johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
I'm sure Sir Alex would happily assistsquirtyflower said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Saurez [FA release investigation findings]
- Thread starter Impeccable One
- Start date
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
Rooney's his ritual killing for this weekjohnny crossan said:I'm sure Sir Alex would happily assistsquirtyflower said:no he means he should commit seppukujohnny crossan said:you don't mean (gulp!) resign??
shootmeifipost10k
Well-Known Member
I've read a few bits here and there on the whole thing and the one thing that's stuck in my mind is when he pinched evra on the arm, how suarez can try and explain this away instead of coming out holding his hands up and say it was a mistake and something he regrets doing in the heat of the game.
His reasons behind what he did will always be up for arguement,in my mind and many others what he did was totally unacceptable and feel he's got off quite lucky with just a 8 game ban.
I do think he's been poorly advised by his own advisors and more than likely by LFC, then again we really don't know what he actually told them what he actually said at the time on the pitch.
If he told LFC about what happened,including what he said when pinching evras skin which to me is damning evidence he was making racist getures then simply LFC have attempted to turn this into a US v THEM senario and closed ranks. This to me is even worse than what suarez did while out on the pitch.
His reasons behind what he did will always be up for arguement,in my mind and many others what he did was totally unacceptable and feel he's got off quite lucky with just a 8 game ban.
I do think he's been poorly advised by his own advisors and more than likely by LFC, then again we really don't know what he actually told them what he actually said at the time on the pitch.
If he told LFC about what happened,including what he said when pinching evras skin which to me is damning evidence he was making racist getures then simply LFC have attempted to turn this into a US v THEM senario and closed ranks. This to me is even worse than what suarez did while out on the pitch.
shootmeifipost10k said:I've read a few bits here and there on the whole thing and the one thing that's stuck in my mind is when he pinched evra on the arm, how suarez can try and explain this away instead of coming out holding his hands up and say it was a mistake and something he regrets doing in the heat of the game.
His reasons behind what he did will always be up for arguement,in my mind and many others what he did was totally unacceptable and feel he's got off quite lucky with just a 8 game ban.
I do think he's been poorly advised by his own advisors and more than likely by LFC, then again we really don't know what he actually told them what he actually said at the time on the pitch.
If he told LFC about what happened,including what he said when pinching evras skin which to me is damning evidence he was making racist getures then simply LFC have attempted to turn this into a US v THEM senario and closed ranks. This to me is even worse than what suarez did while out on the pitch.
He told Commoli and Dalglish immediately after the game that he'd used the term "negro". In fact Commoli explained to Dowd, who was taking notes, how to spell the spanish phrase he'd used. Suarez subsequently told the panel that he'd used a different, less offensive, phrase than the one that Commoli told Dowd.
Thread: FA release Suarez evidence reasons View Single Post
#1148 Today, 18:26
mzz
Fan Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 22
Language issues in the FA reasons document
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will quote first the FA document on the key point:
“90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr
Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that
comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a ******". He now says
that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".”
End quote.
I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.
This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don't know what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...
What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.
***
That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.
“138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He
said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him
"Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had
replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"." Endquote.
“Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.
And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:
"141. Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli
explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that
Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr
Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him
"Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por que negro?". Mr Suarez told
Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said."
What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words…
The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:
"284 (...) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you
are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as
"you are black"." Endquote.
It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.
In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.
Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.
***
Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the "negro" word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.
Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:
1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
3) They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means they don't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.
A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.
Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pepople seemingly are commenting on this matter without actually reading the 115 page report and making there own minds up (or having their mids made up for them by our pathetic press). It was a kangaroo court. I'd expect more sense from the blue half of Manchester.
#1148 Today, 18:26
mzz
Fan Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 22
Language issues in the FA reasons document
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will quote first the FA document on the key point:
“90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr
Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that
comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a ******". He now says
that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".”
End quote.
I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.
This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don't know what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...
What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.
***
That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.
“138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He
said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him
"Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had
replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"." Endquote.
“Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.
And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:
"141. Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli
explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that
Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr
Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him
"Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por que negro?". Mr Suarez told
Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said."
What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words…
The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:
"284 (...) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you
are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as
"you are black"." Endquote.
It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.
In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.
Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.
***
Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the "negro" word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.
Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:
1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
3) They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means they don't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.
A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.
Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pepople seemingly are commenting on this matter without actually reading the 115 page report and making there own minds up (or having their mids made up for them by our pathetic press). It was a kangaroo court. I'd expect more sense from the blue half of Manchester.
DirtyEddie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 1,188
no one should be using the word 'negro'. the fact he used the word 'negro' is apparently disputed by no one. squabbling over the semantics makes you look a right bunch of twats
a sensible approach to this post game would have been for lfc to say 'suarez was unaware of the cultural differences between uruguay and england. we have now informed him never to use the word again or indeed make reference to anyones ethnicity during a game'. they would have then made suarez release a public apology restating that he didnt realise the term negro was unacceptable in this county and promising not to do it again. lfc would have then dealt with this themselves either fining him or banning him for a game or two.
instead we got... well... a complete fucking embarassment
a sensible approach to this post game would have been for lfc to say 'suarez was unaware of the cultural differences between uruguay and england. we have now informed him never to use the word again or indeed make reference to anyones ethnicity during a game'. they would have then made suarez release a public apology restating that he didnt realise the term negro was unacceptable in this county and promising not to do it again. lfc would have then dealt with this themselves either fining him or banning him for a game or two.
instead we got... well... a complete fucking embarassment
Not written by me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In a similar vein, I wanted to jot down some comments about what I think are flaws in the judgment. Hopefully there will be an appeal, and we'll find out eventually what the appeal points would be. I think some of the following would be legitimate.
