• Liverpool Message Board

  • Havin_A_Red_Day_? Havin_A_Red_Day_? Dec 21, 2011 18:30 Flag

    Alex fergusons team can do no wrong!!!

    How is it that Unitedes own Wayne Rooney can have his ban turned over with the full support of the FA in regards to his blatant kick at another player during that euro 2012 qualifyer and another Manchester United player this times Patrice Evra words taken over Luis Suarezs and given enough credence to get Suarez banned for eight games if this isnt a complete farce I really dont know what is, I really hope uruguays government get involed here and put this straight with the FA because this is blatant favoritism

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I had a feeling this may get political.. The F.A chose to make it that by banning him for 8 games..

      You're quite right how can Rooney get away with it.. and Evra trying and succedding in getting our best player banned..

      Evra allegedly has cried wolf before.. I'd love to know what concrete evidence they have against Suarez other than him saying he called him a "negrito" which according to Google isn't even a racist term.. ok it mentions colour as the term.. but Evra is black is he not? So he's only stating the obvious..

      • 2 Replies to LFC_Armchair_Supporter
      • Get your facts right. Discipline issues aren`t judged by the FA but by an independent panel. Both United AND Liverpool approved the makeup of the 3 man panel, one of whom is a QC. Any appeal will be hard by an independent panel. All the FA does is uphold the final decision. As several newspaper articles have pointed out the accusation that Evra has played the race card before is inaccurate. And finally its not what google thinks `negrito` means but what black people think it means and it is way to close to another word beginning with `n` for them not to think that it is about more than the colour of their skin.

      • I'd love to know what concrete evidence you have of Evra crying Wolf EVER before.

        And when did Rooney ever get away with being a racist?

        Can't wait to hear this?

    • Your defences of Suarez become more bizarre.

      How about the word "black". I don't notice people writing it as "b****". Do you? So are we to conclude it's not racially offensive to use the word when insulting someone from Africa? If Suarez had repeatedly called Evra a "black bastard" would that be okay because the two words don't get bleeped out in text?


      Robert

    • But now your making things up we obviously don't know. We believe Suarez used the word Negrita because the press tells us he did. Of course he's not admitted he did to the press, just not denied it, so we all make the leap that he must have said it. But even the press has not given us any clues on the context of how the word was used, so why do you presume to know?

      You’re absolutely right I could go around all day saying the word "black" and offend no-one. But then just utter it with a different context and risk getting my teeth knocked out. Context does matter.

      However, the press and others keep saying he said Negrita, and that Negrita is the equivalent to the "N" word (I won't spell it out but I'm pretty sure you know what word I'm referring to). So please show me some contexts where you can say that "N" word and you are confident no one will be offended.

      So simple question going back to your own example, Is Negrita the equivalent of the "N" word (that I won't spell out) or equivalent of the word black?

      It seems to me if it’s the first you'll have a hard time writing it or saying it under almost any context without offending someone, yet as I said in my earlier post people are writing it here all day long, as well as the newspapers printing it. But if the later, equivalent to black, it all depends on what you say next to it. I don't know what he might have said next to it, and I'm pretty sure you don't either, so I have to assume if you think Negrita is equivalent to black, and you think Suarez must have said some words next to it to ensure the context was offensive, you must be guessing what those contextual words are, or as I said, making it up.

    • " why do you presume to know?"

      I don't. But what I do presume is that the FA panel, including a QC, knows what happened far better than you or me. And they found against Suarez. You can carry on making up more and more bizarre theories as to why Suarez must be innocent and why Evra must have been lying but in the world outside the Liverpool faithful your argument is pretty much lost.

      Some of the more thoughtful Liverpool fans recognise this.


      Robert

    • Robert, I'm not making up theories on how he's innocent, I'm making the case of why the club and his fellow players believe he's not guilty. I personally have no idea whether he said something or not, and if he did whether that is racial abuse or not. All I can go on is what has made it into the public domain, although the club, which is who I am trying to second guess, has much more information than either of us.

      The press seems to be convinced he has admitted to saying a particular word, which on the face of it I don't find particularly offensive, and it seems nor do those who keep repeating and printing the same word. Basically having the book thrown at him for saying a word that is questionably racist on its own s a bit troubling to me.

      On the other hand the club based on its statement seems to suggest it came down to just Evra's testimony which told his version of events but is uncorroborated as no-one else seems to have heard what was said. If this is the case I am troubled by the book being thrown at him based on basically one man's word against another’s.

      Of course the report may, we hope, throw a bit more light on things, as neither of these basic explanations warrants the sentence he's been handed imo, so I'm trying to reserve personal judgment until that report is made public.

      To be honest this would be much easier if Suarez admitted to saying something but felt it was not racist. I'd hope in that case on appeal, while ignorance of the rules cannot be an excuse, the Mackie precedent would almost force the FA to reduce the ban so long as Suarez demonstrated he did not mean to cause offense and was willing to apologize if he did.

      But I just don't see that being likely based on the clubs response. Unless they are being extremely cynical thinking they can fight the FA to victory (highly unlikely imo) or are being extremely stupid (we can all have a moment of passion or insanity, but with so many lawyers and others intelligent people running football clubs surely someone would step in) I have to assume they truly believe that Suarez has gotten rough justice.

      The sad thing is if the latter is the case this is not likely to end soon. I'm curious why the report has taken so long to be published, although lets say the holiday season slows down the process - btw I asked this before but does anyone know if Suarez has 14 days from the decision or from the publishing of the full report to appeal? - but I assume they are trying to dot every i and cross every T on what they know is going to be a contested decision.

      But even after appeal, if LFC is determined to clear the players name, and not just a reduction in the ban, I can see this getting appealed further. I'm not sure what rights the player has at that point, but I assume the next step if he wanted would be the court of arbitration for sport. I'm not sure what their view on uncorroborated testimony, or even subjective language for that matter.

    • Google definitions, Wikipedia articles and Yahoo profanity filters? Talk about clutching at straws! Context is key.

    • Tim, you may think its clutching at straws, but surely the common use definition is what is important, as the formal definition is Spanish and as I understand not offensive. And where better to understand common usage than social media.

      btw, I agree with you context is key, but do you or I know the context without seeing how the panel came to their conclusions? All we know is the press claim they know the word, and Suarez has not denied it, which is not the same as admitting he used it. I would be surprised if he deny or confirm as he’s been told not to talk about the case publically.

    • David: The context is just about all we do know; A heated football match between England's two biggest football clubs who just happen to be the country's fiercest rivals.

      Evra and Suarez are not friends. Any "affectionate" use of the word is thus ruled out. There is no reason at all for either player (nor any other player in football at any level) to bring up the colour of a rival player's skin, no matter how inoffensive the particular wording is in any other context. In fact, it is contrary to FA rules.

      The word 'black' is the preferred term to describe people of African descent such as Patrice Evra. If I were stood next to a black man who I did not know in a post office queue and I kept saying the word 'black' to him, would that be considered fine because of the common use definition or would it be extremely odd behaviour that could cause offence and/or illicit an angry response? Personally I think you'd have to either be a complete idiot or have a motive for doing such a thing.

    • I use the definition as described by Google..it suggests it's not an offensive word.. So thats good enough for me..

      If others choose to believe it's a racist term thats up to them..

    • Would appear "negrita , negrito" is another way of saying "negro" but in spanish.. is that racist?


      It's like calling someone caucascian isn't it? Is that racist ? To me it's just definining races.. but no insult intended.. just stating facts..

    • View More Messages