Did Suarez agree to shake Evra's hand but when it came to it, he actually couldn't go through with it?
---------------------------
It's possible. But I believe it's unlikely. If that was the case, then why didn't Suarez made any reference to this being the case when he made his apology? If that was the case, then we'd have to assume that Suarez would have told this to Dalglish and/or a club official. So why didn't for example Ayre make any reference to it, instead simply saying in his public statement that Suarez was "wrong to mislead us"? After all, this possibility is certainly understandable given the circumstances, and it's one that wouldn't exactly result in Suarez looking worse than he does at present. At the very least it would mean that Suarez hadn't intended to mislead the club - which was the exact criticism aimed towards him publicly by Ayre - so if this was the case, then I would have thought that it would have been made abundantly clear. On the contrary, it hasn't even been alluded to by Suarez, Dalglish, or the club itself in the statements released in the last few days.
To be honest, I think you're just defending Suarez for the sake of defending him. It's admirable, because that's what fans do when it comes to their players, but you have to ask yourself, when club officials start being critical of their players then something clearly doesn't add up. Furthermore, when Dalglish comes out after the game and states that Suarez refusing to shake Evra's hand is contrary to what he (Dalglish) had heard, then something doesn't add up. Even after the incident itself someone has mislead Dalglish. Who is the most likely person to have done that?
My money would be on Suarez.
comment by X (U4074)
posted 13 seconds ago
So by that logic if Gerrard called Milner a white $#!T he would also get banned for 8 games and should he refuse to shake hands with Milner at a later date, the media would similarly sensationalise the incident? x
--------------------------
Well actually that would be racial abuse as Gerrard would have used a derogative in relation to race.
Elvis
Evra is guilty of breaking the rules too, why was he let off?
I'm just pointing out the ludicrous nature that suggesting the n word and negro are the same, one meaning black, the other a word to spread the hate of a race for centuries. Frankly I find that suggestion very offensive x
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 17 seconds ago
Did Suarez agree to shake Evra's hand but when it came to it, he actually couldn't go through with it?
---------------------------
It's possible. But I believe it's unlikely. If that was the case, then why didn't Suarez made any reference to this being the case when he made his apology? I
---------------------------------------
I imagine due to receiving a stern telling off and being told to issue an apology.
So by that logic if Gerrard called Milner a white $#!T he would also get banned for 8 games and should he refuse to shake hands with Milner at a later date, the media would similarly sensationalise the incident? x
------------
No not at all, because being called black is a bad thing, but being called white isn't a bad thing.
Or something.
That's not racist is it, no of course not.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
What is this stuff I throw at Evra that may be wrong?
-------------------------------------------
The old history of playing the race card. Even though he has never done it.
Beleiving that he is unreliable as judged by the FA, but not accepting the same of Evra.
Beleiving that he couldnt have made an honest mistake about the n word and that he had to be lying. Yet ignoring the fact that Kuyt and Camolli had to change their evidence to fit Suarez's altered version of events.
You seem very blinkered. Just an honest opinion.
comment by BillyBobTaunton (U4886)
Elvis
Evra is guilty of breaking the rules too, why was he let off?
--------------------------------
Because he plays for Manchester United. Duuurrrr.
Got to get back to work. Play nicely now.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
What is this stuff I throw at Evra that may be wrong?
-------------------------------------------
The old history of playing the race card. Even though he has never done it.
------------------------------------------
He has done it, I thought |I already explained that. Monkey grovelling before the white man and all that, remember?
"Beleiving that he is unreliable as judged by the FA, but not accepting the same of Suarez."
No. I accepted already that both Suarez AND Evra were unreliable. Again wrong.
"Beleiving that he couldnt have made an honest mistake about the n word and that he had to be lying."
Yeah right.
"Yet ignoring the fact that Kuyt and Camolli had to change their evidence to fit Suarez's altered version of events. "
No they didn't.
You seem very blinkered in all this.
Can you answer my question. What is this punishment you say players receive when the mention skin colour? Why didn't Suarez receive this punishment instead of abuse and racial abuse. What is the ban for it?
I imagine due to receiving a stern telling off and being told to issue an apology.
-------------------
That doesn't at all answer my question.