1. Goalmouth incident.
No video evidence of what was said. No other person heard what was said. Video does show Evra walking to Suarez and forcing him to back away. Evra claims the word ‘negro’ used 5 times at this point, but does not claim to have told the ref or anyone else, including Kuyt.
Commission: Accept everything PE said and reject everything LS said. Ie conclude “negro” said 5 times.
2. Post whistle incident.
Video evidence shows Suarez say something to Evra, and Evra say something to ref (while pointing at Suarez). Video shows Evra react with surprise to whatever Suarez said. However, Evra gives no evidence about what Suarez said at this point. Evra claims to have told the ref “he just called me a fucking black”. Neither the ref, nor the video, nor any other player confirm that. However, on Suarez own account, the word “negro” had been used once by this point. According to Suarez, this is where Evra said don’t touch me “south American” and Suarez replied “porque negro”.
Commission: Even though PE did not allege “negro” said at this point, Commission decide it was said. LS did allege “negro” said at this point, Commission say he is lying about the sentence used, but decide “negro” said at this point. Furthermore, the Commission base this finding on fact that PE’s face registered “surprise” at this point.
However, according to PE’s later evidence, he had already been called “negro” 5 times in goalmouth. So if this was a 6th, then why the “surprise”?
Moreover, Commission later commend PE’s credibility on the basis that PE told AF (who then told the ref) that PE had been called the N word “5 times”. But if PE reacted with “surprise” to being called “negro” on this occasion (which was Commission’s finding) then that would be “6 times” and not “5 times”. So why praise PE’s credibility for saying “5”. (Note – PE saying “5” would not disprove an assertion that he later counted more carefully and came up with “6”. However, under no circs should PE actually be praised for being reliable in saying “5” when actually, a more reliable number – according to Commission – was “6”).
3. Talking to ref the first time.
No suggestion made that PE alleged racist abuse during this conversation. Ie a conversation telling both players to calm down, PE did not say he was agitated due to being called “negro” (or any variation or translation of that word). Of course, according to LS, the word has been used once by this stage. According to PE, it has been used 5 times. According to Commission 6 times. So the non-reporting of the word by PE is not evidence that it was not uttered by LS. It might be some evidence of whether PE thought it equated to the N word.
4. Walking away from ref the first time.
Neither player alleges anything was said, and there is no video evidence that anything was said.
Talking to the ref the second time. Neither player alleges anything was said, and there is no video evidence that anything was said.
5. Walking away from ref the second time.
Video evidence shows that PE said something to LS, and LS replied. PE’s evidence was that LS said something to him, but he could not remember what.
At para 109, there is no mention that PE’s witness statement admitted that he initiated this conversation, but the Commission note that he claimed not to remember what he said to LS. (ie saying he did not remember his own words might have been an answer to a question, and not part of his statement.) LS makes no comment about what was said at this point (presumably he wasn’t asked).
Commission: Despite the fact that PE says he cannot remember this conversation, the Commission decide that LS used the word “negro” for a 7th time at this point. If it is true that this allegation was not put to LS, then that is an unsupportable finding. This is especially true given the fact that they decided that PE was a reliable witness, with good recollection, who thought that “negro” meant the same as the N word. The Commission offer no explanation of why PE would not recall this gross insult; nor of why he might treat this as less of a gross insult than any other occasion.
Furthermore, in para 306 of their reasons, the Commission comment on LS’s claim to have said “porque, negro?”. They find that he did not use this expression. They find that he did use the expression “porque tu eres negro”, and admitted it in case it had been caught on camera; when he realised it was not, he changed it to “porque negro”.
But Commission cannot have it both ways. If LD did indeed say “porque negro”, then that undermines the argument that LS told Comolli and “porque tu eres negro”. That unravels a massive part of the Commission’s reasoning that PE’s evidence should be preferred due to LS initially admitting to “porque tu eres negro”, and later changing it. ie the commission said he was inconsistent, and therefore unreliable. But if he did say “porque, negro?” then he is not inconsistent, and so this is not a reason to say he is unreliable.
Furthermore, if LD did indeed say “porque, negro?” then does it really undermine him that he is not sure when he said it. To be clear, if it is alleged that he never uttered “porque, negro?” then an inconsistent story about WHEN he said it does lend some weight to the claim that he never said it at all. BUT once it is admitted that he did say it, then it might be quite normal (and consistent with an honest person trying to tell the truth) that he cannot remember the exact sequence of events. Certainly the Commission cut PE a lot of slack in that regard.
In any event, the finding in para 306 (that LS did not say “porque, negro?”) is in direct conflict with the finding in para 359 (that LS definitely did say “porque, negro?”). At the very least, this makes the finding of the 7th instance of “negro” to be totally unsupportable. Arguably, the collateral importance of the issue to LS’s credibility means that the whole judgment should be set aside.
