|
|
|||||||
| Soccer, Horses, and MBS/RWS talk With the IRs up and running, what better place to exchange tips and techniques on how to tip the odds in your favour! [Please note that with the passing of the Remote Gambling Act, Internet gambling links and Adverts are no longer allowed in this section.] |
|
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
01-01-2012, 11:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Liverpool Fc @ Anfield - Reds Supporters Gatherings
Quote:
__________________
Shake Rattle And Roll!!! Apologies to anyone who have already upped me and I did not return favor, please pm to let me know as I don't usually check rep pts. 
|
|
01-01-2012, 11:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Liverpool Fc @ Anfield - Reds Supporters Gatherings
The FA
Suarez: written reasons Saturday, 31 December, 2011 Independent Regulatory Commission release written reasons for Luis Suarez case. This follows the Independent Regulatory Commission’s decision to suspend Luis Suarez for a period of eight matches and to fine him £40,000. Both The FA and Liverpool FC were served the reasons on 30 December 2011. Either party now has the right to an appeal and must reply by 13 January 2012. Click here for the full written reasons. http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplin...ommission.ashx
|
|
01-01-2012, 11:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Liverpool Fc @ Anfield - Reds Supporters Gatherings
Liverpool FC statement
31st Dec 2011 - Latest News The Club can confirm that they received the written reasons from the Regulatory Commission at short notice last night on the evening of the game against Newcastle United. The player, the Club and our legal advisors will now take the necessary amount of time to read, digest and properly consider the contents of the 115 page judgment and will make no further comment at present.
|
|
01-01-2012, 12:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Liverpool Fc @ Anfield - Reds Supporters Gatherings
Quote:
But the following really saddens me.. I would rather lose my games rather than having such a player in my team. http://www.espnstar.com/football/pre...wo-minutes%22/
|
|
01-01-2012, 12:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
FA panel's written decision - Evra v Suarez
hving done a quick skim of the FA panel's written findings...these r my preliminary views:
......don't bother reading anything at the beginning, only the end stuff is important... ...it is all about opinion n interpretation...using balance of probability as the test to weigh the evidence...no facts...no corroboration...a classic "he said, she said" case n nothing else to substantiate allegations/claims... ...basically the FA panel believes Evra and calls him 'an impressive witness' and does not believe Suarez's account and calls him a 'less than satisfactory witness'....basically believing one man's account over another....nothing more to it... ...it gets interesting only when they call Suarez a liar, suggest that Evra was a fantastic witness and that there is no way given the body langugae that Suarez was being concillatory.... ...if what Evra says is true then Suarez more than deserves his ban...however it just seems bizarre that Suarez who is apparently of mixed race descent to say such things... ...interesting to note that Evra also said in his testimony that he does not believe Suarez is racist...but from Evra's account of things in the FA panel's written decision and if Evra is to be believed, its quite clear that Suarez is a racist...so what is it Evra, either Suarez is a racist, or he isn't?... ...the FA panel's written decision also states that no matter what the version of events, Suarez at least admitted to using the word 'negro' and that refers to someone's colour...now considering Suarez is mixed race and 1/4 black, does that mean that if another black person used the word 'negro' at Evra, an 8 match ban would also be applicable?... frankly i still don't know how you get an 8 match ban based on this FA panel's written decision???...
|
|
01-01-2012, 02:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: FA panel's written decision - Evra v Suarez
Quote:
At the worst, Suarez called Evra 'black'. In context, the exchange was started and taunted by Evra, who had been given the round around by Suarez the whole match. Remember also this is the Scum captain who rolled on the ground trying to cheat the ref in the same match. I acknowledge that Suarez was not calling Evra black in friendly terms, but this is a fucking contest for crying out loud between two great teams. The length of the ban, if not the ban itself, must be appealed. Will post some extracts from the report.
