The FA panel also said that Suarez kicked Evra in the knee in the penalty box which was supposedly the start of the whole thing - yet there was no kick and this is quite clear in the video. If they can't get the basics right why should we have faith they could get anything more subjective right.

How?

------

Do you even have to ask... Terry has just been proven innoncent in an actual court of law, so what justification would the fa have of charging him with racial abuse? He'd appeal, take them to court and have another field day.

Defoe bit an opponent. It's unusual behaviour but it doesn't make you despicable just an idiot. I think those players who go out to break someones leg are more in the despicable bracket.

The FA have to act on the foul and abusive language charge and bringing the game into disrepute or why bother having any rules.

Why can everybody except Liverpool fans see that the two cases are absolutely nothing alike?

VC

Are you saying that Evra claiming to have been racially abused 10, then 7, then 5, then settling on 7 again, times is not him lying?

It's not as if Suarez asked him the time on numerous occasions and Evra forgot, as it wasn't important.

Or perhaps Evra claiming to have been called a n****r wasn't him lying?

Or maybe Evra claiming that he hates that particular word, and never uses it. Despite You Tube footage showing him using that word, is not Evra lying?

Why the panel decided that Evra's testimony was reliable, despite changing his version of events more than once, is beyond us. Especially considering they cited the inaccuracies in Suarez' testimony as one of the reasons for reaching their decision.

I don't really know why people give a monkey's about the Terry case other than Chelsea and their london rivals.

He's an ar£e. Yawn.

so what justification would the fa have of charging him with racial abuse? He'd appeal, take them to court and have another field day.

.........................

This is what the FA would charge him under, which is completely different to what he was charged under in the Civl Case.

Rule E3(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."
"In the event of any breach of Rule E3(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 consider the imposition of an increased sanction."

............................


However, if I were a betting man, I would bet on the FA sweeping this under the carpet.

VC - when you made up that list, which player's name was in the frame for having been spit at by Suarez? I'm sure you couldn't have been making it up could you. Find the player he spit at and I will retract my statement.

Suarez bit his opponent when their was a break in play and they were stood next door to each other.He threw his head forward and bit down into his shoulder.I've never seen anything like that before from a grown man.He was animal like in his actions

comment by red_man23 (U1669)
posted 5 minutes ago
VC

Are you saying that Evra claiming to have been racially abused 10, then 7, then 5, then settling on 7 again, times is not him lying?

..............................

Do you think it matters how many times Suarez abused him?

This is the bit you purposely skipped over in the report. I don't blame you , but good try anyway.

....................

The report concludes: "Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and clear way.

"It was, for the most part, consistent, although both he and Mr Suarez were understandably unable to remember every detail of the exchanges between them.

jb

it was on a youtube clip on Batmanus article that I earlier refered.

No idea who the player was.

I will try and find Batmanu's article.

VC

Seriously, it's not about the amount of times the racist abuse was allegedly used. You know it isn't. It's the fact that the accuser chopped and changed his story on numerous occasions. He also changed what was said.

This then brings into question Evra's testimony. If he couldn't recall how many times he was apparently abused. You have to question whether the allegation he has made is true.

You skipped past the other points I made, was Evra lying or not?

Of course Evra's testimony was calm, composed and clear. He was the accuser, could give his testimony in English, and had the benefit of testifying whilst watching a video of the incident.

It's the fact that the accuser chopped and changed his story on numerous occasions.

....................

He didn't though. I think this is something you guys have kept telling yourself.

ONE MORE TIME:

The report concludes: "Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and clear way.

"It was, for the most part, consistent, although both he and Mr Suarez were understandably unable to remember every detail of the exchanges between them.

"Mr Suarez's evidence was unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance. It was, in part, inconsistent with the evidence, especially the video footage.

..................

Suarez was the one who kept changing his story. It is in black and white for you.

Once you come out of the dark and see the light, all will be fine.

arise Sir Metro

this is the best article of the year

your report is both accurate and damning

if only you could send this as an e-mail to the press / sky /FA

It makes a mockery of how Suarez was treated

No idea who the player was
-----------------
Trotting out other people's information without having a clue what you're talking about isn't a good technique in debate situations. I could claim anything that I once heard at any time but it makes me look a bit suspect when questioned as to who, what, why etc. If you don't know the details why use it at all.

I have to go now guys have a good weekend.

VC - on the plus side I agree with all that you've said about the Terry case

VC

Ok one last time, lets see if we can prise an answer out of you.

Are you saying that Evra claiming to have been racially abused 10, then 7, then 5, then settling on 7 again, times is not him lying?

It's not as if Suarez asked him the time on numerous occasions and Evra forgot, as it wasn't important.

Or perhaps Evra claiming to have been called a n****r wasn't him lying?

Or maybe Evra claiming that he hates that particular word, and never uses it. Despite You Tube footage showing him using that word, is not Evra lying?

Are you saying that in the above instances Evra was not lying?

Can't understand your argument about how many times he said it. Once is still enough to be guilty of racial abuse.

Suarez was guilty! The end!

POTN

It's not about the amount of times it was said. It's about whether Evra lied when giving his testimony, and speaking to the ref, and the French press, after the match.

Speaking in the aftermath of the match means nothing, emotions running high.

It was the same story, minor detail of the amount of times that means nothing, if he said it any number of times it's still wrong. Can't see how you can justify it in that?

I haven't mentioned whether anything that Suarez did was right or wrong.

You're saying that Evra not being able to recall the amount of times he was racially abused 'means nothing'?

The report concludes: "Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and clear way.
.......

This part is ridiculous. Suarez is the one being accused so Evra had nothing to worry about. Why would he not be calm?

I was never never bothered about the count discrepancies.

It was the repeated lies that he was called nig3er that really wound me up. That word turned the whole incident into a circus with a guaranteed charge.

Then he just admitted he lied about it later and walked away with the damage done.