6. Evra gets booked.
At this time, according to referee, and Giggs, and PE, PE complained to ref about being called black. According to Giggs and PE, PE also complained to Giggs about the same thing. In the context, any normal person would think that this was an allegation against Kuyt, and Giggs says that is indeed what he thought PE meant. Ref claims not to have known who PE was talking about. PE claims this was a reference to LS.
NOTE: Commission makes no adverse findings about PE’s reliability on the basis that he seemingly made an allegation against Kuyt. Commission simply accept PE’s explanation that he was referring to what LS had allegedly said despite common sense and Giggs both saying otherwise.
Commission make no comment on fact that PE’s evidence was that he had been called “negro” 5 times in the goal mouth, and this was the THIRD time since then that he had spoken to the ref. Ie he had had 2 chances before now to make plain to ref that he was alleging that LS called him “black” (if that was the allegation – bearing in mind that he now claims that was what he meant when he spoke to the ref this time). As mentioned, the Commission did accept that the first time he was called to the ref, PE shouted from a distance that he was being called a fucking black, although this is not proven by lipreading evidence, and nor was the shout heard by any other witness. There is no analysis of why PE would (i) shout from a distance, but not make the allegation during two close conversations with ref but would (ii) wait until he was booked a few minutes later to make an allegation which seemed as though it referred to Kuyt, and not LS.
What is particularly notable is the discussion at paras 270 to 275 of the reasons. Apparently PE could not make his mind up about whether or not he used the word “again” when referring to this conversation with ref. Ie whether he claimed to have been called black “again”. The Commission felt this was unimportant. However, it is fairly important given that PE apparently chopped and changed his evidence on the point. Does he have a clear recollection or not?
Was he trying to assert the word “again” was used because this is the only time that the ref admits hearing the word “black” and the only time anybody else (Kuyt and Giggs) heard the word “black”? ie did he think he needed to claim he said “again” so as to be consistent with his uncorroborated claim that he did earlier report LS as soon as it happened? But the word “again” raises a problem of its own. It would clearly imply that he was trying to persuade the ref that Kuyt had just called him “black”, in addition to earlier such comments (either from Kuyt or another opponent). So why did PE sometimes say he said “again” and sometimes say he did not? It does make an important difference to the sense of the conversation with the ref at this point. Why is PE’s reliability not questionable? Why does the Commission not even ask themselves the question of whether PE was trying to give evidence which he thought helped him.
7. MU Dressing Room after match.
NB It is not clear if this is before or after PE spoke to Canal+.
All 4 players (Nani, Valencia, Hernandez, Anderson) give evidence that PE was angry and complained that LS had said that he, LS, wouldn’t speak to PE because PE was black. None of them say that PE complained that LS said that he had kicked PE because he was black. None of them say that PE alleged that LS had said “Dale negro, negro, negro”. PE’s evidence is different to that of all 4 team mates. PE’s statement does not claim that he said that LS had said that he, LS, wouldn’t speak to PE because PE was black. PE’s statement DOES claim that he told his teammates that Suarez kicked him because he was black.
Commission: PE did tell his teammates that , LS said he wouldn’t speak to PE because PE was black. But make no adverse findings re PE’s credibility over this omission from his statement. Likewise they make no adverse findings about PE’s credibility over the fact that none of the other 4 witnesses make reference to the “kicking” allegation. On the contrary, Commission decide that ALL FOUR witnesses may have forgotten that PE said this, and that PE is the only one to remember accurately.
{In contrast, there was a much more subtle difference than this between LS’s evidence on the one hand, and TWO (not FOUR) other witnesses – Kuyt and Comolli – on the other hand. This difference was taken as evidence that LS was lying about that particular issue, and – by extension – was therefore an unreliable witness who could not be believed about anything at all unless there was independent corroboration}.
8. Evra to Ferguson.
In English, PE tells AF that he was called the N word. Ie he does not use the word “black” which is the word PE claims to have used on the pitch 3 times (shouting to ref from a distance, speaking to ref – in an apparent reference to Kuyt - after being booked, speaking to Giggs – in an apparent reference to Kuyt - after being booked).
Commission: It is fine for PE to allege the N word was used. Commission make no reference to the fact that every schoolchild in their first term of learning Spanish knows that “negro” in Spanish is the word for the colour black (quite apart from any other meanings it has which would not – as the experts agreed – necessarily relate to skin colour when used as a form of address). Commission ignore how common the word “negro” is, and ignore that PE claims to be able to converse in Spanish, and accept his claim that he thought “negro” meant “******”.
9. Referees room.
AF says he told ref the N word was used. PE says he told ref the N word was used. PE also claims that ref responded by saying “Oh, that is why you were talking about being called black”. Ref says the exact words were written down and were “"I don't talk to you because you niggers".
Note: Neither AF nor the ref allege that the ref responded by saying “Oh, that is why you were talking about being called black”. However, no question mark re PE’s credibility is raised.