|
|
01-01-2012, 02:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Liverpool Fc @ Anfield - Reds Supporters Gatherings
Extracts from commission report:
Mr Evra said that he followed up Mr Suarez's reply "Because you are black" by saying "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada", which means "Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you". Mr Suarez replied by saying "No hablo con los negros". Mr Evra said that, at the time, he understood this to mean "I don't speak to niggers", although he now says it means "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Suarez's evidence was that Mr Evra replied to the comment "it was just a normal foul" by saying "Ok, you kicked me, I'm going to kick you". Mr Suarez said in his witness statement that his response was "Le dije que se callara e hice un gesto breve con mi mano izquierda parecido a la mocion de un "pato cuando hace cuac" para indicarle que hablaba mucho y deberia callarse", which was translated as "I told him to shut up and made a brief gesture with my left hand like a "quacking" motion as if to say he was talking too much hand should be quiet". Mr Evra said that after Mr Suarez said "I don't speak to blacks", he (Mr Evra) said "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada", which means "Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you". To this he says that Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro...negro...negro". At the time, Mr Evra understood this to mean "Okay, nigger, nigger, nigger". He now says it means "Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". The expert witnesses stated that the phrase "Dale, negro" can be understood as "Bring it on, blackie" or "do it, blackie" or "go ahead, blackie" (see paragraph 184 below). ... Mr Suarez's evidence was that simultaneously with the blowing of the whistle, Mr Evra said to him "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez took this to be a reference to his touching Mr Evra's arm on the goal-line a few moments earlier. Mr Suarez said that he turned to Mr Evra and said "Por que, negro?". He said that he used the word "negro" at this point in the way that he did when he was growing up in Uruguay, that is as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned or even just black-haired. He said that he used it in the same way that he did when he spoke to Glen Johnson, the black Liverpool player. He said in no way was the use of the word "negro" intended to be offensive or to be racially offensive. It was intended as an attempt at conciliation. ... [the term 'negro'] thus, an individual might call out to a passer-by "ay, negro, querés jugar con nosotros?" [hey, blackie, do you want to play with us?]; in all cases, however, when the word is used in this way it implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such rapport; naturally, if the term were used with a sneer, then it might carry some of the negative connotations referred to above. … The experts considered it worth noting that the phrase "porque tu eres negro" struck both of them as slightly unusual. In this instance, a direct racial slur would more likely have been something like "porque eres un negro de mierda" [because you are a shitty black]. … However, we note the experts' comment that in all cases when the word is used in this way it implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such rapport; naturally, if the term were used with a sneer, then it might carry negative connotations. It is important to examine closely the context in which it is used, and the way in which it is used, in order to decide whether it is being used offensively and offensively in racial terms.
|
|
01-01-2012, 02:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Liverpool Fc @ Anfield - Reds Supporters Gatherings
more extracts:
We found Mr Evra to be an impressive witness. He gave his evidence to us in a calm, composed and clear manner. … Mr Suarez speaks little English. There were occasions during the hearing when he clearly understood a question in English because he gave a response in a few words of English or by a nod of the head. But these were few and far between. Mr Suarez was present for the whole of the hearing. It was inevitably a stressful time for Mr Suarez facing, as he was, a serious charge in unfamiliar surroundings. He sat with his own interpreter, who translated the proceedings for him throughout. When he gave evidence, he did so through an independent interpreter. He gave evidence in a respectful manner. We