Topic: Suarez: Why We Must Stand By Our Man

[GrkStav]

Tony Evans effectively called Kenny Dalglish's support for Suarez "embarrassing" and motivated by "tribalism".

These people are paid, in part, because of their command of the written word. If one cannot circum-locute well enough to not appear to be calling KD's support of Suarez "embarrassing" then one should find another line of gainful employment.

[sideshowme]

that gutmann piece is close to perfection.  well written, convincingly argued, and comprehensive in describing the scale of the perceived injustice, the reasons for the fans' reaction to the perceived injustice, and the injustice of the press reaction to the fans' reaction to the perceived injustice.

excellent stuff.

[Ziggy09]

WOW! Excellent article from Rob Gutmanm. One EVERYBODY should read!

[Ziltoid]

Great article - nothing to add to that

[kaz1983]

I found reports for a a number of cases on the FA site, not just the Evra/Stamford Bridge one..

Good find.

[Armand9]

Very disappointed in Tony Evans, of all the football writers out there he was the one I respected the most and one of the few decent ones that exist.

Ah fuck me, i was mixing up evans with barret

barret's the one i rate, not evans and as such i don't find his article so surprising, often seems full of himself

barret seems to talk the most sense of all the footy journos to me but i haven't seen any piece by him on the suarez incident

[Kidspen]

Have Wolves been fined or has anyone even commented on them not controlling their players in the match against Arsenal?

[Theoldkopite]

Have Wolves been fined or has anyone even commented on them not controlling their players in the match against Arsenal?

Can't see anything in the paper this morning. I'm composing yet another email to the FA on their lack of consistency. Won't make any difference but I feel better and I think I am really getting on their t***s now with my stream of emails questioning their decision making (in)capabilities!!

[Chris Co Down]

I tweeted Rob Gutmann's piece to Clarke Carlisle PFA chairman.  I had sent him Rory Smith's last week.  This was his response...

Very Interesting, and once again, excellently written.  The premise of this piece is one that I think the debating factions should take heed of.  You have your truth, others have theirs, lets hold firm until we see the truth of the evidence then we will ALL have OURS.  Good Link!

[Kidspen]

Can't see anything in the paper this morning. I'm composing yet another email to the FA on their lack of consistency. Won't make any difference but I feel better and I think I am really getting on their t***s now with my stream of emails questioning their decision making (in)capabilities!!

Keep up the good work.

[Eeyore]

Well, let's wait and see. Given the furore over this I can't see how they can avoid publishing.

It pretty much sums up the whole fiasco though doesn't it. There are no hard and fast rules and the FA make it up as they go along. They should either have a policy of publishing reports into disciplinary proceedings or not. It should not be a case of whether releasing the report suits the FA or not.

In an almost identical case involving Newcastle United's Emre and Everton's Tim Howard, Joleon Lescott and Joseph Yobo the Newcastle player was cleared despite admitting using abusive language because as an FA Spokesman put it 'Having heard all the evidence presented, and having regard to the standard of proof agreed with both the FA and Newcastle United, we were not satisfied that the charge was proved.

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/41843-emre-cleared-of-racism#ixzz1i11arh2w

You either have rules about what is acceptable or you do not you do not sit down before the case and agree on a burden of proof on the fly with the defendant's Club. Then when you have heard the case and you dismiss it because the burden of proof was not met despite three people categorically stating that Emre used a racist term surely you have set a precedent.

Rather than using the precedent that without corroborative evidence you don't convict you change the rules and convict one player on the word of another just because it suits your agenda.

There should be absolutely no doubt about the burden of proof needed to convict and there should be no doubt about whether a report into the disciplinary proceedings will be published. The fact that there is just about sums up the incompetence and inconsistency of the FA.

The Premier League has broken away from the FA and runs the Premiership it's about time it had the power to run the disciplinary proceedings as well because the FA have proved themselves time and time again to be far too incompetent to be trusted with such an important role.

[Joe_Singh]

I tweeted Rob Gutmann's piece to Clarke Carlisle PFA chairman.  I had sent him Rory Smith's last week.  This was his response...

Very Interesting, and once again, excellently written.  The premise of this piece is one that I think the debating factions should take heed of.  You have your truth, others have theirs, lets hold firm until we see the truth of the evidence then we will ALL have OURS.  Good Link!