Note also that the comment about “don’t talk to you because ...” and the lack of any reference to kicking is entirely consistent with what the 4 players claimed that PE had said in the dressing room. However, the Commission do not take this as further verification that the 4 players were giving accurate evidence and that PE is wrong about the conversations in the dressing room. Ie the Commission do not address whether this should cast doubt on PE’s reliability.
Furthermore, in this formal complaint to ref, there is no suggestion that the Spanish word “negro” was used, and nor does PE translate the word as “black” (despite, according to his own evidence, have done so 3 times on the pitch). Likewise there is no reference to “Dale negro, negro, negro”, and no question mark raised about PE’s reliability in not mentioning this comment to the ref, and not mentioning it at all until he viewed the video footage with the FA and pointed to a time where LS’s mouth obscured.
10. Canal+ Interview.
It is not 100% clear if this took place immediately after the match, or some time later after the complaints to ref had already been made.
Commission appear to have proceeded on basis that it took place after the complaint to ref was made. They read transcript rather than seeing the video, so they don’t comment if he was already showered and changed or not. Interviewer says interview took place after PE “came out” of the dressing room, but no indication of how long he had been in the room for.
Either way, PE’s claim that a word was said (according to transcript) “at least 10 times” is not treated as an inconsistency with PE’s later claim that the word “negro” was used 5 times. Commission decide, without expert evidence re French, that this was a French idiom. They rely on Comolli's evidence for this, despite the fact Comolli did not say that, and despite the fact that the FA's barrister said that ordinary witnesses (such as Hernandez) should not be asked to give expert evidence re the meaning of words in their native tongue.
11. Alleged inconsistency by LS re “pinching”.
In my opinion LS’s written statement in English could be read in 2 ways. See para 245. He suggests he was trying to defuse the situation. That could either be a reference to his overall conduct during the goalmouth conversation. Or it could be a specific reference to the so called “pinching”.
LS’s answers in cross examination at para 246 are entirely consistent with LS believing that the comment about trying to defuse the situation was a general comment about the whole conversation. If you read the questions the FA barrister puts to LS, his first few questions do not refer to “pinching” at all; they simply refer to the entirety of the incident. Ie, for the first few questions, the FA’s barrister was taking the same view of the statement as LS seemed to take.
However, immediately above para 245 of the written reasons, there is a subject heading “Mr Suarez's claim that the pinching was an attempt to defuse the situation”. Ie it is in the subject heading that the Commission makes a finding that LS was asserting that the pinch in and of itself was an attempt to defuse the situation. The Commission then decide that LS changed his evidence on this point.
NB: The first 4 questions by the barrister DO NOT refer to the pinch. LS continues to maintain (in response) that he was not the aggressor during this convsersation. This conversation, as accepted by the Commission, and as shown on video, took place with PE walking towards LS, and LS backing away. So it does seem reasonable for LS to give the answers which he gave in answer to questions not referring to the pinch.
The 5th question is the first to mention the pinch. LS freely admits that he was no longer trying to defuse the situation after the pinch. The 6th question asks him if the pinch itself was an attempt to defuse the situation and he freely admits that it was not.
Fair Conclusion. LS did NOT “change” his evidence re the pinch. He did not regard para 27 of his own statement (as per para 245 of written reasons) as relating solely to the pinch AND NOR DID THE FA’S OWN BARRISTER. LS regarded para 27 of his own statement as making a general claim that, when PE approached him in the goal mouth, he tried to defuse the situation AND THE FA’S OWN BARRISTER knew that that was what para 27 meant as can be seen from the first 4 questions. Para 27 of LS’s written statement indicated that he did touch PE’s arm to show PE that he, LS, was not going to be intimidated, and he confirmed that to the FA’s barrister as soon as he was asked about it.
The Commission decision that LS changed his evidence is based solely on their decision that (contrary to LS’s understanding, and the FA’s barrister’s understanding) his written statement specifically claimed that he pinched PE’s arm to defuse the situation. They also say (in para 247) that LS only admitted the contrary after “persistent questioning”. However, that is false. He was asked 4 questions which did not mention the pinch, and then 2 which did. His answers about the pinch were honest and straightforward and non-evasive AS SOON AS THE FA’S BARRISTER ASKED HIM ABOUT IT. He is being criticised for not talking about the pinch when the questions were not about the pinch. Any witness at this type of hearing is obliged to reply to the actual questions asked, and not to go off at a tangent.
12. Suarez use of word “conciliatory”.
He is also described as unreliable due to the use of this English word in his written statement. He is accused of using this due to the experts having previously used it. This is a bit ridiculous given that LS would neither have read the experts’ reports (at least not in English) nor prepared the English version of his statement. It is also ridiculous given that the experts’ used the word conciliatory to summarise what they believed LS had been asserting in his FA interview. (ie they used an English word to summarise the evidence which LS had given to the FA in Spanish.) If the experts thought the English word “conciliatory” was an appropriate description of LS’s interview comments, then how is it inconsistent of LS to sign a later English statement which has adopted that convenient shorthand.
13. Suarez demeanour from when the whistle blew on the corner.
Commission say that LS was not conciliatory from that point on, which is when LS claimed to use the word “negro”. It is a judgment call, but I think a fair assessment would be that there was no snarling or aggressive body language etc from LS from that point on. His facial expression when he patted PE on head did not indicate aggression.
