Liverpool Club Focus - Suarez ban splits opinion

By Louis on 23 December 2011 at 13:55

Juan, whether we like it or not every person in this world has deep down and ingrained in them predjudices, it may not be about colour but usually about race, disability (mental or physical) or nationality... we all know racism is unacceptable in today's society but unfortunately it is sometimes prevalent.... I don't understand why the ones who sit on the moral high ground on this issue see it as very black and white! "He called someone a negro so he is a racist." Personally those who say this i believe are the ones who don't actually in everyday life interact with anyone other than white people. It reminds me of why my husbands parents stopped going to church (his parents adopted 2 black and 2 white children)... when you got the ones who would stand up, preach and give readings about being a better person....yet they would be the last people to come to your help when you needed it! They talk the talk.... but do they actually walk the walk themselves. You can't tell me that the ones so quick to judge are squeaky clean when it comes to their own views! Education and not witch hunts is what is needed.... and unfortunately the FA have done little to educate and just caused resentment. Another really great article below - do read it. http://www.goal.com/en/news/1717/editorial/2011/12/22/2813532/liverpools-luis-suarez-should-have-known-better-but-his

By Juan Jose on 23 December 2011 at 13:32

Louis, Interesting, your comment came as I was writing mine. I've been in the US for more than 25 years so I know better. But as an immigrant I am sad that they take this position with a kid who does not understand what is going on around him. He has a young wife and baby, he is trying to adapt to a new country and to meet all the expectation put on him by the team and fans. In the middle of a game he reverted to Uruguayan, is that a crime? I'm almost 60 and do it sometimes when I'm in the car by myself. I guess I could be consider racist in England, although I'm married to a black woman.

By Loui on 23 December 2011 at 13:10

Thank you Juan... yes it is true that in spanish Evra made a reference to Suarez's sisters private parts......! Of course Evra's Facebook page is full of insults....he loves to give it out but as soon as someone does or says something he doesn't like he is happy to go along and play the race card. I am not saying that rascism is acceptable...simply that more education is needed on rascism.... why is it that a reference to someones colour is automatically deemed to be rascist.

By Louis on 23 December 2011 at 13:06

Check out this article from a Jamaican newspaper http://jamaica-gleaner.com titled "Calling a Negro a Negro". Cultural differences quite clearly highlighted. by Orville Higgins Virtually everyone in the football world is talking about the eight-match ban given to Liverpool's Luis Suarez based on a so-called racial insult of Manchester United's Patrice Evra. Depending on which website you surf, Suarez was supposed to have called him a negrite, a Spanish word meaning 'little Negro', or actually used the word 'Negro' itself. I find the whole thing preposterous. Is the word 'Negro' now also taboo on a football field? Isn't Evra a Negro? I checked my dictionary and found out that 'Negro' was a legitimate word, which means a member of the dominant ethnic group of Africa. Or a black male or female. One school of thought is that this is nothing more than the English FA trying to embarrass Sepp Blatter, the FIFA president. Blatter had said that a lot of these so-called on-field racist comments could be settled with a handshake. The statement triggered a huge backlash, especially among the English population, and the theory is that the English FA is doing this to show Blatter how different they are from him. Whether or not that's true, it's nonsense to impose a charge of £40,000 and an eight-match ban to call a Negro a Negro! Evra doesn't appear to me to be the most credible of witnesses either. He said he was called this name by Suarez at least 10 different times. Ten times! Nobody else can corroborate the story. It is mind-boggling that a player can say something to another player 10 times without anybody hearing. We must not forget that in 2008 the French defender was banned for four games after hitting a Chelsea groundsman after a game. Then, too, he had said he was racially abused by the groundsman. The English FA didn't find any such evidence then. Indeed, when handing down the ban, the English FA had said Evra's evidence was exaggerated and unreliable. Was Evra's credibility taken into question? And how did Evra keep count? Ten sounds like such a round, convenient number, doesn't it? It would have been more plausible if he had said nine or 11. The umpires in cricket once used stones or marbles to check deliveries, and sometimes even they got it wrong. Maybe Evra had walked with his marbles. Suarez said he made the remark once when the two were jostling around in the box for a corner, and his story just sounds more credible to me. The two were close-marking each other for the whole game. Evra was even booked. Yet, he waited until after the game to tell the ref what the real deal was. Please! In his statement to the FA, we heard that Evra said he didn't believe that Suarez was a racist. The English FA also said it wasn't of that view. So why then would Evra or the FA have a problem with Suarez's use of the N-word? If Evra doesn't believe Suarez is racist, how come a standard word has become racist? Follow me now. Can a black man be accused of racially abusing another black man? Highly unlikely, because people would say that a black man couldn't mean anything derogatory when he uses that term to another black man. And for the record, Suarez's grandfather is black. The English FA and Evra are making much ado about nothing.

