Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 41 of 48 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,230 of 1428

Thread: FA release Suarez evidence reasons

  1. #1201  
    Hobbes. is offline Bandwagon jumper of the year
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    17,367
    Can anyone help me find what minute to look at the game on our website? The FA reports says 64min, but I've been looking at every minute near that and I can't find it. In fact we score basically on the 65th min.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #1202  
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,027
    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'm going to send this to a few media outlets with fail mailbox if you don't mind.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #1203  
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    7,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Panic-Button View Post
    Can anyone help me find what minute to look at the game on our website? The FA reports says 64min, but I've been looking at every minute near that and I can't find it. In fact we score basically on the 65th min.
    Start watching from around the hour mark if you mean the "full 90 minutes" one.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #1204  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by LLS View Post
    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.
    I don't think it's very likely that the report would have glossed over arguments such as those made by mzz. They are extremely fundamental points and a failure to refer to them could leave the decision open to challenge on the grounds that the panel had not dealt with all relevant issues. I don't think a QC would draft a 115 page report, designed to be appeal proof, and then make such a (from a legal point of view) schoolboy error.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #1205  
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    11,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Panic-Button View Post
    Can anyone help me find what minute to look at the game on our website? The FA reports says 64min, but I've been looking at every minute near that and I can't find it. In fact we score basically on the 65th min.
    gave it to you on the othere thread .. 1hr 4/5 mins
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #1206  
    Hobbes. is offline Bandwagon jumper of the year
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    17,367
    Quote Originally Posted by TimIsARed View Post
    Start watching from around the hour mark if you mean the "full 90 minutes" one.
    Edit: was on the wrong game, **** me.
    Last edited by Hobbes.; 2-1-12 at 22:24.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #1207  
    Hobbes. is offline Bandwagon jumper of the year
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    17,367
    Quote Originally Posted by RedRob67 View Post
    gave it to you on the othere thread .. 1hr 4/5 mins
    Ah ok cheers
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #1208  
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Panic-Button View Post
    I have tried to work it out but somehow I must have perpetually missed it.

    The second half on the video starts at 55mins video time. Therefore the corner event should have been around 1hr 14 right? But that is when Dirk scores from the Suarez free kick.

    Shocking question, but am I watching the right game :blink:
    That was the game from March last year ... we won 3-1.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #1209  
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    7,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Panic-Button View Post
    Edit: was on the wrong game, **** me.
    Evra is fouled at 1 hour and 5 minutes.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #1210  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by SGBE View Post
    I have posted this in the crowd-sourcing thread but repeat it here:

    [I]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
    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.[/I

    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.
    It's para 20 that's the killer isn't it. McCormick said he had enough time to consider the tapes, so Suarez can't now say he was "ambushed", and so should be allowed to bring new arguments forward on appeal.

    Although, it would be odd if the words Evra claimed he had heard weren't in his written statement or some other document. That would have been a key part of the case to answer, and if not provided voluntarily should have been demanded long before Suarez put his own evidence in rebuttal in to the Panel.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #1211  
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    5,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Panic-Button View Post
    Can anyone help me find what minute to look at the game on our website? The FA reports says 64min, but I've been looking at every minute near that and I can't find it. In fact we score basically on the 65th min.
    Full 90 mins video @ 01:10:30 is pretty much when the corner is conceded.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #1212  
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post

    "The Argentine, unlike the Americans of the North and almost all Europeans, does not identify with the State...
    I've said before but I think John Barnes nailed it when he said:

    "Twenty years ago in England, the same people in England now condemning him were ignorant as to what racism is. Why don't they condemn themselves?"

    The point is the people who judged Suarez grew up in a time when the very words 'black' person was polluted with ugly discrimination. An innocent descriptive word carrying a societies guilty ideas of black people. Decades later, while racism has now thankfully been made taboo by the State the terrible irony is that it seems to have become a weird Neurosis. The hysteria over the word 'black' is almost as if they are pointing to their own repressed racism.

    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post
    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.

    ... 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 don't think this is just South America - it would be interesting to know what his Man U colleagues really think of the situation. I know I'm a Liverpool fan but I think I would have found Evra's behaviour as a player let alone Captain repugnant regardless. We've all seen Liverpool players, Gerrard Masch and so on lose the plot in games like this and groaned - but this is way different. I've read the majority of the report once, revisited the videos and still can't help thinking Evra just took his pride, the red mist, and the game too far: outside the four white lines and onto French TV.

    I fear and despise the ugliness of Racism, but same applies to the corruption of the 'Beautiful Game' and the corruption of the noble fight against racism.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #1213  
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,767
    Quote Originally Posted by RedGedinLA View Post
    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.
    Also its very convenient that instead of black black black which is the real translation they uses blackie blackie blackie which rolls off the tongue and make easy headlines when the word was negro when said three times does not roll off the tongue, negro negro negro i just find hard to say fast and in the "real time" situation.
    Last edited by Fizzle; 2-1-12 at 23:13.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #1214  
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,016
    Quote Originally Posted by KOPGIRL1971 View Post
    5. The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he just called me a ******* black".