Commission seem to have concluded that LS used the word “negro” in a non-conciliatory way based solely on fact that PE continued to remain annoyed. Ie PE’s demeanour alone is used as evidence that the discussions remained heated, regardless of fact that PE’s demeanour does not disprove that LS was trying to be conciliatory. This is especially true if PE’s claim to believe “negro” meant the N word is believed.
14. Alleged inconsistency is that LS offered different explanations for why PE said “don’t touch me”.
One is a genuine inconsistency ie at one time he said PE said it after the head touch, and later he said it was before that.
However, the rest is not an inconsistency. He said he assumed it referred to the “pinch” which was, after all, an important part of the FA case against him. However. Surprisingly (given how centrally the FA placed the pinch) PE gave evidence that he hadn’t noticed it. Rather than this be treated as an inconsistency in PE claims, it was treated as disproving what LS said. LS simply said, well if “don’t touch me” was not about the pinch, then it must have been about the foul that he, PE, specifically said was central to his mind at this time and caused him to start the confrontation. There is no inconsistency in LS saying that PE must have been referring to either the foul or the pinch, but that he, LS, was not a mindreader and so couldn’t say which. The Commission decided that PE said “don’t touch me” in response to the head touch despite the fact that PE denied saying that to LS at all (or at least professed he did not recall it).
The Commission felt LS was unreliable for (according to their finding) recalling something in the wrong sequence, despite PE not recalling it at all, and not being called unreliable over it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In a similar vein, I wanted to jot down some comments about what I think are flaws in the judgment. Hopefully there will be an appeal, and we'll find out eventually what the appeal points would be. I think some of the following would be legitimate.
1. Goalmouth incident.
No video evidence of what was said. No other person heard what was said. Video does show Evra walking to Suarez and forcing him to back away. Evra claims the word ‘negro’ used 5 times at this point, but does not claim to have told the ref or anyone else, including Kuyt.
Commission: Accept everything PE said and reject everything LS said. Ie conclude “negro” said 5 times.
2. Post whistle incident.
Video evidence shows Suarez say something to Evra, and Evra say something to ref (while pointing at Suarez). Video shows Evra react with surprise to whatever Suarez said. However, Evra gives no evidence about what Suarez said at this point. Evra claims to have told the ref “he just called me a fucking black”. Neither the ref, nor the video, nor any other player confirm that. However, on Suarez own account, the word “negro” had been used once by this point. According to Suarez, this is where Evra said don’t touch me “south American” and Suarez replied “porque negro”.
Commission: Even though PE did not allege “negro” said at this point, Commission decide it was said. LS did allege “negro” said at this point, Commission say he is lying about the sentence used, but decide “negro” said at this point. Furthermore, the Commission base this finding on fact that PE’s face registered “surprise” at this point.
However, according to PE’s later evidence, he had already been called “negro” 5 times in goalmouth. So if this was a 6th, then why the “surprise”?
Moreover, Commission later commend PE’s credibility on the basis that PE told AF (who then told the ref) that PE had been called the N word “5 times”. But if PE reacted with “surprise” to being called “negro” on this occasion (which was Commission’s finding) then that would be “6 times” and not “5 times”. So why praise PE’s credibility for saying “5”. (Note – PE saying “5” would not disprove an assertion that he later counted more carefully and came up with “6”. However, under no circs should PE actually be praised for being reliable in saying “5” when actually, a more reliable number – according to Commission – was “6”).
3. Talking to ref the first time.
No suggestion made that PE alleged racist abuse during this conversation. Ie a conversation telling both players to calm down, PE did not say he was agitated due to being called “negro” (or any variation or translation of that word). Of course, according to LS, the word has been used once by this stage. According to PE, it has been used 5 times. According to Commission 6 times. So the non-reporting of the word by PE is not evidence that it was not uttered by LS. It might be some evidence of whether PE thought it equated to the N word.
4. Walking away from ref the first time.
Neither player alleges anything was said, and there is no video evidence that anything was said.
Talking to the ref the second time. Neither player alleges anything was said, and there is no video evidence that anything was said.
5. Walking away from ref the second time.
Video evidence shows that PE said something to LS, and LS replied. PE’s evidence was that LS said something to him, but he could not remember what.
At para 109, there is no mention that PE’s witness statement admitted that he initiated this conversation, but the Commission note that he claimed not to remember what he said to LS. (ie saying he did not remember his own words might have been an answer to a question, and not part of his statement.) LS makes no comment about what was said at this point (presumably he wasn’t asked).
Commission: Despite the fact that PE says he cannot remember this conversation, the Commission decide that LS used the word “negro” for a 7th time at this point. If it is true that this allegation was not put to LS, then that is an unsupportable finding. This is especially true given the fact that they decided that PE was a reliable witness, with good recollection, who thought that “negro” meant the same as the N word. The Commission offer no explanation of why PE would not recall this gross insult; nor of why he might treat this as less of a gross insult than any other occasion.
Furthermore, in para 306 of their reasons, the Commission comment on LS’s claim to have said “porque, negro?”. They find that he did not use this expression. They find that he did use the expression “porque tu eres negro”, and admitted it in case it had been caught on camera; when he realised it was not, he changed it to “porque negro”.
