Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 39 of 48 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... LastLast
Results 1,141 to 1,170 of 1428

Thread: FA release Suarez evidence reasons

  1. #1141  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    12,943
    Quote Originally Posted by RedRob67 View Post
    Wolves 1-chavs 1 hahahahahahahahaha
    Its customary to gloat after the final whistle.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #1142  
    cravenz is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaythered View Post
    I hate to dissapoint you but none. Financial background. But it is not a legal mind that is required to see this, a logical one is all. It's not as complicated as you would think. I have been on this thread the whole time and the issues have not been pointed out yet or on any other forum. Paragraphs 85-106 are the crux of the matter and there is a glaring issue within them. But the people who have put the report together have done so in a manner that leads you away from it. I had a moment of clarity and it brings everything Suarez has stated in line and everything Evra (almost everything) into dispute as well as point the finger at the panel for knowing this and misleading people.
    Quote Originally Posted by cravenz View Post
    I'll have a look and hope for something good mate That said, the problem with appeals is that even if something has been "wrongly" decided or discretion in such a case has been exercised "wrongly", it needs to be manifestly unjust. Unless you are pointing out an error in applying a test or law. However, if the courts in England, if we appeal to them, if they do not view the Panel/hearing as a judicial one, then they could go to town on them on any matter.
    Just adding to this, but just because a different judge or panel member may have come to a different verdict is not in itself sufficient to overturn the decision. This is just in terms of the legal system, so it may or may not apply to this hearing. Although, I'm fairly sure, for all intents and purposes, the hearing will be considered a judicial one under the eyes of the law.

    P.S. I'm heading to sleep now as well so will only read what you have to add tomorrow.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #1143  
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by MekizLFC View Post
    You look a bit silly now, shouldn't count your chickens before they hatch!
    awww do one


    yep let the team down
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #1144  
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,853
    Waiting for the corner Evra accused Suarez of using the word ****** not negro or black. ******. A highly offensive term if used just once never mind five, six or seven times and one that will illicit an instant response if used. His testimony states he thought he was being called ****** at all times of the incident.

    Evra version:

    ******* hell, why did you kick me?
    Because you are a ******? (no visible or physical reaction from Evra)
    Say it to me again, I’m going to punch you.
    I don’t speak to *******. (no visible or physical reaction from Evra)
    Okay, now I think I’m going to punch you.
    Okay, ******, ******, ******. (no visible or physical reaction from Evra)

    No one else heard this. No evidence supports this. Evra didn’t react to this. He didn’t run to the referee in disgust.

    Suarez version:

    (Something), Why did you kick me?
    It was just a normal foul.
    Ok you kicked me, I’m going to kick you.
    Shut up and makes quacking motion with hand.

    The corner comes in and the whistle goes. And here is the paragraph for that:

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

    This is the point in which Suarez admits to saying Negro for the one and only time as response to don’t touch me to which he replies “Why Black” in Spanish. The report confirms words are spoken by Saurez to Evra and that Evra clearly reacts to these words.

    Note, this is the first and only time Evra has visibly and physically reacted to a comment by Suarez and the report and video evidence supports it. And he runs to the referee shouting “He just called me a ******* black”

    So why wasn’t he shocked at the first time, the second, the third, the fourth or the fifth? Playing to the whistle perhaps? The ball wasn’t in play.

    Why on earth, would Evra wait until the 6th time he had been called ****** to react visibly and physically as the report described he did on the 6th time? Well it’s simple. The sixth time was the only real time he heard it.

    Why would the panel think it normal for a black man to not react visibly and physically to being called a ****** 5 times but would so on the 6th? The answer; again they know that’s not possible but present the report in such a way that ignores this fact and relies on the only one time he does respond visibly and physically. Which completely backs up Suarez version of events at the same time paradoxically.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #1145  
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    37
    How about that person called Alex Ferguson calling on Kenny after the match to say he may have a problem with Luis Suarez that needs his attention, not off to the referee to cause as much the anti against Liverpool, not to say he never broke any rules like not speaking to the BBC which should have incurred fines,but the two fingers not one,got away with it .
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #1146  
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    28,399
    Quote Originally Posted by MekizLFC View Post
    Just came across this article on twitter, not sure how legitimate it is but seems to be well written.
    We really need to get a disclaime ron this site about posting Jaime Kanwar articles
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #1147  
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,157
    Jaythered, do you have more to come?