"Yet ignoring the fact that Kuyt and Camolli had to change their evidence to fit Suarez's altered version of events. "
No they didn't.
right you are blinkered, and when is this infamous line gonna get drawn?
your club have been humbled now.
Your manager apologised.
the lying convicted racial abuser apologised.
you GM apologised.
deal with it. move on.
You asked why he didn't mention this in his apology? What I mean is, that he was told to apologise and told what to say. I doubt he meant any of it, nor even wanted to apologise. I doubt anything in this apology was his true feelings on the matter. We saw on video his true feelings.
thats why Suarez is gutter trash.
your player, not my problem.
good luck to you the minority defending him.
People are getting bogged down by stupid arguments, like whether he said 1, 2 or 10 times.
What does it matter how many times it was? Once is enough surely. Its still racism if you do it once or 10 times. There's no denying that.
Keep defending the imbecile. It's just pure comedy.
What does it matter how many times it was? Once is enough surely. Its still racism if you do it once or 10 times. There's no denying that.
______________________________
It's not racism. It's ignorance at best and racial abuse at worst. Massive difference.
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 1 minute ago
People are getting bogged down by stupid arguments, like whether he said 1, 2 or 10 times.
What does it matter how many times it was? Once is enough surely. Its still racism if you do it once or 10 times. There's no denying that.
Keep defending the imbecile. It's just pure comedy.
-------------------------------------
It matters a lot. This is why the FA said they banned him because he said it 7 times. It matters a lot because it showed Evra lied not only about this but about what Suarez said to him, twice. He lied when he said Suarez said 'n*g*er' and he lied when he said Suarez said 'because you are black' which in the way Evra said it would have been impossible for a native Spanish speaker to say.
So it matters because it makes Evra once again unreliable and therefore, Suarez cannot be found guilty on his evidence. However of course the panel already had their guilty verdict, so this mattered not.
I admit that when the story first broke I thought to myself "Evra up to his old tricks again". He'd done it twice before (the incident at Chelsea, and another time when he was playing in France), so I just assumed he was doing it again.
But, I think that the evidence is pretty conclusive that he was right in his accusation of Suarez; not only did Suarez admit to it, but even the man who lead the adjudication panel claimed that his was one of the weakest, most baffling defences he'd ever heard.
Evra is a bit of a prat, but that doesn't therefore mean he was wrong in this instance. Just a case of boy crying wolf, I suppose.
comment by che_don_john (U4280)
posted 2 minutes ago
I admit that when the story first broke I thought to myself "Evra up to his old tricks again". He'd done it twice before (the incident at Chelsea, and another time when he was playing in France), so I just assumed he was doing it again.
But, I think that the evidence is pretty conclusive that he was right in his accusation of Suarez; not only did Suarez admit to it, but even the man who lead the adjudication panel claimed that his was one of the weakest, most baffling defences he'd ever heard.
Evra is a bit of a prat, but that doesn't therefore mean he was wrong in this instance. Just a case of boy crying wolf, I suppose.
---------------------------------
Evra didn't accuse Chelsea of racism, he only gave evidence for it.
Suarez admitted to saying 'why, black' not to racially abusing anybody. Why can't people get this into their heads? Are the media saying he admitted to something else?
TOOR.
If this was reversed and it was a LFC player being abused would you defend the racist as you have done here?
"I doubt he meant any of it, nor even wanted to apologise. I doubt anything in this apology was his true feelings on the matter"
This comment surprises me. You doubt anything in Suarez' apology are his true feelings. So you doubt his true feelings do not only extend to regretting anything that he did, but also his true feelings do not extend to letting Dalglish down, or the club itself.
After all, those are the people to whom his apology is directed.
In short, his apology and everything contained within it means jack to Suarez. That's your view - one which paints Suarez as a person who's true feelings don't extend to any contrition towards his manager, and employers at Liverpool, and by association, the fans. A person who only says such things because he's been forced to do so.
That really does beg the question, why on earth would you want such a person anywhere near your club?
comment by Fellaini's pirouette to perfection (U1308)
posted 2 seconds ago
TOOR.
If this was reversed and it was a LFC player being abused would you defend the racist as you have done here?
-------------------------------------------
You're missing the point here. If this was how it is now but Suarez abused Evra, I'd not be defending him. However there has been no evidence that he did racially abuse him.