But Commission cannot have it both ways. If LD did indeed say “porque negro”, then that undermines the argument that LS told Comolli and “porque tu eres negro”. That unravels a massive part of the Commission’s reasoning that PE’s evidence should be preferred due to LS initially admitting to “porque tu eres negro”, and later changing it. ie the commission said he was inconsistent, and therefore unreliable. But if he did say “porque, negro?” then he is not inconsistent, and so this is not a reason to say he is unreliable.
Furthermore, if LD did indeed say “porque, negro?” then does it really undermine him that he is not sure when he said it. To be clear, if it is alleged that he never uttered “porque, negro?” then an inconsistent story about WHEN he said it does lend some weight to the claim that he never said it at all. BUT once it is admitted that he did say it, then it might be quite normal (and consistent with an honest person trying to tell the truth) that he cannot remember the exact sequence of events. Certainly the Commission cut PE a lot of slack in that regard.
In any event, the finding in para 306 (that LS did not say “porque, negro?”) is in direct conflict with the finding in para 359 (that LS definitely did say “porque, negro?”). At the very least, this makes the finding of the 7th instance of “negro” to be totally unsupportable. Arguably, the collateral importance of the issue to LS’s credibility means that the whole judgment should be set aside.
6. Evra gets booked.
At this time, according to referee, and Giggs, and PE, PE complained to ref about being called black. According to Giggs and PE, PE also complained to Giggs about the same thing. In the context, any normal person would think that this was an allegation against Kuyt, and Giggs says that is indeed what he thought PE meant. Ref claims not to have known who PE was talking about. PE claims this was a reference to LS.
NOTE: Commission makes no adverse findings about PE’s reliability on the basis that he seemingly made an allegation against Kuyt. Commission simply accept PE’s explanation that he was referring to what LS had allegedly said despite common sense and Giggs both saying otherwise.
Commission make no comment on fact that PE’s evidence was that he had been called “negro” 5 times in the goal mouth, and this was the THIRD time since then that he had spoken to the ref. Ie he had had 2 chances before now to make plain to ref that he was alleging that LS called him “black” (if that was the allegation – bearing in mind that he now claims that was what he meant when he spoke to the ref this time). As mentioned, the Commission did accept that the first time he was called to the ref, PE shouted from a distance that he was being called a fucking black, although this is not proven by lipreading evidence, and nor was the shout heard by any other witness. There is no analysis of why PE would (i) shout from a distance, but not make the allegation during two close conversations with ref but would (ii) wait until he was booked a few minutes later to make an allegation which seemed as though it referred to Kuyt, and not LS.
What is particularly notable is the discussion at paras 270 to 275 of the reasons. Apparently PE could not make his mind up about whether or not he used the word “again” when referring to this conversation with ref. Ie whether he claimed to have been called black “again”. The Commission felt this was unimportant. However, it is fairly important given that PE apparently chopped and changed his evidence on the point. Does he have a clear recollection or not?
Was he trying to assert the word “again” was used because this is the only time that the ref admits hearing the word “black” and the only time anybody else (Kuyt and Giggs) heard the word “black”? ie did he think he needed to claim he said “again” so as to be consistent with his uncorroborated claim that he did earlier report LS as soon as it happened? But the word “again” raises a problem of its own. It would clearly imply that he was trying to persuade the ref that Kuyt had just called him “black”, in addition to earlier such comments (either from Kuyt or another opponent). So why did PE sometimes say he said “again” and sometimes say he did not? It does make an important difference to the sense of the conversation with the ref at this point. Why is PE’s reliability not questionable? Why does the Commission not even ask themselves the question of whether PE was trying to give evidence which he thought helped him.
7. MU Dressing Room after match.
NB It is not clear if this is before or after PE spoke to Canal+.
All 4 players (Nani, Valencia, Hernandez, Anderson) give evidence that PE was angry and complained that LS had said that he, LS, wouldn’t speak to PE because PE was black. None of them say that PE complained that LS said that he had kicked PE because he was black. None of them say that PE alleged that LS had said “Dale negro, negro, negro”. PE’s evidence is different to that of all 4 team mates. PE’s statement does not claim that he said that LS had said that he, LS, wouldn’t speak to PE because PE was black. PE’s statement DOES claim that he told his teammates that Suarez kicked him because he was black.
Commission: PE did tell his teammates that , LS said he wouldn’t speak to PE because PE was black. But make no adverse findings re PE’s credibility over this omission from his statement. Likewise they make no adverse findings about PE’s credibility over the fact that none of the other 4 witnesses make reference to the “kicking” allegation. On the contrary, Commission decide that ALL FOUR witnesses may have forgotten that PE said this, and that PE is the only one to remember accurately.
{In contrast, there was a much more subtle difference than this between LS’s evidence on the one hand, and TWO (not FOUR) other witnesses – Kuyt and Comolli – on the other hand. This difference was taken as evidence that LS was lying about that particular issue, and – by extension – was therefore an unreliable witness who could not be believed about anything at all unless there was independent corroboration}.
