Comments on Obsolete: Liverpool, Suarez and the football bubble.

What you're saying, unless I've misunderst...

2012-01-09T18:55:10.579+00:00

What you're saying, unless I've misunderstood you, is that because the report finds Suarez guilty and you're unconvinced by the verdict, you can't even accept that Suarez's representative agreed that it wasn't a case of one man's word against another. That would seem to me to be incredibly sloppy on the commission's behalf, to so wilfully misquote or twist the words of the lawyer. Liverpool might well have said something different afterwards, but then that fits in (in my view) with the way they've approached the entire case. They might not have agreed with the representative either, but the report's only making clear what he said at the time.

All of this is baffling when their response to the abuse Tom Adeyemi apparently received on Friday has been exemplary. There was no need to apologise for the stupidity of one fan, but they've done so anyway. Sadly, it all seems to have come down to the fact that the incident with Suarez happened against United, and no quarter can be given against them. Thanks incidentally for the kind words.

"So the report that finds Suarez guilty is su...

2012-01-09T16:34:09.448+00:00

"So the report that finds Suarez guilty is subjective but Liverpool's official statement isn't? Please. "

Ahem, where I have said it isn't? I would agree that Liverpool's statement is subjective. I quoted the statement in response to your point "you'd have seen that not only does it dismiss the notion that it was one man's word against another's (paragraph 214) but that Suarez's representative also accepted that it wasn't (215)."

I would also agree with you that Liverpool have handled lots of aspects of the affair very badly. However, I did take exception to your point that "almost every part of Liverpool's case is destroyed" and I remain unconvinced by the verdict. I would hope to say such a thing is not to be an apologist for racism and I would also like to make it clear racism in the UK is far more serious than the occasional false accusation of racism.

Anyway, all the best, you're a good writer and I appreciate the blog.

So the report that finds Suarez guilty is subjecti...

2012-01-08T23:15:24.346+00:00

So the report that finds Suarez guilty is subjective but Liverpool's official statement isn't? Please.

We could continue going through the parts of the report we're willing to accept and which parts we're not, but I think it comes to down to this in the end: apart from those loyal to Liverpool, and the odd person like Gus Poyet, everyone else seems to find it extraordinary that Liverpool have continued to defend to the hilt a player who admits he called Evra a negro at least once, regardless of how he was addressed. I simply don't believe Evra or Manchester United would have taken this all the way unless something very approximate to that Evra claims was said was said, even if he slightly misinterpreted it. All this could have been sorted, as I wrote, if Suarez had apologised at the very beginning and Liverpool had taken a more reasonable position.

It is after all fine to stand up for one of your players to the very end, but not to continuously criticise the FA while they're hearing the evidence and then putting the report together as Dalglish did. The FA is not above reproach it's very true: their refusal to allow the appeal for Joey Barton's red card last weekend was baffling. On this occasion though I can't see how they could have been more open with how the decision was reached.

Thanks for the reply but there are inaccuracies in...

2012-01-08T21:32:21.086+00:00

Thanks for the reply but there are inaccuracies in it. Regarding Suarez's rep accepting it wasn't one man's word against another's it should be remembered that this is the wording of the report that found Suarez guilty. There is no transcript of the actual hearing. The Liverpool FC official statement reads "We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone when no-one else on the field of play - including Evra's own Manchester United team-mates and all the match officials - heard the alleged conversation between the two players in a crowded Kop goalmouth while a corner kick was about to be taken."

As for your statement, with Suarez it seems both Dirk Kuyt and Liverpool's director of footballer thought he had said exactly what Evra says he did, before they changed their accounts in line with that of Suarez's subsequent one. This is simply wrong. The words you are referring to are "porque eres negro" (because you are black). However, Evra says those words were said in response to his question "Porque me diste un golpe" (Why did you kick me, (the whole conversation was started in Spanish by Evra who apparently doesn't know the word for black)) in the penalty area. Comolli (a Frenchman) and Kuyt were referring to the incident after away from the penalty area when they had been spoken to by the referee.

Comoli said that Suarez told him that Mr Evra told him
"Don't touch me, South American" to Suarez said he had
replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". Kuyt gave a similar version though they had spoken in Dutch. Suarez maintained he had only said "porque negro" (why black guy). However, the FA panel decided that this was an inconsistency that made Suarez unreliable.

