Luis Suarez

[Herr Tubthumper]

I am not defending Suarez at all here but this really is opening a can of worms that you can get punished based on hearsay.

But Suarez admitted using certain words but claimed they were fine in the context he used them and fine given they are used back home. The case was not based on just hearsay. If you read the Guardian article Liverpool's case was not based the fact he did not use racial language but on the fact that negro is not offensive in Uruquay. Well I'm sorry but it is here. For once the FA have got it right.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I am not defending Suarez at all here but this really is opening a can of worms that you can get punished based on hearsay, Suarez's comments were made (apparently) in a packed penalty box and no one else heard it. So on Evra's word Suarez gets an 8 match ban.

I also think we really need to evaluate the severity of racism in this country, it is of course unacceptable but people now seem to be more disgusted by racist name calling than someone getting beaten up, robbed, burgled or bottled etc. I am sure people like to voice how 'disgusted and outraged' they are to make a point rather than genuine disgust. Can anyone REALLY be THAT offended by what is essentially a word? I would much rather be called a skinny English white **** than be beaten up or mugged.

This is very strange argument. Lots of things are preferable to being beaten up, but it doesn't make them right or acceptable.

Personally I do take offence to certain language.

 

[Mr Burns]

The FA must have a watertight case against him, because to brand a multil-millionaire a racist, is a very risky thing to do, unless they have 100% proof.

I would think if there is an appeal, this one could go through the courts. But as I say, the FAs lawyers must think its watertight.

What is amazing though, if true, and £40000 fine, yet when a set of fans at an international match make monley nosies, or throw banana at black players, they get find less than that.

But then thats our FA for you.

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

I meant on how they decided that with no evidence caught on camera, just Evra's word, who has made unsubstantiated claims before.

If the "unsubstantiated claims" you are referring to is the incident at Stamford Bridge, then that's bollocks. It wasn't Evra who made that claim.

 

[beorhthelm]

so to be reduced to 4 on appeal then?

 

[Commander]

This is very strange argument. Lots of things are preferable to being beaten up, but it doesn't make them right or acceptable.

Personally I do take offence to certain language.

Serious question, when did this word become offensive here, and who decides these things? I can clearly remember being told by teachers a
school that 'negro' was the proper name for a black person and that the other N word was offensive and could not be used. I'm not suggesting that 'negro' isn't offensive, but who decided that all of a sudden it was, and at what point will the word 'black' become offensive?

Reduced to 3 games on appeal would be the right decision, it should be the same punishment as a serious red card offence.

 

[Brovion]

Too soon to offer an opinion on the verdict and punishment. We don't yet know what evidence it was based on.

If the basis of finding Suarez guilty was simply that he used the word 'negrito', then I'd be of the view that he was harsh
treated. If it was found that he was using the word in a racially condescending way (i.e. twisting the way the word is usually used) to irritate Evra, then I'd say it was a fair verdict and punishment. At the moment, we just don't know.

You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but I profoundly disagree. An EIGHT game ban for misusing some words? IMO that would be a massively disproportionate punishment even if he'd subjected Evra to a constant stream of the most vile personal and racial abuse (and it had been captured by the cameras).

The punishment might have some merit if Evra had felt so traumatised by the incident that he had to think long and hard about whether he felt he could continue as a professional footballer in case such a deeply upsetting thing ever happened again. Then, rightly or wrongly, his hurt and pain could be classified as a 'career threatening injury'. But, unlike a bad tackle, as far as I'm aware this has had no negative impact on Evra's game at all.

 

[mistahclarke]

But Suerez admitted using certain words. The independent advisor to the FA has deemed these words were offensive and inappropriate.

My understanding is he called evra by his nickname, which is only racist if said in a certain tone apparently and the court files have evra admitting it was not used in a racist way. The fact remains that no-one else heard it (or admitted to hearing it, and evra admitted to calling him something as well. There is not enough evidence to have a case with double standards. Now a precedent has been set, by rights all a player has to do is report racism and an opposition player or team could all be suspended. But that won't happen as the world is not completely nuts is it? With the way united always moan they could win the league by default playing a youth team every week.