    Can you read my posts on the page before this one about the possibility of some kind of "Crowdsourcing Thread"?

    I held off on it until I saw what you had, but do you think I should go ahead with it? If I'm going to do it, I'll have to do it in the next hour or I won't get time for the rest of the week.

    I will of course add your bit above to it too!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #1148  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    476
    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.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #1149  
    cravenz is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25,058
    Jaythered, not wrong, I haven't looked at the video evidence myself though.

    The other problem is that they have alluded to using footage that we do not have available to the general public so we have no clue what that footage is.

    But yes, prima facie, if what you are saying is true then it adds credibility to our case, I think, I'm really going to sleep now. However, at an appeals process we need evidence to fully swing things in our favour and though this to a lay person may seem convincing, it may not be so from a legal stand point in that all this is still merely the panel's opinion on what went on i.e. difference in opinion/discretion which may legally, not hold any weight especially if it was not the main reason for a decision. Unless we can prove factually that there is a big loophole in the opinion, I'm not sure this on its own will stand.

    That said, I see where you are coming from. So do take what I'm saying with a pinch of salt. Nights now. But will have a read through that again when I get down to writing something as I'm sure it'll be useful
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #1150  
    cravenz is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25,058
    Quote Originally Posted by LLS View Post
    Jaythered, do you have more to come?

    Can you read my posts on the page before this one about the possibility of some kind of "Crowdsourcing Thread"?

    I held off on it until I saw what you had, but do you think I should go ahead with it? If I'm going to do it, I'll have to do it in the next hour or I won't get time for the rest of the week.

    I will of course add your bit above to it too!
    Sorry I can't help mate, but I reckon go ahead and do it and maybe if someone else wants to keep up, they can perhaps post a few "----" posts and then update on the fly on the first page if you are busy. I'd help, but I'd like to try and focus on getting mine done. But if you can't find anyone, I'll do it. Nights now.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #1151  
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,157
    Quote Originally Posted by cravenz View Post
    Sorry I can't help mate, but I reckon go ahead and do it and maybe if someone else wants to keep up, they can perhaps post a few "----" posts and then update on the fly on the first page if you are busy. I'd help, but I'd like to try and focus on getting mine done. But if you can't find anyone, I'll do it. Nights now.
    **** it I'm just going to do it because I've already typed it up anyway

    Night night mate.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #1152  
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    117
    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.
    LFC needs to contact this guy and get him in front of the appeals process. Top post.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #1153  
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,145
    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.
    Have you offered your skills and background to the club? Sure seems someone like you could be helpful to the cause?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #1154  
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    11,562
    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.
    God I hope you are right .

    the whole seems to be a translation mistake and dumbness on part of the FA trying to get a verdict of guilty
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #1155  
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    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.
    Brilliant Post. If we can get some big wigs attention and point them onto this, you may have just saved an innocent man from a beheading.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #1156  
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    595
    Between Jaythered and mmz, I think we have something very strong taking shape.

    Ideally we'll have a different lawyer in charge of the appeal, as McCormick appears to have been completely outmaneuvered first time around.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #1157  
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    97
    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.
    MZZ thank you so much for your insight - absolutely breathtaking IMO. Please Mods make sure this goes where it needs to.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #1158  
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactico View Post
    Between Jaythered and mmz, I think we have something very strong taking shape.

    Ideally we'll have a different lawyer in charge of the appeal, as McCormick appears to have been completely outmaneuvered first time around.
    I'm really really hoping that it was just the Panel's report that made him look silly, rather than him actually being like that!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #1159  
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    165
    The grammar issue was covered in the report

    "The experts noted that the use of the verb form "porque tu eres negro" is not the most usual form for Montevidean Spanish, since the form of the verb "ser" most commonly used would be the "vos" form, that is "porque (vos) sos negro". Nevertheless, a small percentage of people from Montevideo do use the "tu" form (in contrast to Buenos Aires, where it is rarely used) or even a mixture of both."