    That is shocking, the bluuddy liar


    If any of you have seen the film Hardball, there is a scene in it where a young African American tells a story in school as to why he was beaten up and this crayon written accusation hints of similarities.

    Although the supposed intent is serious, the dialogue is playground at best.

    Are we really supposed to believe Suarez said those exact words?? Unbelievable.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #1215  
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7,645
    My mate inboxed me saying "Dalglish made a prat of himself wearing the Suarez t-shirt."
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #1216  
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    11,619
    what gets me is that a black man says a basically white man told him ,he was black in such a way as to offend .

    now the Fa are never gonna back down and then have to charge the black man with gross misconduct against the white man and serve him a ban .

    who knows maybe they will and he gets suspended from international footy cuz the french fa dont like him either ..bigger picture always hurts
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #1217  
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    11,619
    Quote Originally Posted by KennysgothisDirkKuyt View Post
    If any of you have seen the film Hardball, there is a scene in it where a young African American tells a story in school as to why he was beaten up and this crayon written accusation hints of similarities.

    Although the supposed intent is serious, the dialogue is playground at best.

    Are we really supposed to believe Suarez said those exact words?? Unbelievable.
    ha yeah sounds like something Sid would say from Ice Age

    the more I read again what ive read the mor flabbergasted i get
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #1218  
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,016
    Quote Originally Posted by RedRob67 View Post
    ha yeah sounds like something Sid would say from Ice Age

    the more I read again what ive read the mor flabbergasted i get
    Beggars belief chum.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #1219  
    RogerHuntelaar is offline First team regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    32,037
    Wow, mzz, what a post!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #1220  
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,783
    For Mr Suárez Spanish is his native language as a Uruguayan. Mr Evra told us that he began the conversation by saying "Concha de tu hermana". Mr Evra's evidence was that this is a phrase used in Spanish like when you say "f-----g hell" in English, but the literal translation is "your sister's p--sy"

    If someone brings my family into it, i'm going to call him what i know will hurt him the most. End of
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #1221  
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    3,773
    mmz post is the most credible, most diligent, most reasonable, and probably the most accurate summing up from a Suarez perspective. Can we get MMZ in contact with the legal team that is representing Suarez, or get MMZ on TV or something???
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #1222  
    Paullfc1976 is offline LFC Hall of Fame Resident
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    103,307
    Anyone read what Martin Lipton wrote in the Mirror today?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #1223  
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,783
    Quote Originally Posted by LivingProof View Post
    My mate inboxed me saying "Dalglish made a prat of himself wearing the Suarez t-shirt."
    your mate is knob!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #1224  
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by Paullfc1976 View Post
    Anyone read what Martin Lipton wrote in the Mirror today?
    oh that **** again?

    whats he been spouting now?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #1225  
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by takeitasred View Post
    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:
    the FA will say he is unreliable because ....fill in the blanks and the nearest the bull wins the prize....
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #1226  
    BlowUpMyBoots is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    12,248
    Quote Originally Posted by ScouseSoxNation View Post
    For Mr Suárez Spanish is his native language as a Uruguayan. Mr Evra told us that he began the conversation by saying "Concha de tu hermana". Mr Evra's evidence was that this is a phrase used in Spanish like when you say "f-----g hell" in English, but the literal translation is "your sister's p--sy"

    If someone brings my family into it, i'm going to call him what i know will hurt him the most. End of
    That's the trouble with all this, Evra thought he said something in Spanish when it meant something else, he thought Luis called him one thing but then said it actually meant something else later on.

    Does he really know what was said to him or is he just choosing the most damning words he can, or he knows what he was saying and knows what Luis said but chose to hear something else.
    Last edited by BlowUpMyBoots; 2-1-12 at 23:45.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #1227  
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,849
    Quote Originally Posted by ALTPlatini View Post
    the FA will say he is unreliable because ....fill in the blanks and the nearest the bull wins the prize....
    They should try and prove his unreliability. If what mzz says is correct it should be easily proved or disproved.

    I believe the guy. He has no motive to lie, since a lie would cause more problems for Suarez.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #1228  
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,312
    Message for "MZZ"

    @Support Suarez7 on Twitter wants you to get in touch with him/her wants to use your post on the website.

    Just passing on a request, hope don't get into trouble!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #1229  
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    118
    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.
    Surely you can appeal on the inaccuracy of evidence presented at the first trial? Common sense and natural justice.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #1230  
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    11,619
    what must all the homosexuals in football be thinking of all this ..

    time to rise my friends and.... ummm ...do something



    get coat
    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
  •