By Juan Jose on 23 December 2011 at 13:03

I have not seen the report, nobody has, so it may premature to comment. However, if all Suarez said is "negrito" that is not an insult where I came from (Rio de la Plata). Not sure I should list the most common insults here so I won't. In any case any serious insult in Uruguay or Argentina will include reference to "mother", "sister", certain anatomy parts, of the mother/sister, or sexual orientation of the insulted. If none of that was included then there is no intention to insult. I understand that Evra's Facebook page is full of Latin American insults now. Those who want to learn are encouraged to visit it.

By Louis on 23 December 2011 at 12:45

The word was actually "negro" and not Negrito as widely and wrongly reported. but yes negro is used in Uruguay as "mate" or "pal". Evra speaks Spanish, and the conversation took place in Spanish and yes it was a response to "Don't touch me you South American." Evra also made a four letter word remark beginning with C relating to Suarez's sister which I also think is wholly inappropriate. But no apparently what Evra said is absolutely fine. Its an absolute joke. Suarez told the fa himself he used that word as he didnt know that was wrong... and to say ignorance is not an excuse...yes it is. Poor bloody Alan Hansen was probably desperately trying not to use the word "black" and ended up getting into more hot water. This is ignorance at its best! How can rascism ever be put to bed when people are crucified for ignorance. The sad thing is that most people hanging Suarez out to dry are political left wingers who have never spoken to a black person in their life.....and they are the ones who smack of ignorance... the ones who comdemn and crucify rather than acknowledge that ignorance did play a part and try and educate by looking at the wider and bigger picture here. John Barnes support of Suarez summed it all up. The FA and Evra stated that they do not believe Suarez is a racist, so why could they have simply said that using "Negro" is not acceptable however on this occasion they have taken into cultural and language and the way it translates into account (as Evra and Suarez conversation was in spanish)and therefore a lesser ban and fine would be more appropriate in the circumstances. They could have still made an example of how a reference to someones colour isnt acceptable. The FA are simply a disgrace in how they have handled all this..... just a bunch of bafoons, so quite right that Liverpool support their player. No video evidence (ten times racist language was allegedly used, no other player witnesses either and just Evra's word against what Suarez volunteered to the FA as a reply to Evras South American comment. The FA are the ones who need to do a U turn and hold their hands up and say enquiry was conducted wrongly.. including how Suarez spoke to FA once while Evra gave evidence on multiple on multiple occasions and was given video footage to try and use as evidence.. furthermore Fergie's pal on the independent panel - its a joke!

By Suhaimi on 23 December 2011 at 11:57

The reasons why LFC and the fans are disgusted with the judgement are: 1) The conclusion was based only on the judgement of one accuser, Evra which was not substantiated with any video evidence. 2) Evra made a statement that he believed that Luis Suarez is not a racist! 3) The so-called committee made a statement saying that they believed that Suarez is not a racist! 4) Evra was interviewed more than once and given supposedly video viewing to substantiate his case BUT yet nobody else heard the argument in the crowded penalty box! 5) Luis Suarez was met only once and with no video reference to refute Evra's arguments! 6) No action taken on Evra who admitted to swearing at Suarez which Suarez honestly said he did not hear and also Evra told the referee "You're only booking me because I'm black!" Which is definitely racist in nature! 7) The committee refused to accept the Linguistic explanation of the term "negrito" that was used and did not take into account that Suarez's grandfather was black. 8) This has come to look like some kind of witch hunt by the FA on Suarez and that they had decided to punish Suarez as a sign to show FIFA that they are serious in their effort on racial issues! So there you have legitimate reasons why LFC - players, management and Fans alike - are standing with Luis Suarez! JUSTICE FOR LUIS SUAREZ!