    By small percentage I assume they mean too embarrassingly small to state the actual figure.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #1160  
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,690
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post
    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 is an outstanding post. The belief of many Liverpool fans is that Evra made this whole thing up and your post, to my mind, backs this up. Evra was viewed as a 'reliable' witness because his evidence was 'consistent'. Evidence that has been rehearsed and choreographed is likely to be 'consistent', whereas people trying to remember conversations from a high octane match and recalling all that was said in the great confusion after the match, are bound to be sketchy or 'inconsistent'. This post shows that the Spanish terms attributed to Luis Suarez are a fabrication by a non-native Spanish speaker and have been designed to mislead an FA panel hell-bent on finding Luis Suarez guilty.

    I hope beyond hope, that we contest this case in the strongest possible way and exonerate Luis from the stigma so disgracefully placed upon him.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #1161  
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    11,562
    [QUOTE=Iggle;6859619]This is an outstanding post. The belief of many Liverpool fans is that Evra made this whole thing up and your post, to my mind, backs this up. Evra was viewed as a 'reliable' witness because his evidence was 'consistent'. Evidence that has been rehearsed and choreographed is likely to be 'consistent', whereas people trying to remember conversations from a high octane match and recalling all that was said in the great confusion after the match, are bound to be sketchy or 'inconsistent'. This post shows that the Spanish terms attributed to Luis Suarez are a fabrication by a non-native Spanish speaker and have been designed to mislead an FA panel hell-bent on finding Luis Suarez guilty.

    I hope beyond hope, that we contest this case in the strongest possible way and exonerate Luis from the stigma so disgracefully placed upon him.[/QUOTE]

    i cant see this ever happening for the plain an dsimple reason , the media have gloeted upon such scandle and will rip us up if it gets overturned .

    which it cant cuz that would mean the FA are complete fools
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #1162  
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    32,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaythered View Post
    Waiting for the corner Evra accused Suarez of using the word ****** not negro or black. ******. A highly offensive term if used just once never mind five, six or seven times and one that will illicit an instant response if used. His testimony states he thought he was being called ****** at all times of the incident.

    Evra version:

    ******* hell, why did you kick me?
    Because you are a ******? (no visible or physical reaction from Evra)
    Say it to me again, I’m going to punch you.
    I don’t speak to *******. (no visible or physical reaction from Evra)
    Okay, now I think I’m going to punch you.
    Okay, ******, ******, ******. (no visible or physical reaction from Evra)

    No one else heard this. No evidence supports this. Evra didn’t react to this. He didn’t run to the referee in disgust.

    Suarez version:

    (Something), Why did you kick me?
    It was just a normal foul.
    Ok you kicked me, I’m going to kick you.
    Shut up and makes quacking motion with hand.

    The corner comes in and the whistle goes. And here is the paragraph for that:

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

    This is the point in which Suarez admits to saying Negro for the one and only time as response to don’t touch me to which he replies “Why Black” in Spanish. The report confirms words are spoken by Saurez to Evra and that Evra clearly reacts to these words.

    Note, this is the first and only time Evra has visibly and physically reacted to a comment by Suarez and the report and video evidence supports it. And he runs to the referee shouting “He just called me a ******* black”

    So why wasn’t he shocked at the first time, the second, the third, the fourth or the fifth? Playing to the whistle perhaps? The ball wasn’t in play.

    Why on earth, would Evra wait until the 6th time he had been called ****** to react visibly and physically as the report described he did on the 6th time? Well it’s simple. The sixth time was the only real time he heard it.

    Why would the panel think it normal for a black man to not react visibly and physically to being called a ****** 5 times but would so on the 6th? The answer; again they know that’s not possible but present the report in such a way that ignores this fact and relies on the only one time he does respond visibly and physically. Which completely backs up Suarez version of events at the same time paradoxically.
    good work

    I find it totally staggering that Blackstone Chambers' golden boy Goulding QC has produced such a pathetic written justification for the Commission's verdict. Not only does it reek of bias but it is also seriously flawed and we must continue to expose this
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #1163  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by phidelta42 View Post
    The grammar issue was covered in the report

    "The experts noted that the use of the verb form "porque tu eres negro" is not the most usual form for Montevidean Spanish, since the form of the verb "ser" most commonly used would be the "vos" form, that is "porque (vos) sos negro". Nevertheless, a small percentage of people from Montevideo do use the "tu" form (in contrast to Buenos Aires, where it is rarely used) or even a mixture of both."