are conscious of the difficulties for Mr Suarez in giving evidence in the circumstances which we have described. However, Mr Suarez was not as impressive a witness as Mr Evra. His answers were not always clear or directly addressed to the question. We give one example in paragraph 246 below. Whether this was due to language difficulties or evasiveness was not entirely clear and so, whenever we could, we gave Mr Suarez the benefit of the doubt. We were certainly more concerned by the substance of his evidence (as explained below) than by the manner in which he gave it. … In his interview with the FA on 2 November, Mr Suarez said that the term "negro" was used in an affectionate or friendly way. He was asked whether he would call a black stranger "negro", or whether you needed to have a relationship with them before you could use that term. He replied "When you're having a normal conversation in a friendly way, you can call him black". He was then asked if he would use the word "negro" straightaway when speaking to an English black person. He said "No, because I wouldn't know how to say it in a friendly or affectionate way, how to call him black in English. Because maybe I tell them black in English, maybe they get upset, because I don't know how to call them black in a friendly way in English." On 15 November, Professor Wade and Dr Scorey provided their written experts' report, which was served on Mr Suarez with the Charge letter on 16 November. We have summarised the contents of their report in Section V above. The experts had read the transcript of the interview with Mr Suarez and commented on his account. They said in their report that it was possible that Mr Suarez's use of the term was intended as an attempt at conciliation and/or to establish rapport. In his interview prior to the report being prepared, Mr Suarez had not used the word "conciliation" in connection with his use of the word "negro". Mr Suarez signed his witness statement on 6 December, which was after he had received the experts’ report. In paragraph 13 of his witness statement, Mr Suarez said this: "I explain in paragraph 34 below [this should read 35] that I did use the word "negro" by reference to Mr Evra during the game on 15th October 2011. I was using the word in the way that I normally would to refer to dark-skinned people as "negro" (black). Where I grew up, the word negro is used (and has been used throughout my life by me) as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned (or even just black-haired). To use some examples of how this word is used: I was darker when I was younger and had very dark hair and because of this my wife calls me negro, in an affectionate way, and so do many of my friends. Similarly, I would refer to Glen Johnson as "negro" in the same way that I might refer to Dirk Kuyt as "Blondie" (because he has blond hair) or Andy Carroll as "Grandote" (Big Man - because he is very tall). Where I come from it is normal to refer to people in this way by reference to what they look like. There is no aggression in referring to somebody in this way and there is certainly no racial connotation. For the word "Negro" to be used in an offensive way it would have to be used with another word such as "negro de mierda" (shitty black). There is no word that means "Nigger" in Spanish and I was not aware of this word until the allegations made by Mr Evra." … Whilst Mr Evra is partly to blame for starting the confrontation at that moment, Mr Suarez's attitude and actions were the very antithesis of the conciliation and friendliness that he would have us believe. … We accepted Mr Evra's account of these exchanges. The principal reasons for doing so were the following. First, Mr Evra was a credible witness whose evidence was not seriously undermined in any material respect, as explained above. Secondly, we found Mr Suarez, in contrast, to be an unreliable witness on critical parts of his evidence. His evidence was inconsistent with contemporaneous evidence in the form of video footage, especially with regard to his claims of pinching as an attempt to defuse the situation, and using the word "negro" in a conciliatory and friendly way. He changed his account over time in a number of respects. This all combined to cast grave doubt on the reliability of the remainder of his evidence on the main factual disputes.
|
|
01-01-2012, 02:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Liverpool Fc @ Anfield - Reds Supporters Gatherings
The FA made the following submissions on penalty.