 

[Commander]

You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but I profoundly disagree. An EIGHT game ban for misusing some words? IMO that would be a massively disproportionate punishment even if he'd subjected Evra to a constant stream of the most vile personal and racial abuse (and it had been captured by the cameras).

The punishment might have some merit if Evra had felt so traumatised by the incident that he had to think long and hard about whether he felt he could continue as a professional footballer in case such a deeply upsetting thing ever happened again. Then, rightly or wrongly, his hurt and pain could be classified as a 'career threatening injury'. But, unlike a bad tackle, as far as I'm aware this has had no negative impact on Evra's game at all.

Ah, another member of the 'Sensible Brigade' has arrived.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Serious question, when did this word become offensive here, and who decides these things? I can clearly remember being told by teachers a
school that 'negro' was the proper name for a black person and that the other N word was offensive and could not be used. I'm not suggesting that 'negro' isn't offensive, but who decided that all of a sudden it was, and at what point will the word 'black' become offensive?

Reduced to 3 games on appeal would be the right decision, it should be the same punishment as a serious red card offence.

It depends on how words are used. The other N word, 'coloured', 'negro' were all once acceptable as they were used mainly as descriptive terms rather than pejorative terms. Over time, racists began to use them in a pejorative way. So the meaning of the terms became contaminated, and the people who used to identify themselves by such terms scrambled to find a new term to identify themselves by. Currently, since the late 60s, the term in favour seems to be 'black', despite attempts by racists to try to use it in a racially demeaning way i.e. what John Terry is accused of.

Some of the confusion you hint at is caused by the lack of uniformity in adopting a new term. Many older generations still identify with previously in vogue terms such as 'negro'. From the 1980s there was also confusion resulting from black people who argue that they shouldn't be allowing their terms of self-identification to be contaminated with racist meaning. Instead, they sought to 'reclaim' words such as the N word, by creating the word 'nigga' that was only acceptable for them to use. Interesting that the word 'white' has stayed a constant all this time, perhaps indicative of the general power relationship between people of different skin colour in the US and UK.

If you are annoyed at this minefield of acceptable and unacceptable terms, maybe you should direct it at the racists for continuing to contaminate previously neutral descriptive terms.

 

[JJ McClure]

Never thought I'd find myself defending Suarez, but I think this is very harsh punishment from the FA. In this case I would have thought it is the job of the FA to educate Luis as to what is and is acceptable in English culture compared to being in Uruguay.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Never thought I'd find myself defending Suarez, but I think this is very harsh punishment from the FA. In this case I would have thought it is the job of the FA to educate Luis as to what is and is acceptable in English culture compared to being in Uruguay.

Agreed. In its own way the FA's behaviour could be interpreted as racist.

 

[Brovion]

It depends on how words are used. The other N word, 'coloured', 'negro' were all once acceptable as they were used mainly as descriptive terms rather than pejorative terms. Over time, racists began to use them in a pejorative way. So the meaning of the terms became contaminated, and the people who used to identify themselves by such terms scrambled to find a new term to identify themselves by. Currently, since the late 60s, the term in favour seems to be 'black', despite attempts by racists to try to use it in a racially demeaning way i.e. what John Terry is accused of.

Some of the confusion you hint at is caused by the lack of uniformity in adopting a new term. Many older generations still identify with previously in vogue terms such as 'negro'. From the 1980s there was also confusion resulting from black people who argue that they shouldn't be allowing their terms of self-identification to be contaminated with racist meaning. Instead, they sought to 'reclaim' words such as the N word, by creating the word 'nigga' that was only acceptable for them to use. Interesting that the word 'white' has stayed a constant all this time, perhaps indicative of the general power relationship between people of different skin colour in the US and UK.

If you are annoyed at this minefield of acceptable and unacceptable terms, maybe you should direct it at the racists for continuing to contaminate previously neutral descriptive terms.

I agree entirely. But it still doesn't justify an EIGHT game ban.

 

[Brovion]

Agreed. In its own way the FA's behaviour could be interpreted as racist.