    By small percentage I assume they mean too embarrassingly small to state the actual figure.
    I read and noticed that the panel noticed this. The problem is that they do not make anything out of it. The use of "tu" is very uncommon in Montevideo --basically a few individuals in the highest social layers, or people from the south-east of the country (and Suarez was born in the north-west part of it , and "porque tu eres negro" sounds utterly "literary". Evra makes Suarez to sound like an XIX century writer from Cuba or Mexico. No football player would talk like that, believe me. On the other hand, that is exactly the way Evra or anybody familiar with Spanish from Spain (not from Uruguay or Argentina) would have made the sentence up if he had to invent it.

    It is just totally implausible that Suarez used that language. It seems to me that their experts called FA's attention to this key issue, and they just did not weighted it correctly and dismissed it as unimportant. But is is important.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #1164  
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    9,138
    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.
    What is your translation of "Concha de tu hermana".

    As in point 87. were the FA say it to mean two things?
    Mr Evra and Mr Suarez are agreed that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the
    goalmouth. Mr Evra said that he is not exactly fluent in Spanish but that he can easily
    converse in Spanish. For Mr Suarez, Spanish is his native language as a Uruguayan. Mr
    Evra told us that he began the conversation by saying "Concha de tu hermana". Mr Evra's
    evidence was that this is a phrase used in Spanish like when you say "******* hell" in
    27
    English, but the literal translation is "your sister's pussy". Mr Suarez did not hear Mr Evra
    say this. One of the video clips that we have seen, taken from a close up angle behind the
    goal, does appear to support Mr Evra's evidence that he started the conversation with this
    comment.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #1165  
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    483
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post
    I will quote first the FA document on the key point:



    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.
    Great post! i have watched the video again and read the report again along with the posts on here. it is becoming more frustrating because no one from the media wants to know the detail and present anything to show there is a strong probability that Luis is telling the truth. we must keep fighting and hopefully the penny will eventually drop. i hope someone is taking these comments and using them.

    YNWA
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #1166  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by DontBelieveThePress View Post
    What is your translation of "Concha de tu hermana".

    As in point 87. were the FA say it to mean two things?
    There is no room for interpretation. "La concha de tu hermana" is a very gruesome insult. It means literally "Your sister's ****", and it is what you would say just before, say, getting in a fist fight with something--because there is no room for more words after such a violent verbal attack.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #1167  
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post
    I read and noticed that the panel noticed this. The problem is that they do not make anything out of it. The use of "tu" is very uncommon in Montevideo --basically a few individuals in the highest social layers, or people from the south-east of the country (and Suarez was born in the north-west part of it , and "porque tu eres negro" sounds utterly "literary". Evra makes Suarez to sound like an XIX century writer from Cuba or Mexico. No football player would talk like that, believe me. On the other hand, that is exactly the way Evra or anybody familiar with Spanish from Spain (not from Uruguay or Argentina) would have made the sentence up if he had to invent it.

    It is just totally implausible that Suarez used that language. It seems to me that their experts called FA's attention to this key issue, and they just did not weighted it correctly and dismissed it as unimportant. But is is important.
    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.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #1168  
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,706
    Quote Originally Posted by mzz View Post
    There is no room for interpretation. "La concha de tu hermana" is a very gruesome insult. It means literally "Your sister's ****", and it is what you would say just before, say, getting in a fist fight with something--because there is no room for more words after such a violent verbal attack.
    Not sure about this, but I think that is what was said to Zidane before the headbutt
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #1169  
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    117
    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.
    But they can't have it both ways that living in Europe or 4 years means he should be more aware of the expression he allegdly used. Oh sorry they can do what they want, silly me. As they have seemed to have done.

    I don't think you ever loose your local dialect of your own language no matter how long you are away from your roots.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #1170  
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    724
    Quote Originally Posted by LuisSuarez-YNWA View Post
    Not sure about this, but I think that is what was said to Zidane before the headbutt
    It was something about his sister
    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
  •