The correct approach is to consider the imposition of an increased sanction, taking into account the fact that the entry point is double that which the Commission would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present (bearing in mind that this would be the first offence of Mr Suarez). The Commission might well conclude that, had the aggravating factor not been present, a two match ban would, in accordance with Paragraph 8(d), have been applied. If so, that makes the entry point a four match ban. Commission should then consider whether to impose a sanction greater or less than the entry point, having regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors that are present. 407. Having dealt with the approach to be taken, the FA then made submissions as to the particular factors which we should take into account. 408. The FA submitted that an increased sanction was required both to punish Mr Suarez and also to ensure that it is widely understood that the FA deprecates and will not accept racist behaviour. In other words, a deterrent sanction is called for. 409. Furthermore, the FA submitted, a number of aggravating factors justifying a further increase in the sanction are present. First, Mr Suarez is an international footballer of exceptional ability, playing for one of the best-known clubs in the world. His position carries with it a particular degree of responsibility. His conduct amounts to a serious breach of that responsibility. The conduct of Mr Suarez also undermines FA-supported programmes such as the anti-racism "Kick It Out" campaign by suggesting to the young, naive and ignorant that racially offensive language and behaviour is acceptable. 411. Secondly, the FA submitted that the nature and extent of the misconduct of Mr Suarez was an obviously relevant factor. Given the number of times that Mr Suarez used the word "negro", his conduct is significantly more serious than a one-off use of a racially offensive term and amounts to an aggravating factor. 412. Thirdly, it was submitted by the FA that the conduct of Mr Suarez has damaged the image of English football around the world, given that the conduct occurred during the course of one of the most famous games in English football, watched by a huge number of people around the world. Fourthly, the FA submitted that the impact of the conduct of Mr Suarez on Mr Evra is a factor tending to aggravate the seriousness of the misconduct. He had been badly affected by the incident, and had been the subject of adverse comments in the media and on social networking sites. 414. Finally, the FA invited the Commission to consider Mr Suarez's motivation. The FA confirmed that it has not contended that Mr Suarez acted as he did out of deep-seated racial prejudice, ie because he is a racist. The FA submitted that the likelihood was that Mr Suarez was seeking to provoke Mr Evra, so as to cause him to be sent off, thereby gaining a competitive advantage in the game. It was submitted that such behaviour is to be deplored. … 427. In accordance with Rule E3(2), we considered the imposition of an increased sanction. Rule E3(2) directs us to take into account as an entry point, this being Mr Suarez's first offence, a sanction that is double that which the Commission would have applied had that aggravating factor of colour not been present. 428. In considering what sanction the Commission would have applied had the aggravating factor of colour not been present, we note Paragraph 8(d) of the Disciplinary Procedures which provides for an automatic two-match suspension if a player is sent off for insulting language. Thus, a player who used insulting language, which did not include any reference to ethnic origin, colour or race, would receive an automatic two-match suspension. 429. Rule E3(2) then directs us to consider, as an entry point, a sanction that is double the automatic two match suspension for insulting behaviour on account of the presence of the aggravating factor of a reference to colour. Doubling the automatic two-match suspension would result in a four-match suspension. We decided that an entry point of a four-match suspension was appropriate in this case in line with the guidance in Rule E3(2). Aggravating factors 430. We then considered the factors that supported a greater penalty than the entry point of a four-match suspension ("aggravating factors"). 431. The first aggravating factor was the number of times Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros". The entry point of a four-match suspension could apply in a case where the alleged offender had used insulting words including a reference to colour once only during a match. We have found that Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros" seven times in his exchanges with Mr Evra. It happened, also, in a number of phases. First, there were the exchanges in the goalmouth. Secondly, there was the exchange just before the referee spoke to the players. Thirdly, there was the exchange just after the referee had spoken to the players. Whilst we recognised that the exchanges occurred over only a two-minute spell in the second half of the match, there were multiple uses of the insulting words by Mr Suarez. 432. The second aggravating factor was what Mr Suarez said when using the insulting words. He did not simply use the word "negro" to address Mr Evra. He did that, but he also said that he had kicked Mr Evra because he was black, and that he did not talk to blacks. Even if Mr Suarez said these things in the heat of the moment without really meaning them, nevertheless this was more than just calling Mr Evra "negro". According to the Spanish language experts, the uses would have been regarded as racially offensive in Uruguay. 433. The third aggravating factor was the context in which Mr Suarez used the insulting words. The context was of an acrimonious exchange, which included Mr Suarez pinching Mr Evra's skin and putting his hand on the back of his head, both of which we found were an attempt by Mr Suarez to wind up Mr Evra. Although we have found that the pinching itself was not insulting behaviour nor did it refer to Mr Evra's colour, such physical contact as part of a confrontation in which the insulting words were used served to aggravate the misconduct. 434. The fourth aggravating factor was the fact that the FA has promoted campaigns to root out all forms of unacceptable behaviour related to a person's ethnic origin, colour or race in football, such as the "Kick It Out" campaign. Mr Suarez knew or ought to have known that his behaviour was contrary to the message of those campaigns and unacceptable. 435. The fifth aggravating factor was that the insulting words were targeted by Mr Suarez at one particular black player, Mr Evra, who Mr Suarez intended should hear the words. It was not a case of a comment or comments directed at no-one in particular. Rather the words were directed at Mr Evra in the context of an argument in which Mr Suarez was attempting to wind up Mr Evra. We accept that Mr Evra was angry and upset during the remainder of the game and at the end of it as a result of Mr Suarez using the insulting words.