Clarke Carlisle is a very intelligent and articulate bloke. That response though is a bit contradictory considering the stuff he was saying when the decision was first made public.

[Smudgester]

I have wondered about this for a while now. Don't they need the report to come to their own conclusion? Or did they just make notes, and discuss?. Can they put anything extra into the report, or are they only allowed to use what has already been discussed? I am honestly worried that the report has been put together in such a way as to preclude any appeal, and not just have the things they actually considered. There have been a lot of compelling arguments put forward since the inquiry and I am fearful that they have spent some time figuring out arguments again't these, that they had not considered before.

AFAIK the report can only be a statement of how they came to the decision they did based solely on the evidence presented at the hearing. If their decision was also based on other 'evidence' (presented after the hearing say) or 'outside' influence (eg the FA or the media) then that is not allowed.

It is for this reason that many people can not understand why the document hasn't been released yet as, technically, the judgement is based on it and it alone and so the document should be ready before judgement is delivered.

Clarke Carlisle is a very intelligent and articulate bloke. That response though is a bit contradictory considering the stuff he was saying when the decision was first made public.

Exactly. Where was this "holding firm" from Carlisle then ?

[Kidspen]

It pretty much sums up the whole fiasco though doesn't it. There are no hard and fast rules and the FA make it up as they go along. They should either have a policy of publishing reports into disciplinary proceedings or not. It should not be a case of whether releasing the report suits the FA or not.

In an almost identical case involving Newcastle United's Emre and Everton's Tim Howard, Joleon Lescott and Joseph Yobo the Newcastle player was cleared despite admitting using abusive language because as an FA Spokesman put it 'Having heard all the evidence presented, and having regard to the standard of proof agreed with both the FA and Newcastle United, we were not satisfied that the charge was proved.

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/41843-emre-cleared-of-racism#ixzz1i11arh2w

You either have rules about what is acceptable or you do not you do not sit down before the case and agree on a burden of proof on the fly with the defendant's Club. Then when you have heard the case and you dismiss it because the burden of proof was not met despite three people categorically stating that Emre used a racist term surely you have set a precedent.

Rather than using the precedent that without corroborative evidence you don't convict you change the rules and convict one player on the word of another just because it suits your agenda.

There should be absolutely no doubt about the burden of proof needed to convict and there should be no doubt about whether a report into the disciplinary proceedings will be published. The fact that there is just about sums up the incompetence and inconsistency of the FA.

The Premier League has broken away from the FA and runs the Premiership it's about time it had the power to run the disciplinary proceedings as well because the FA have proved themselves time and time again to be far too incompetent to be trusted with such an important role.

Suarez was done twice under two different sub sections for allegedly using just one word whereas Emre used words which were agreed in the judgement as not "very pleasant" but wasn't even found guilty of the lesser charge of using offensive language never mind racist language. What a bunch of incompetent hypocrites.

[What's the procedure Mr Mod?]

That article off The Anfield Wrap was top notch. It needs circulating as much as possible, I assume Jim Boardmen et al have been retweeting it everywhere. Hopefully someone has talked it through with Suarez himself, it says what I, and I assume 95% of Liverpool fans, think and it really well written.

[Chris Co Down]

To be fair to Carlisle he tweeted after reading Rory Smith's piece that he welcomed dialogue because it opens you to ideas and opinions you wouldn't normally form on your own.  His stance seems to have softened from the original PFA statement.  Just my impression anyway.

[Sevo]

To be fair to Carlisle he tweeted after reading Rory Smith's piece that he welcomed dialogue because it opens you to ideas and opinions you wouldn't normally form on your own.  His stance seems to have softened from the original PFA statement.  Just my impression anyway.

Perhaps, but the damage has been done. He got himself on tv and in print immediately the decision was announced, criticising Luis and the Club. Perhaps he realises that he's made a mistake and is trying to cover his back. He has no credibility in my eyes.

[drpepe]

It pretty much sums up the whole fiasco though doesn't it. There are no hard and fast rules and the FA make it up as they go along. They should either have a policy of publishing reports into disciplinary proceedings or not. It should not be a case of whether releasing the report suits the FA or not.

In an almost identical case involving Newcastle United's Emre and Everton's Tim Howard, Joleon Lescott and Joseph Yobo the Newcastle player was cleared despite admitting using abusive language because as an FA Spokesman put it 'Having heard all the evidence presented, and having regard to the standard of proof agreed with both the FA and Newcastle United, we were not satisfied that the charge was proved.