Suarez admitted to saying 'why, black' not to racially abusing anybody. Why can't people get this into their heads? Are the media saying he admitted to something else?
---------------------------------
can you not see that referring to someone by their colour and not their name is, in itself, racist?
bearing in mind that the person saying it was mid argument with the person he is referring to, it's even moreso.
TOOR,
Lets not forget he nipped (and admitted to it) Evra to relieve the tension!
He is proven guilty, if he is so adamant that he is innocent why not take a trip to the CAS and at least get your name cleared?
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 52 seconds ago
"I doubt he meant any of it, nor even wanted to apologise. I doubt anything in this apology was his true feelings on the matter"
This comment surprises me. You doubt anything in Suarez' apology are his true feelings. So you doubt his true feelings do not only extend to regretting anything that he did, but also his true feelings do not extend to letting Dalglish down, or the club itself.
------------------------------
Correct.
--------------------------------
In short, his apology and everything contained within it means jack to Suarez. That's your view - one which paints Suarez as a person who's true feelings don't extend to any contrition towards his manager, and employers at Liverpool, and by association, the fans. A person who only says such things because he's been forced to do so.
---------------------------------------------
Not entirely correct. I feel the owners stepped in and due to the recent PR failures and criticism of the club decided that Suarez would issue an apology and as an employee of the club he obeyed it.
--------------------------------------------
That really does beg the question, why on earth would you want such a person anywhere near your club?
--------------------------------
Such a person? A person who obeyed his employees after being criticised for not obeying them in shaking Evra's hand? I hardly think this is a big deal, just it has been made into one. Certainly not reason enough to doubt whether a player should be at the club. I mean he didn't go AWOL, refuse to come off the bench, or throw darts at youth team members, he simply refused to shake the hand of a man he doesn't like. He was wrong in misleading the club and this has been addressed and this is apparent by them forcing him to issue an apology, which he has done. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned.
Sign in if you want to comment
Evra
Page 7 of 16
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
posted on 14/2/12
Did Suarez agree to shake Evra's hand but when it came to it, he actually couldn't go through with it?
---------------------------
It's possible. But I believe it's unlikely. If that was the case, then why didn't Suarez made any reference to this being the case when he made his apology? If that was the case, then we'd have to assume that Suarez would have told this to Dalglish and/or a club official. So why didn't for example Ayre make any reference to it, instead simply saying in his public statement that Suarez was "wrong to mislead us"? After all, this possibility is certainly understandable given the circumstances, and it's one that wouldn't exactly result in Suarez looking worse than he does at present. At the very least it would mean that Suarez hadn't intended to mislead the club - which was the exact criticism aimed towards him publicly by Ayre - so if this was the case, then I would have thought that it would have been made abundantly clear. On the contrary, it hasn't even been alluded to by Suarez, Dalglish, or the club itself in the statements released in the last few days.
To be honest, I think you're just defending Suarez for the sake of defending him. It's admirable, because that's what fans do when it comes to their players, but you have to ask yourself, when club officials start being critical of their players then something clearly doesn't add up. Furthermore, when Dalglish comes out after the game and states that Suarez refusing to shake Evra's hand is contrary to what he (Dalglish) had heard, then something doesn't add up. Even after the incident itself someone has mislead Dalglish. Who is the most likely person to have done that?
My money would be on Suarez.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by X (U4074)
posted 13 seconds ago
So by that logic if Gerrard called Milner a white $#!T he would also get banned for 8 games and should he refuse to shake hands with Milner at a later date, the media would similarly sensationalise the incident? x
--------------------------
Well actually that would be racial abuse as Gerrard would have used a derogative in relation to race.
posted on 14/2/12
Elvis
Evra is guilty of breaking the rules too, why was he let off?
posted on 14/2/12
I'm just pointing out the ludicrous nature that suggesting the n word and negro are the same, one meaning black, the other a word to spread the hate of a race for centuries. Frankly I find that suggestion very offensive x
posted on 14/2/12
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 17 seconds ago
Did Suarez agree to shake Evra's hand but when it came to it, he actually couldn't go through with it?