8. Evra to Ferguson.
In English, PE tells AF that he was called the N word. Ie he does not use the word “black” which is the word PE claims to have used on the pitch 3 times (shouting to ref from a distance, speaking to ref – in an apparent reference to Kuyt - after being booked, speaking to Giggs – in an apparent reference to Kuyt - after being booked).
Commission: It is fine for PE to allege the N word was used. Commission make no reference to the fact that every schoolchild in their first term of learning Spanish knows that “negro” in Spanish is the word for the colour black (quite apart from any other meanings it has which would not – as the experts agreed – necessarily relate to skin colour when used as a form of address). Commission ignore how common the word “negro” is, and ignore that PE claims to be able to converse in Spanish, and accept his claim that he thought “negro” meant “******”.
9. Referees room.
AF says he told ref the N word was used. PE says he told ref the N word was used. PE also claims that ref responded by saying “Oh, that is why you were talking about being called black”. Ref says the exact words were written down and were “"I don't talk to you because you niggers".
Note: Neither AF nor the ref allege that the ref responded by saying “Oh, that is why you were talking about being called black”. However, no question mark re PE’s credibility is raised.
Note also that the comment about “don’t talk to you because ...” and the lack of any reference to kicking is entirely consistent with what the 4 players claimed that PE had said in the dressing room. However, the Commission do not take this as further verification that the 4 players were giving accurate evidence and that PE is wrong about the conversations in the dressing room. Ie the Commission do not address whether this should cast doubt on PE’s reliability.
Furthermore, in this formal complaint to ref, there is no suggestion that the Spanish word “negro” was used, and nor does PE translate the word as “black” (despite, according to his own evidence, have done so 3 times on the pitch). Likewise there is no reference to “Dale negro, negro, negro”, and no question mark raised about PE’s reliability in not mentioning this comment to the ref, and not mentioning it at all until he viewed the video footage with the FA and pointed to a time where LS’s mouth obscured.
10. Canal+ Interview.
It is not 100% clear if this took place immediately after the match, or some time later after the complaints to ref had already been made.
Commission appear to have proceeded on basis that it took place after the complaint to ref was made. They read transcript rather than seeing the video, so they don’t comment if he was already showered and changed or not. Interviewer says interview took place after PE “came out” of the dressing room, but no indication of how long he had been in the room for.
Either way, PE’s claim that a word was said (according to transcript) “at least 10 times” is not treated as an inconsistency with PE’s later claim that the word “negro” was used 5 times. Commission decide, without expert evidence re French, that this was a French idiom. They rely on Comolli's evidence for this, despite the fact Comolli did not say that, and despite the fact that the FA's barrister said that ordinary witnesses (such as Hernandez) should not be asked to give expert evidence re the meaning of words in their native tongue.
11. Alleged inconsistency by LS re “pinching”.
In my opinion LS’s written statement in English could be read in 2 ways. See para 245. He suggests he was trying to defuse the situation. That could either be a reference to his overall conduct during the goalmouth conversation. Or it could be a specific reference to the so called “pinching”.
LS’s answers in cross examination at para 246 are entirely consistent with LS believing that the comment about trying to defuse the situation was a general comment about the whole conversation. If you read the questions the FA barrister puts to LS, his first few questions do not refer to “pinching” at all; they simply refer to the entirety of the incident. Ie, for the first few questions, the FA’s barrister was taking the same view of the statement as LS seemed to take.
However, immediately above para 245 of the written reasons, there is a subject heading “Mr Suarez's claim that the pinching was an attempt to defuse the situation”. Ie it is in the subject heading that the Commission makes a finding that LS was asserting that the pinch in and of itself was an attempt to defuse the situation. The Commission then decide that LS changed his evidence on this point.
NB: The first 4 questions by the barrister DO NOT refer to the pinch. LS continues to maintain (in response) that he was not the aggressor during this convsersation. This conversation, as accepted by the Commission, and as shown on video, took place with PE walking towards LS, and LS backing away. So it does seem reasonable for LS to give the answers which he gave in answer to questions not referring to the pinch.
The 5th question is the first to mention the pinch. LS freely admits that he was no longer trying to defuse the situation after the pinch. The 6th question asks him if the pinch itself was an attempt to defuse the situation and he freely admits that it was not.
Fair Conclusion. LS did NOT “change” his evidence re the pinch. He did not regard para 27 of his own statement (as per para 245 of written reasons) as relating solely to the pinch AND NOR DID THE FA’S OWN BARRISTER. LS regarded para 27 of his own statement as making a general claim that, when PE approached him in the goal mouth, he tried to defuse the situation AND THE FA’S OWN BARRISTER knew that that was what para 27 meant as can be seen from the first 4 questions. Para 27 of LS’s written statement indicated that he did touch PE’s arm to show PE that he, LS, was not going to be intimidated, and he confirmed that to the FA’s barrister as soon as he was asked about it.