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/41843-emre-cleared-of-racism#ixzz1i11arh2w

You either have rules about what is acceptable or you do not you do not sit down before the case and agree on a burden of proof on the fly with the defendant's Club. Then when you have heard the case and you dismiss it because the burden of proof was not met despite three people categorically stating that Emre used a racist term surely you have set a precedent.

Rather than using the precedent that without corroborative evidence you don't convict you change the rules and convict one player on the word of another just because it suits your agenda.

There should be absolutely no doubt about the burden of proof needed to convict and there should be no doubt about whether a report into the disciplinary proceedings will be published. The fact that there is just about sums up the incompetence and inconsistency of the FA.

The Premier League has broken away from the FA and runs the Premiership it's about time it had the power to run the disciplinary proceedings as well because the FA have proved themselves time and time again to be far too incompetent to be trusted with such an important role.

given that suarez has reportedly admitted to using a word, then there is no burden of proof or  need for additional proof that he said something - they simply have to make a decision that what he said was abusive and / or racist (or not)

[R.A.La]

Perhaps, but the damage has been done. He got himself on tv and in print immediately the decision was announced, criticising Luis and the Club. Perhaps he realises that he's made a mistake and is trying to cover his back. He has no credibility in my eyes.

Nor mine, he can fuck off.

[keswick]

Why is the society for black lawyers in existence? Why is it allowed to use the word "black" as an adjective in its very name? Can my brother, a white lawyer, join the society for black lawyers? Is the society for black lawyers racist?

The irony is that this society is something Uruguayans would not recognise a need for, as the paranoia about "being black" that still (understandably) exists in the UK, damaged as we are by the African slave trade and the 50s immigration "rivers of blood," does not exist in Uruguay.

This is a country that is miles ahead of us in terms of black-white relations. This is a country that fought FIFA to lead the world in playing a black player a full 63 years before Viv Anderson pulled on an England shirt. This is a country where "blackie" and "whitie" are equally inoffensive nicknames and we are trying to teach one of theirs a lesson?

We are a nation of fucking hypocrites.

The mere mention of the slave trade bugs me. The Slave trade had been going on for thousands of years, and to some extent still does, its just that the 'white man' came along and made it profitable! There is and should be an equal portion of blame for past atrocities committed by all creeds and colour. Alas, the mere thought that one of your ancestors may have been directly involved in the trade prevents this reasoned and thoughtful conclusion!

Segregation is still one of the biggest causes of prejudice. And with organisations such as the 'society for Black Lawyers', and award ceremonies such as 'The MOBO's'(to name but a few) perpetually fuelling segregation, then predujice will coninue to be rife amongst society!

[Stussy]

Segregation is still one of the biggest causes of prejudice. And with organisations such as the 'society for Black Lawyers', and award ceremonies such as 'The MOBO's'(to name but a few) perpetually fuelling segregation, then predujice will coninue to be rife amongst society!

Alan has already dealt with this sub Daily Mail simplicity and its irrelevance to this case in hand.

[Vidocq]

"Porto's Alvaro Pereira hits out at Manchester United's Patrice Evra over Luis Suarez racism ban: 'He is not proud to be black'
The Uruguay international has condemned the French left-back for reporting his compatriot's words during a game, observing that comments regarding race are common in football


Porto left-back Alvaro Pereira has launched a scathing attack on Manchester United defender Patrice Evra, accusing the Frenchman of not being proud of his skin colour.

Liverpool striker Luis Suarez was banned by the FA for eight matches for events centred around an incident involving the Frenchman during a Premier League match against Manchester United in October.

Evra complained to the referee that the striker had racially abused him and the governing body said that the Uruguayan had used words which "included a reference to Mr Evra's colour", judged to be a serious breach of the organisation's rules.

Pereira has given his backing to his Uruguay team-mate and stated that United's position on this matter is driven by sporting affairs.

"Evra had no code: what happens on the pitch, stays on the pitch," he told Radio Sport 890.

"Tomorrow, something like this can happen to a team-mate of his.

"United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool's best players from playing. That is sad.

"It seems like it is a sin to say something on the pitch. If this happened in South America, they would have to suspend all players.

"Evra has a complex. He is not proud to be black. If I am called 'negro', I start laughing. My team-mates call me 'negro' and in South America it can also be used in an affectionate way.