---------------------------
It's possible. But I believe it's unlikely. If that was the case, then why didn't Suarez made any reference to this being the case when he made his apology? I
---------------------------------------
I imagine due to receiving a stern telling off and being told to issue an apology.
posted on 14/2/12
So by that logic if Gerrard called Milner a white $#!T he would also get banned for 8 games and should he refuse to shake hands with Milner at a later date, the media would similarly sensationalise the incident? x
------------
No not at all, because being called black is a bad thing, but being called white isn't a bad thing.
Or something.
That's not racist is it, no of course not.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
What is this stuff I throw at Evra that may be wrong?
-------------------------------------------
The old history of playing the race card. Even though he has never done it.
Beleiving that he is unreliable as judged by the FA, but not accepting the same of Evra.
Beleiving that he couldnt have made an honest mistake about the n word and that he had to be lying. Yet ignoring the fact that Kuyt and Camolli had to change their evidence to fit Suarez's altered version of events.
You seem very blinkered. Just an honest opinion.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by BillyBobTaunton (U4886)
Elvis
Evra is guilty of breaking the rules too, why was he let off?
--------------------------------
Because he plays for Manchester United. Duuurrrr.
posted on 14/2/12
Got to get back to work. Play nicely now.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
What is this stuff I throw at Evra that may be wrong?
-------------------------------------------
The old history of playing the race card. Even though he has never done it.
------------------------------------------
He has done it, I thought |I already explained that. Monkey grovelling before the white man and all that, remember?
"Beleiving that he is unreliable as judged by the FA, but not accepting the same of Suarez."
No. I accepted already that both Suarez AND Evra were unreliable. Again wrong.
"Beleiving that he couldnt have made an honest mistake about the n word and that he had to be lying."
Yeah right.
"Yet ignoring the fact that Kuyt and Camolli had to change their evidence to fit Suarez's altered version of events. "
No they didn't.
You seem very blinkered in all this.
Can you answer my question. What is this punishment you say players receive when the mention skin colour? Why didn't Suarez receive this punishment instead of abuse and racial abuse. What is the ban for it?
posted on 14/2/12
I imagine due to receiving a stern telling off and being told to issue an apology.
-------------------
That doesn't at all answer my question.
posted on 14/2/12
"Yet ignoring the fact that Kuyt and Camolli had to change their evidence to fit Suarez's altered version of events. "
No they didn't.
right you are blinkered, and when is this infamous line gonna get drawn?
your club have been humbled now.
Your manager apologised.
the lying convicted racial abuser apologised.
you GM apologised.
deal with it. move on.
posted on 14/2/12
You asked why he didn't mention this in his apology? What I mean is, that he was told to apologise and told what to say. I doubt he meant any of it, nor even wanted to apologise. I doubt anything in this apology was his true feelings on the matter. We saw on video his true feelings.
posted on 14/2/12
thats why Suarez is gutter trash.
your player, not my problem.
good luck to you the minority defending him.
posted on 14/2/12
People are getting bogged down by stupid arguments, like whether he said 1, 2 or 10 times.
What does it matter how many times it was? Once is enough surely. Its still racism if you do it once or 10 times. There's no denying that.
Keep defending the imbecile. It's just pure comedy.
posted on 14/2/12
What does it matter how many times it was? Once is enough surely. Its still racism if you do it once or 10 times. There's no denying that.
______________________________
It's not racism. It's ignorance at best and racial abuse at worst. Massive difference.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 1 minute ago
People are getting bogged down by stupid arguments, like whether he said 1, 2 or 10 times.
What does it matter how many times it was? Once is enough surely. Its still racism if you do it once or 10 times. There's no denying that.
Keep defending the imbecile. It's just pure comedy.
-------------------------------------
It matters a lot. This is why the FA said they banned him because he said it 7 times. It matters a lot because it showed Evra lied not only about this but about what Suarez said to him, twice. He lied when he said Suarez said 'n*g*er' and he lied when he said Suarez said 'because you are black' which in the way Evra said it would have been impossible for a native Spanish speaker to say.
So it matters because it makes Evra once again unreliable and therefore, Suarez cannot be found guilty on his evidence. However of course the panel already had their guilty verdict, so this mattered not.
posted on 14/2/12
I admit that when the story first broke I thought to myself "Evra up to his old tricks again". He'd done it twice before (the incident at Chelsea, and another time when he was playing in France), so I just assumed he was doing it again.