In the same report this is stated:
In the extract
below, LS is Mr Suarez, HP is the interpreter, and JK is Jenni Kennedy of the FA. We
include the Spanish words only where relevant to this point.
"JK: And can you tell me, in Spanish, exactly what you said to Patrice?
LS: Por que negro?
HP: Why, Black? Why because your (sic) black.
JK: "Por que, negro?" no other words?
LS: No.
75
HP: Solamente? Por que negro?
LS: Por que negro.
HP: Just "But why, Black?" But I think the meaning is, "Why, because you're
black?" (inaudible) in English, it doesn't make sense.

So, even the official FA interpreter misinterpreted what Suarez said. The FA panel refused to see that this could support Suarez's claim that he had been misunderstood. They examined the claim but dismissed with a piece of sophistry. No benefit of doubt for Mr Suarez. This happens all the way through the report.

There are also questions about the process. Apparently, at Evra's first interview he was allowed to watch video recording of the incident but Suarez wasn't. Suarez subsequently had to change some testimony when shown the video, perhaps this made him look more unreliable.

I can carry on all week with counter arguments if you wish. I think a key point is that Evra mistranslated negro for nigger as this would explain his wild reaction outside the penalty area. According to Suarez this was the first and only time he used the word negro. However, according to Evra, Suarez said negro five times in the penalty area yet there is no similar reaction. However, that is conjecture. I don't say for sure that Suarez is innocent but I stand by my claim that there was little more than one man's word against another's.

As for claims of a vast conspiracy, can we have some quotes to back this assertion up? I'm sure that there lots of Liverpool fans saying this but that is little more than pub talk/internet chat.

No, I didn't read the report. That's why ...

2012-01-07T20:54:56.977+00:00

No, I didn't read the report. That's why I liberally made reference to specific paragraphs in the report throughout the post, despite not bothering to read it.

If you'd properly read the report, you'd have seen that not only does it dismiss the notion that it was one man's word against another's (paragraph 214) but that Suarez's representative also accepted that it wasn't (215). It turned heavily on their word, yes, to quote from it:

"We agree that at the heart of this case is a dispute between Mr Evra and Mr Suarez as to
what was said. Before reaching our decision, we assessed the credibility of those two
individuals and examined all the other evidence with great care to see whether it
supported or undermined Mr Evra's or Mr Suarez's account. We asked ourselves which
account was more probable. We kept in mind the seriousness of the Charge, and the
burden and standard of proof."

Yes, there were inconsistencies in some of Evra's evidence, but apart from the 10 times bit in his initial interview to Canal+ which I don't think is entirely explained by his saying it's just a French expression, his explanation for his confusion of whether it was nigger or black was due to his uncertainty about the Spanish, which was perfectly explainable. Also convincing was the evidence on how he was in the dressing room afterwards with the other Manchester United players, whereas with Suarez it seems both Dirk Kuyt and Liverpool's director of footballer thought he had said exactly what Evra says he did, before they changed their accounts in line with that of Suarez's subsequent one. I really don't believe in this instance this is some vast conspiracy by United to get Suarez by making up accusations of racism, as some Liverpool fans and even some at the club itself seem to imagine.

Did you actually read the report? In the end it is...

2012-01-07T20:14:49.501+00:00

Did you actually read the report? In the end it is one man's word against another's. Nobody but Suarez and Evra heard any of the conversation, although it happened in a crowded goal mouth. Despite the presence of lots of cameras, the supposed abuse by Suarez was not caught on camera.

The reasone why the FA panel found Suarez guilty is that they thought Evra was a more credible witness than Suarez. However, there are lots of reasons to doubt that eg Evra claiming to be in a "state of shock" following a very minor foul from Suarez, Evra telling some Giggs he had been called a black then telling Ferguson he had been called a ni**er. And while Evra hadn't made an accusation of racism about the Chelsea groundstaff he was found guilty by the FA of violent behaviour and given a four match ban. The FA also called his evidence in that case "exaggerated and unreliable". The FA panel just glossed over Evra's inconsistencies but went to town on Suarez's.

I don't see the case proved one way or the other.