"It is obvious that you can use this word with good or bad intentions, but I always laugh. Evra must have some kind of problem about being black, or some inferiority complex. I do not."

The 26-year-old added that if the international friendly between France and Uruguay, which is scheduled for the end of 2012, were to take place now, Evra "would have to wear armour".


http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2011/12/30/2823644/portos-alvaro-pereira-hits-out-at-manchester-uniteds-patrice

[teri_ma_ki]

i'm going to go against the grain a bit ... whilst gutmann's article covered all the points needed, i think if it were to be spread to the masses it needs to be shorter and perhaps more punchier. it was too long imho, and thus its points could be missed.

[Eeyore]

given that suarez has reportedly admitted to using a word, then there is no burden of proof or  need for additional proof that he said something - they simply have to make a decision that what he said was abusive and / or racist (or not)

The burden of proof would be whether there was any intent on Suarez's part. Clearly if you cannot trust three Everton players word against Emre as to whether he was racially abused or not then you cannot trust Evra someone already labelled by the FA as an unreliable witness's word as to whether there was any intent or not.

With no one else on the pitch being able to hear the incident, with no video evidence and with the matter not being reported to the Ref then the only evidence the FA have as to whether there was any intent is Evra's word against Suarez's.

[horne]

Clarke Carlisle is a very intelligent and articulate bloke. That response though is a bit contradictory considering the stuff he was saying when the decision was first made public.

that door is slightly a jar for him to squeeze through to the other side...lets give that chance....dont close it shut without giving a chance to slide through

[Crimson_Tank]

Some excellent articles on here, guntmann makes great points and the Alvaro interview was quite interesting.

[R.A.La]

The burden of proof would be whether there was any intent on Suarez's part. Clearly if you cannot trust three Everton players word against Emre as to whether he was racially abused or not then you cannot trust Evra someone already labelled by the FA as an unreliable witness's word as to whether there was any intent or not.

With no one else on the pitch being able to hear the incident, with no video evidence and with the matter not being reported to the Ref then the only evidence the FA have as to whether there was any intent is Evra's word against Suarez's.

This is what the FA said in it's judgement of the Emre case:

A statement released by the FA said: 'Having heard all the evidence presented, and having regard to the standard of proof agreed with both the FA and Newcastle United, we were not satisfied that the charge was proved.'


Did we agree on any standard of proof, were we given that option?

[drpepe]

The burden of proof would be whether there was any intent on Suarez's part. Clearly if you cannot trust three Everton players word against Emre as to whether he was racially abused or not then you cannot trust Evra someone already labelled by the FA as an unreliable witness's word as to whether there was any intent or not.

With no one else on the pitch being able to hear the incident, with no video evidence and with the matter not being reported to the Ref then the only evidence the FA have as to whether there was any intent is Evra's word against Suarez's.

maybe i've missed something in the reasoning behind the verdict, but i don't see any requirement for proving intent in the law (E3).

This is what the FA said in it's judgement of the Emre case:

A statement released by the FA said: 'Having heard all the evidence presented, and having regard to the standard of proof agreed with both the FA and Newcastle United, we were not satisfied that the charge was proved.'

Did we agree on any standard of proof, were we given that option?

it seems the proof of what was said came from both players. The FA's panel have interpreted what he said  to be in breach of E3

[stoa]

Clarke Carlisle is a very intelligent and articulate bloke. That response though is a bit contradictory considering the stuff he was saying when the decision was first made public.

Saying racism is bad and then going on about how - while it might be okay being racist in Uruguay - it's unaccetable the UK doesn't seem to be very intelligent and articulate in my view. And that's necessarily what Carlisle said in his first statement.

There is one thing that pisses me off massively. It's not the even the ban or the verdict. It's how long the FA (or the panel) are taking to produce those documents, because that's what ultimatively has led to this being seen as Liverpool simply defending their man out of tribalism. There is NOTHING the club or Luis Suarez can do at the moment to defend themselves, because nobody knows anything except that Luis has been banned and fined. That is what's horribly wrong. If the reasoning was "out there" or even just known to Suarez or the club they could comment on it. At the moment, there is nothing to comment on, except that Luis Suarez is not a racist and that the club will fight for his right.