Oooh, good one, that could open a new can of worms. The all-white FA, in the true spirit of the British Empire, is trying to force its cultural values onto other people. Being British of course they are 'right' and all foreigners are 'wrong'.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but I profoundly disagree. An EIGHT game ban for misusing some words? IMO that would be a massively disproportionate punishment even if he'd subjected Evra to a constant stream of the most vile personal and racial abuse (and it had been captured by the cameras).

The punishment might have some merit if Evra had felt so traumatised by the incident that he had to think long and hard about whether he felt he could continue as a professional footballer in case such a deeply upsetting thing ever happened again. Then, rightly or wrongly, his hurt and pain could be classified as a 'career threatening injury'. But, unlike a bad tackle, as far as I'm aware this has had no negative impact on Evra's game at all.

In many other workplaces, if you racially abuse someone you can expect the sack. Missing eight games of football is not a harsh sentence considering its divisive impact and the fact that demeans the player involved, the perpetrator, other people who experience racial abuse, and the sport in general.

That said, I'm currently very much of the view that Luis Suarez is innocent.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

My understanding is he called evra by his nickname, which is only racist if said in a certain tone apparently and the court files have evra admitting it was not used in a racist way. The fact remains that no-one else heard it (or admitted to hearing it, and evra admitted to calling him something as well. There is not enough evidence to have a case with double standards. Now a precedent has been set, by rights all a player has to do is report racism and an opposition player or team could all be suspended. But that won't happen as the world is not completely nuts is it? With the way united always moan they could win the league by default playing a youth team every week.

I'm just going by what has commonly been reported which is that Suarez admitted using certain words, so it was not one person's word against another. The FA then brought in a specialist QC to look into whether Suarez's explaination for using such words, and just as importantly the context in which they were used, could be construed as insulting and of a racial nature. The QC decided this was the case.

Yes, a precedent has been set, that if proven a player used insulting language of a racial nature then they will get a hefty ban and a fine. Surely this is a good thing? If it's just one person's word against anothers then I imagine that the case will be dropped due to lack of evidence. The difference here is that the charged admitted using language of a racial nature.

 

[xenophon]

Fergie's latest FA complaint is the allegation that Rio Ferdinand got 'raped' during the recent United v City game at Old Trafford

 

[Fef]

... But then thats our FA for you.

Unfortunately that is the case; it's interesting that the FA aren't doing FA as they usually do. Or don't do.

Could this be the FA's reaction to FIFA's Sepp Blatter who reckoned that racial abuse on the field could be settled with a handshake after the game? In which case this is a political move, and Evra is the FA's scapegoat.

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

I'm just going by what has commonly been reported which is that Suarez admitted using certain words, so it was not one person's word against another. The FA then brought in a specialist QC to look into whether Suarez's explaination for using such words, and just as importantly the context in which they were used, could be construed as insulting and of a racial nature. The QC decided this was the case.

Yes, a precedent has been set, that if proven a player used insulting language of a racial nature then they will get a hefty ban and a fine. Surely this is a good thing? If it's just one person's word against anothers then I imagine that the case will be dropped due to lack of evidence. The difference here is that the charged admitted using language of a racial nature.

But to counter that arguement, Evra admitted insulting Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable terms, but Suarez didnt go crying ab out it.
Whats good for the goose......

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The FA must have a watertight case against him, because to brand a multil-millionaire a racist, is a very risky thing to do, unless they have 100% proof.

I would think if there is an appeal, this one could go through the courts. But as I say, the FAs lawyers must think its watertight.

What is amazing though, if true, and £40000 fine, yet when a set of fans at an international match make monley nosies, or throw banana at black players, they get find less than that.

But then thats our FA for you.

I'd say that says more about how ineffectual FIFA and UEFA are. The fines they've handed out show how little they care about racism.
The fact that it is not taken so seriously elsewhere is not an argument for us taking a more lenient approach.
It's a pathetic defence to say that this sort of behaviour is acceptable in Uruguay. Arrogant and ignorant. Its not acceptable here.