The Commission decision that LS changed his evidence is based solely on their decision that (contrary to LS’s understanding, and the FA’s barrister’s understanding) his written statement specifically claimed that he pinched PE’s arm to defuse the situation. They also say (in para 247) that LS only admitted the contrary after “persistent questioning”. However, that is false. He was asked 4 questions which did not mention the pinch, and then 2 which did. His answers about the pinch were honest and straightforward and non-evasive AS SOON AS THE FA’S BARRISTER ASKED HIM ABOUT IT. He is being criticised for not talking about the pinch when the questions were not about the pinch. Any witness at this type of hearing is obliged to reply to the actual questions asked, and not to go off at a tangent.
12. Suarez use of word “conciliatory”.
He is also described as unreliable due to the use of this English word in his written statement. He is accused of using this due to the experts having previously used it. This is a bit ridiculous given that LS would neither have read the experts’ reports (at least not in English) nor prepared the English version of his statement. It is also ridiculous given that the experts’ used the word conciliatory to summarise what they believed LS had been asserting in his FA interview. (ie they used an English word to summarise the evidence which LS had given to the FA in Spanish.) If the experts thought the English word “conciliatory” was an appropriate description of LS’s interview comments, then how is it inconsistent of LS to sign a later English statement which has adopted that convenient shorthand.
13. Suarez demeanour from when the whistle blew on the corner.
Commission say that LS was not conciliatory from that point on, which is when LS claimed to use the word “negro”. It is a judgment call, but I think a fair assessment would be that there was no snarling or aggressive body language etc from LS from that point on. His facial expression when he patted PE on head did not indicate aggression.
Commission seem to have concluded that LS used the word “negro” in a non-conciliatory way based solely on fact that PE continued to remain annoyed. Ie PE’s demeanour alone is used as evidence that the discussions remained heated, regardless of fact that PE’s demeanour does not disprove that LS was trying to be conciliatory. This is especially true if PE’s claim to believe “negro” meant the N word is believed.
14. Alleged inconsistency is that LS offered different explanations for why PE said “don’t touch me”.
One is a genuine inconsistency ie at one time he said PE said it after the head touch, and later he said it was before that.
However, the rest is not an inconsistency. He said he assumed it referred to the “pinch” which was, after all, an important part of the FA case against him. However. Surprisingly (given how centrally the FA placed the pinch) PE gave evidence that he hadn’t noticed it. Rather than this be treated as an inconsistency in PE claims, it was treated as disproving what LS said. LS simply said, well if “don’t touch me” was not about the pinch, then it must have been about the foul that he, PE, specifically said was central to his mind at this time and caused him to start the confrontation. There is no inconsistency in LS saying that PE must have been referring to either the foul or the pinch, but that he, LS, was not a mindreader and so couldn’t say which. The Commission decided that PE said “don’t touch me” in response to the head touch despite the fact that PE denied saying that to LS at all (or at least professed he did not recall it).
The Commission felt LS was unreliable for (according to their finding) recalling something in the wrong sequence, despite PE not recalling it at all, and not being called unreliable over it.
no14ever said:Pepople seemingly are commenting on this matter without actually reading the 115 page report and making there own minds up (or having their mids made up for them by our pathetic press). It was a kangaroo court. I'd expect more sense from the blue half of Manchester.
I find it interesting that the author of that article totally ignores paragraph 181 of the written reasons which address the very issue which appears to be the main part of the TIA story:
181. The experts noted that the use of the verb form "porque tu eres negro" is not the most usual form for Montevidean Spanish, since the form of the verb "ser" most commonly used would be the "vos" form, that is "porque (vos) sos negro". Nevertheless, a small percentage of people from Montevideo do use the "tu" form (in contrast to Buenos Aires, where it is rarely used) or even a mixture of both. In the interview with Mr Suarez the transcription indicated to the experts that he uses the "tu" form of the verb, though there are other filmed interviews published on the internet in which he uses the "vos" form of the verb. Given that he has spent some considerable time in Europe it is possible that his use of Spanish alters between Uruguayan and European contexts. It is also possible that Mr Evra, who may have learned his Spanish in Spain, where the "vos" form is not used, may, when recalling the incident in interview, have rendered Mr Suarez’s usage as the "tu" form, even if Mr Suarez used the "vos" form.
Note the bit in red. So Suarez admits that he uses words that the author of the article believes "don't exist".
The other thing I find a bit strange about the TIA story is that the author states that the accusation that Suarez said "porque tu eres negro" proves that Evra is making the whole thing up.
But Commoli confirmed this in the interview with the refs, even spelling the word for Phil Dowd. And Kuyt confirmed that the same was told to him in Dutch. Were they making it all up as well?
Also it should be noted that Suarez (and the legal team) accepted the evidence from the language experts who said that Evra's version was believable.
Surely if they were mistaken, and the language "did not exist" Suarez and his legal team would have contested it at the tribunal.
metalblue
Well-Known Member
no14ever said:I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University
As such a learned participant in these hallowed forums I am sure you will appreciate language does not travel well.
no14ever said:I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez.
Oh it seems you do. Sorry don't really get the point you are making then.
no14ever said:But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me.
Shame you're not Evra then.
no14ever said:And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.
Lol, or are you being serious?
no14ever said:Looks like Evra is making this up
Are you sure you're a professor?
Incidentally I am also a professor in cuntology at the UoL and, having studied the evidence in depth, my ****-o-meter is off the scale with Suarez. He is a very naughty boy.