It is now ten days since the punishment has been announced. And we still don't know the reasons why the punishment was given. We know which rule was deemed to be broken, but we don't know how and we don't know why. This is ridiculous. Especially, as this is such a high-profile case with lots and lots of public attention. No matter what happens now, the damage is done and Luis Suarez will have to live with being called a racist for weeks and weeks without being able to explain himself. So what, if a possible appeal is successful. So what, if in their written statement they say it was nothing racist, but a mis-understanding between the players. It won't matter. And that's a disgrace...

[Zelnaga]

Its all well and good backing him. I am aswell, but if (big if) there is proof that Suarez did make a racist remark?

Not being funny or anything, but people are adamant hes innocent, when nothing has been released yet.

[redbyrdz]

Its all well and good backing him. I am aswell, but if (big if) there is proof that Suarez did make a racist remark?

Not being funny or anything, but people are adamant hes innocent, when nothing has been released yet.

Innocent until proven guilty. There's no proof yet, and I doubt there ever will be. There's Evra's word that he felt abused, and Suarez's that he had no intent to abuse him racially.

What I'm really waiting for is the initial 'abuse' that, without the 'aggriviating factor' was bad enough to warrant a 4-match ban, twice of that what kicking a player would have carried.

[john_mac]

Its all well and good backing him. I am aswell, but if (big if) there is proof that Suarez did make a racist remark?

Not being funny or anything, but people are adamant hes innocent, when nothing has been released yet.

Except what the Football club has told us and what Kenny has re-iterated on numerous occassions, maybe the players that were on the pitch and their support for Luis?

[jambutty]

Its all well and good backing him. I am aswell, but if (big if) there is proof that Suarez did make a racist remark?

Not being funny or anything, but people are adamant hes innocent, when nothing has been released yet.

Did Luis not admit using the word negrito at least once?

[john_mac]

Did Luis not admit using the word negrito at least once?

Have you bothered to read any of the thread before commenting?

[Eeyore]

This is what the FA said in it's judgement of the Emre case:

A statement released by the FA said: 'Having heard all the evidence presented, and having regard to the standard of proof agreed with both the FA and Newcastle United, we were not satisfied that the charge was proved.'


Did we agree on any standard of proof, were we given that option?

There shouldn't even be a discussion of burden of proof at the start of a hearing. The FA has a statute of laws of the game and a series of legal precedents that should govern the burden of proof required to find someone guilty of the charge. It should not be up to the panel and the Club to come to some sort of agreement.

There should be a level playing field and each case should be judged on it's merits but within the confines of the laws of the game and the relevant legal precedents.

[mehulb10]

that was a great article by Rob Gutmann

[stoa]

Not being funny or anything, but people are adamant hes innocent, when nothing has been released yet.

For me, the club's statement is enough. You cannot look inside someone's head, so the players we adore might in fact be horrible bastards with horrible views. However, if the club is backing the player then this strongly suggests that Suarez didn't make a racist remark. He might have said something that could have been taken the wrong way (like the stuff that is being discussed on here and everywhere), but no way would they be backing him as firmly as they did, if it was something that was openly racist. That would be a PR-nightmare and they'd be shooting themselves in the foot...

[Redwhiteandnotblue]

Have you bothered to read any of the thread before commenting?

John, rather than shouting him down, why not answer the question and increase his understanding of the case?

[john_mac]

John, rather than shouting him down, why not answer the question and increase his understanding of the case?

I think the point is that point has been over many times in the thread, what's the point in me reiterating it. Even on this page there are numerous references to the Rob Gutmann piece on page 4 which is much more eloquent than I'm likely to be.

I think that reading the thread would give a better insight than me summarising it, I was not shouting him down.

[montysmum]

Have Wolves been fined or has anyone even commented on them not controlling their players in the match against Arsenal?

I was thinking this myself.  There seems to have been nothing mentioned about it at all surprisingly.  It would be quite laughable if it wasn't so serious.

Can't see anything in the paper this morning. I'm composing yet another email to the FA on their lack of consistency. Won't make any difference but I feel better and I think I am really getting on their t***s now with my stream of emails questioning their decision making (in)capabilities!!

Good on you for doing it.  Maybe you could also mention (if you haven't already) the instances where various players have given their own version of 'the finger' and not been punished for it?  The photo's of it in another thread on here shows quite clearly that Suarez is not the only player to have transgressed, just the only one to be punished.

Would love to hear them try and justify their actions (or lack of them) over the whole thing.