete evidence that Luis Suarez racially abused and insulted Evra?

    I still don't see any in that report of that happening and the 3 word phrase Luis has supposedly admitted to isn't racially insulting or abusive to my knowledge, the charge laid at Luis's door and what he's been found guilty of.

    All that report tells me is that Evra's word is gospel and Luis's isn't, hell, imagine if law courts worked like that, sod evidence, we'll decide who's guilty and who isn't on whether we like the look of them or what they're saying.

    I stand by Luis 100% still after that report as i don't believe he's racially abused or insulted Evra at all and until someone shows me concrete evidence my stance will remain the same and that'll be even if he has to serve this ban and the club don't appeal.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #1194  
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    24,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Gazza74 View Post
    Ok, here i am nearly 3 months later, i've seen Luis charged, i've seen him found guilty, i've now read a 115 page report into the reasons for both...............

    I still have the same thoughts i had 3 months ago....

    Anyone got any concrete evidence that Luis Suarez racially abused and insulted Evra?

    I still don't see any in that report of that happening and the 3 word phrase Luis has supposedly admitted to isn't racially insulting or abusive to my knowledge, the charge laid at Luis's door and what he's been found guilty of.

    All that report tells me is that Evra's word is gospel and Luis's isn't, hell, imagine if law courts worked like that, sod evidence, we'll decide who's guilty and who isn't on whether we like the look of them or what they're saying.

    I stand by Luis 100% still after that report as i don't believe he's racially abused or insulted Evra at all and until someone shows me concrete evidence my stance will remain the same and that'll be even if he has to serve this ban and the club don't appeal.
    Agree 100%. Anyone suggesting that we accept any ban should think twice. No matter how it might seem in FA's eyes and media eyes we will support Luis 100%. And judging by the club statement, it appears the club is gonna do just that!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #1195  
    Gazza74 is online now LFC Hall of Fame Resident
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    100,163
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post
    I will quote first the FA document on the key point:

    “90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr
    Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that
    comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a ******". He now says
    that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".”

    End quote.

    I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

    This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don't know what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...

    What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.

    ***

    That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.

    “138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He
    said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him
    "Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had
    replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
    that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
    had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"." Endquote.

    “Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.

    And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:

    "141. Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli
    explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that
    Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr
    Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him
    "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por que negro?". Mr Suarez told
    Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said."

    What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words…

    The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:

    "284 (...) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you
    are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as
    "you are black"." Endquote.

    It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.

    In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.
    Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.

    ***

    Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the "negro" word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.

    Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:
    1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
    2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
    3) They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means they don't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.

    A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.

    Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.
    By the way, this is a great post, and certainly explains things i didn't know to much about and i'm damn sure the FA don't care about sadly, Luis was guilty as soon as Evra accused him and that seems to be the way it'll always be and was always going to be.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #1196  
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    24,930
    Mzz should be on TV explaining all this to every sheep in the country that only believes the media and has deemed Suarez as villain from the very start. Top post and duly repped.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #1197  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by CorruptedFA View Post
    Post of the year! Email that to the FA mate. Repping you when I can.
    Agree it's a great post, but I'm really struggling to understand why these points were not made, either by Suarez himself or his lawyer. I think the problem with raising it on appeal is that these are points that could perfectly validly have been made at the first hearing, by or on behalf of Suarez. Generally that means you can't raise them on appeal. And it was his/ his lawyer's role to raise them, not the FA or the panel. Suarez would have known the words Evra was alleging he had used long before the hearing. Why then didn't he just say - I wouldn't use those words in the version of Spanish I speak. The issue would then have been addressed by the experts and the FA, or alternatively they might have decided not to proceed with the charges It seems a bit late to raise, and now could be seen as another change of tack by Suarez.

    The preparation of his defence seems to have been less than thorough.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #1198  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    25,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Navredman View Post
    The question that the frog asked "why did you foul me" now what kind of answer did he expect
    Suarez was clearly just being ironic - like Clint Eastwood in Escape from Alcatraz
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #1199  
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,026
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post
    I will quote first the FA document on the key point:

    “90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr
    Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that
    comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a ******". He now says
    that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".”

    End quote.

    I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

    This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don't know what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...

    What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.

    ***

    That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.

    “138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He
    said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him
    "Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had
    replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
    that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
    had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"." Endquote.

    “Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.

    And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:

    "141. Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli
    explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that
    Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr
    Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him
    "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por que negro?". Mr Suarez told
    Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said."

    What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words…

    The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:

    "284 (...) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you
    are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as
    "you are black"." Endquote.

    It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.

    In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.
    Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.

    ***

    Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the "negro" word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.

    Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:
    1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
    2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
    3) They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means they don't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.

    A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.

    Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.
    This post needs to be circulated as widely as possible. Print, radio, and visual media, and also to the "anti-racism organizations" who are so quick to seaze upon any opportunity to make a point and get political mileage at the expense of Luis Suarez.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #1200  
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,687
    Quote Originally Posted by legaleagle View Post
    Agree it's a great post, but I'm really struggling to understand why these points were not made, either by Suarez himself or his lawyer. I think the problem with raising it on appeal is that these are points that could perfectly validly have been made at the first hearing, by or on behalf of Suarez. Generally that means you can't raise them on appeal. And it was his/ his lawyer's role to raise them, not the FA or the panel. Suarez would have known the words Evra was alleging he had used long before the hearing. Why then didn't he just say - I wouldn't use those words in the version of Spanish I speak. The issue would then have been addressed by the experts and the FA, or alternatively they might have decided not to proceed with the charges It seems a bit late to raise, and now could be seen as another change of tack by Suarez.

    The preparation of his defence seems to have been less than thorough.
    I have posted this in the crowd-sourcing thread but repeat it here:

    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.


    If I understand this correctly, then when Suarez was preparing his witness statement (after being formally charged) then he did not have Evra's testimony to refer to. Why this wasn't raised immediately I don't know - perhaps it was not expected as this wasn't a court case?

    When it was raised, it seems McCormick was happy to accept the testimony literally on the eve of the hearing or a short time before he was to start cross-examining Evra:

    19. Whilst Mr McCormick was listening to the tapes, the Commission did the same. There
    were, in fact, two tapes of the FA's interview with Mr Evra on 20 October. On the first, Mr
    Evra described what, according to him, had occurred during the match. On the second, Mr
    Evra gave his account of what had happened by reference to video clips that were viewed
    by those present at the interview (which did not, at that time, include the unbroadcast
    material which the FA subsequently obtained). The Commission arranged for the
    stenographers, who were present for the purpose of transcribing the hearing, to produce
    such transcripts of the tapes as they could in the time available. A transcript of the first,
    longer tape was available by the time Mr McCormick commenced his cross-examination
    of Mr Evra, and was added to the bundle of documents before the Commission.
    20. Mr McCormick, whilst understandably critical of the omission of the tapes from the
    schedule of unused material, confirmed that he had had an adequate opportunity to listen
    to the tapes and to review the brief notes of interviews before commencing his crossexamination
    of Mr Evra. He did not consider it necessary for a transcript of the second,
    shorter tape to be produced. All present had, in the event, listened to it, and Mr
    McCormick was able to question Mr Evra without the necessity of a transcript of the
    second tape.
    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
  •