|
|
01-01-2012, 02:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Liverpool Fc @ Anfield - Reds Supporters Gatherings
finally:
Conclusions on penalty 441. The use by a footballer of insulting words, which include reference to another player's colour, is wholly unacceptable. It is wrong in principle. It is also wrong because footballers, such as Mr Suarez, are looked up to and admired by a great many football fans, especially young fans. If professional footballers use racially insulting language on a football pitch, this is likely to have a corrosive effect on young football fans, some of whom are the professional footballers of the future. It also has a potentially damaging effect on the wider football community and society generally. Every professional footballer should be able to play competitive football in the knowledge that references to the colour of his skin will not be tolerated. The same goes for all levels of football. Those who are victims of misconduct of this nature should know that, if they complain and their complaint is upheld, the FA will impose an appropriate penalty which reflects the gravity of this type of misconduct. There is no tariff set down for penalty in such cases. There is the guidance in Rule E3(2) to which we have referred. Having heard the evidence over several days and made our detailed findings, we have weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors against each other. Having done so, in our judgment an appropriate and proportionate penalty is an eight-match suspension, a fine of £40,000 and a warning as to future conduct. As for the length of the suspension, we concluded that a four-match ban, which was the entry point under Rule E3(2), would be too low and would not reflect the gravity of the misconduct. Mr Suarez's behaviour was far more serious than a single use of the word "negro" to address Mr Evra in a way which would be considered inoffensive in Uruguay. If that was all that Mr Suarez had done, and we had found the Charge proved, the penalty would have been less than we have imposed. Ultimately, this is not a matter of mathematical calculation, but a matter for the exercise of our discretion in the light of all the circumstances. We considered a lower suspension; we considered a greater suspension. We concluded that an eight-match suspension was appropriate and proportionate, reflecting the seriousness of the misconduct, balanced against the mitigation that was urged on us. We also fined Mr Suarez £40,000. In doing so, we took account of the information that was placed before us about his weekly salary. We considered this to be appropriate and proportionate in the light of Mr Suarez's misconduct. 446. We also warned Mr Suarez as to his future conduct. This is customary where misconduct charges are upheld, although we did not impose it simply as a matter of course. We considered it appropriate and proportionate to warn him not to repeat this misconduct. X Conclusion 454. We conclude these Reasons with the following comment. The Charge against Mr Suarez was that he used insulting words which included a reference to Mr Evra's colour. We have found that Charge proved on the evidence and arguments put before us. The FA made clear that it did not contend that Mr Suarez acted as he did because he is a racist. Mr Evra said in his evidence that he did not think Mr Suarez is a racist. Mr Suarez said in evidence that he will not use the word “negro” on a football pitch in England in the future, and we believe that is his genuine and firm intention.
|
|
02-01-2012, 12:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Liverpool Fc @ Anfield - Reds Supporters Gatherings
Quote:
 Racist always never walk alone
|
|
02-01-2012, 08:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Liverpool Fc @ Anfield - Reds Supporters Gatherings
Funny weekend with a few "kelong" result...
__________________
Shake Rattle And Roll!!! Apologies to anyone who have already upped me and I did not return favor, please pm to let me know as I don't usually check rep pts.
|
| Advert Space Available |
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags |
| lfc, liverpool, ynwa |
|
|