By marvi on 23 December 2011 at 11:41

If you google Evra's teammate Hernandez using the same alleged language you will find a tv interview demonstrating just that. It amazes me that so called qualified commentators be it journalists or pundits haven't bothered to understand why so many people think the decision was so unjust.

By ANDREW BOCELLI on 23 December 2011 at 11:10

I blame the FA for the current impasse because of the appalling way it has mismanaged the whole situation and the impression it has given that its sole concern has been with the racial angle rather than with the wider one of improper conduct. If the FA’s intention was to unite people and clubs behind a campaign to kick racism out of football, its handling of the Suarez affair has backfired spectacularly. It was the FA that chose to charge Luis Suarez with a ‘take your pick’ option: “abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour" towards Evra "which included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race" of the United player. The basis of this charge comes within the section of the FA’s rulebook that addresses ‘General Behaviour’ and states the following: 3 (1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour. (2) In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an “aggravating factor”), a Regulatory Commission shall considerthe imposition of an increased sanction... Put in a nutshell, the implication of this is that any spat on or off the field of play, may be deemed improper; and, if any reference during such spat is made to any of ethnic origin, colour, race etc etc, it shall be deemed an even greater act of improper conduct. From the video coverage of the Suarez / Evra incident in the six-yard box, it is apparent that it is Evra who was far the more animated and vociferous party and that Suarez seemed less inclined to get into conversation with him. From that perspective, it might be interpreted that it is Evra who seems to have been the more “threatening” and the one whose conduct might be viewed as “improper”. What, then, possessed the FA to charge only Suarez with “abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour"? Why weren’t both players charged? Why wasn’t the tribunal requested to review the actions of both players in an incident where both players were involved; and where both or either might have been exonerated or found guilty? Why wasn’t there a full investigation, rather than one which focused only on the guilt or innocence of one man? Had the FA followed such a course, it would not have created a rod for its own back and it might have appeared even-handed. It might also have avoided the accusation of selective justice and political gamesmanship. It might even have defused much of the tribal venom that has poured out over the past two months.

By Colin Tan on 23 December 2011 at 10:44

Liverpool, Dalglish, Glen Johnson, John Barnes are not defending racism or a racist. The fact. 1. They know he is not a racist, 2. They know his term was meant more as "hey friend" spoke not like to a friend but trying to be friendly. 3. They are defending a person whom they feel and know is wrongly accused and judged. They know he had an unfair hearing by an independent commission that is not independent with Alex ferguson's pal there. So stop making Liverpool look like they are defending racism, they are defending someone whom they know and feel deeply in their minds and hearts to be wrongly accused and punished. I wish no one else here have to experience a friend, brother or a loved one who has been accused wrongly of murder and hung in another country with a death penalty. And then to be shown to be supporting a "criminal" when they know they were innocent. So are they supposed to keep their mouth shut or they will be sending a wrong message condoning murder? Sad world we live in. This being Christmas, just reminds me of a story told of a man born in a manger who experienced the same fate 2000 years ago?

By tc on 23 December 2011 at 10:35

I believe the double standard is -- allowing people to do harsh tackling and reduced the match ban to 1 because England need him. -- but implying 8 match ban due to different culture issue

By Robbie on 23 December 2011 at 10:03

This is more a case of double standards, Suarez used provactive language reffering to race, colour or nationality, but so did Evra when he said "don't touch me you South American" surely he knew Suarez would react in a similar vein. If one is punished the other should have the exact same punishment.