Suarez v Evra

[BrahimHemdani 1]

If you have a spare 2/3 hours I commend the full statement (453 paras/115 pages) of the Tribunal decison in this case as fascinating reading.

 

These two paras might tempt you to read more:

 

357.

 

 

Not only did we reject this evidence of Mr Suarez, but we found it remarkable that he

sought to advance a case that was so clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of

what happened. Even Mr McCormick accepted in his closing submissions that the

pinching could not reasonably be described as an attempt to defuse the situation. To

suggest otherwise, as Mr Suarez did, was unarguable. Mr Suarez's evidence on these

topics, which was shown to be flawed, profoundly undermined our confidence in the

reliability of his evidence.

 

 

382.

 

 

In all the circumstances, we preferred the evidence of Mr Evra. His account was clear and

consistent in all material respects. There is no basis for saying that he lied or was mistaken

in what he heard. We found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened. The

conversation was all in Spanish. The words which follow (below) were either Mr Evra's

exact words or close approximations to them. Mr Evra said to Mr Suarez "Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste un golpe?", meaning "fucking hell, why did you kick me?". Mr

Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you're black". Mr Evra then said

"Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada", which means "Say it to me again, I'm going

to kick you". Mr Suarez responded "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to

blacks". Mr Evra then said "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada", meaning "Okay,

now I think I'm going to punch you". Mr Suarez responded "Dale, negro, negro, negro",

meaning "Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie." This meant that Mr Suarez used the word

"negro" five times in the goalmouth. This was the number that Sir Alex Ferguson reported

to the referee after the game, and which Sir Alex probably learned from Mr Evra. The "five

times" reported to the referee straight after the game corroborates Mr Evra's evidence that

the word was used five times in the goalmouth.

 

The whole thing is here:

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx

[54andcounting 0]

I've read some of it...my initial response is Evra is a little insecure and over reactive.

[Zappa 0]

I don't know what to make of the whole thing, but I do think an 8 game ban is over the top. To my mind, absolutely no type of verbal abuse desrves a longer ban than violent conduct, full stop. I know there's very varied and questionable definitions about violent conduct though especially on the part of referees and so-called "compliance officers", so it's really down to the football authorities to sort out some kind of sensible system.

[54andcounting 0]

...an 8 game ban for racist stuff on a football field of play is now set in stone.

 

Racist stuff in the street quite rightly is punished by a jail sentence.

 

Footballers have a charmed life, Evra is a wimp who has an unhealthy attitude towards South Americans. Same thing.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

There is a lot of reasoning on the penalty especially about aggravating and mitigating factors but these are the most salient paras:

 

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).

 

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.

 

The first mitigating factor was that Mr Suarez

had a clean record in relation to charges of this type.

 

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.

 

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.

[craig 5,199]

...an 8 game ban for racist stuff on a football field of play is now set in stone.

 

Racist stuff in the street quite rightly is punished by a jail sentence.

 

Footballers have a charmed life, Evra is a wimp who has an unhealthy attitude towards South Americans. Same thing.

 

What evidence is there of this ?

[Zappa 0]

What evidence is there of this ?

 

Interesting point because this whole thing seems to be based on the "word" of Evra.

 

It's not that his word isn't valuable (or true for that matter), but if he's the only witness, then it's a strange situation when the FA just take his word as a root source for taking action.

 

What Evra told Fergie means absolutely nothing and proves nothing.

[Gazza_8 233]

We found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened

 

And they gave him an 8 game ban even though they don't really 100% believe the word of Evra?

 

Crazy.

[Bluedell 5,408]

Interesting point because this whole thing seems to be based on the "word" of Evra.

 

It's not that his word isn't valuable (or true for that matter), but if he's the only witness, then it's a strange situation when the FA just take his word as a root source for taking action.

 

What Evra told Fergie means absolutely nothing and proves nothing.

 

It's not just on Evra's word. Suarez admitted saying "negro" and the Liverpool PR guy confirmed it as well. It was the number of times that it was used that is up for question.

[Guest Dutchy]

But he is a negro, or has that word been banned now?

 

I thought it was 'nigger' that you couldn't use!