But, I think that the evidence is pretty conclusive that he was right in his accusation of Suarez; not only did Suarez admit to it, but even the man who lead the adjudication panel claimed that his was one of the weakest, most baffling defences he'd ever heard.
Evra is a bit of a prat, but that doesn't therefore mean he was wrong in this instance. Just a case of boy crying wolf, I suppose.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by che_don_john (U4280)
posted 2 minutes ago
I admit that when the story first broke I thought to myself "Evra up to his old tricks again". He'd done it twice before (the incident at Chelsea, and another time when he was playing in France), so I just assumed he was doing it again.
But, I think that the evidence is pretty conclusive that he was right in his accusation of Suarez; not only did Suarez admit to it, but even the man who lead the adjudication panel claimed that his was one of the weakest, most baffling defences he'd ever heard.
Evra is a bit of a prat, but that doesn't therefore mean he was wrong in this instance. Just a case of boy crying wolf, I suppose.
---------------------------------
Evra didn't accuse Chelsea of racism, he only gave evidence for it.
Suarez admitted to saying 'why, black' not to racially abusing anybody. Why can't people get this into their heads? Are the media saying he admitted to something else?
posted on 14/2/12
TOOR.
If this was reversed and it was a LFC player being abused would you defend the racist as you have done here?
posted on 14/2/12
"I doubt he meant any of it, nor even wanted to apologise. I doubt anything in this apology was his true feelings on the matter"
This comment surprises me. You doubt anything in Suarez' apology are his true feelings. So you doubt his true feelings do not only extend to regretting anything that he did, but also his true feelings do not extend to letting Dalglish down, or the club itself.
After all, those are the people to whom his apology is directed.
In short, his apology and everything contained within it means jack to Suarez. That's your view - one which paints Suarez as a person who's true feelings don't extend to any contrition towards his manager, and employers at Liverpool, and by association, the fans. A person who only says such things because he's been forced to do so.
That really does beg the question, why on earth would you want such a person anywhere near your club?
posted on 14/2/12
comment by Fellaini's pirouette to perfection (U1308)
posted 2 seconds ago
TOOR.
If this was reversed and it was a LFC player being abused would you defend the racist as you have done here?
-------------------------------------------
You're missing the point here. If this was how it is now but Suarez abused Evra, I'd not be defending him. However there has been no evidence that he did racially abuse him.
posted on 14/2/12
Suarez admitted to saying 'why, black' not to racially abusing anybody. Why can't people get this into their heads? Are the media saying he admitted to something else?
---------------------------------
can you not see that referring to someone by their colour and not their name is, in itself, racist?
bearing in mind that the person saying it was mid argument with the person he is referring to, it's even moreso.
posted on 14/2/12
TOOR,
Lets not forget he nipped (and admitted to it) Evra to relieve the tension!
He is proven guilty, if he is so adamant that he is innocent why not take a trip to the CAS and at least get your name cleared?
posted on 14/2/12
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 52 seconds ago
"I doubt he meant any of it, nor even wanted to apologise. I doubt anything in this apology was his true feelings on the matter"
This comment surprises me. You doubt anything in Suarez' apology are his true feelings. So you doubt his true feelings do not only extend to regretting anything that he did, but also his true feelings do not extend to letting Dalglish down, or the club itself.
------------------------------
Correct.
--------------------------------
In short, his apology and everything contained within it means jack to Suarez. That's your view - one which paints Suarez as a person who's true feelings don't extend to any contrition towards his manager, and employers at Liverpool, and by association, the fans. A person who only says such things because he's been forced to do so.
---------------------------------------------
Not entirely correct. I feel the owners stepped in and due to the recent PR failures and criticism of the club decided that Suarez would issue an apology and as an employee of the club he obeyed it.
--------------------------------------------
That really does beg the question, why on earth would you want such a person anywhere near your club?
--------------------------------
Such a person? A person who obeyed his employees after being criticised for not obeying them in shaking Evra's hand? I hardly think this is a big deal, just it has been made into one. Certainly not reason enough to doubt whether a player should be at the club. I mean he didn't go AWOL, refuse to come off the bench, or throw darts at youth team members, he simply refused to shake the hand of a man he doesn't like. He was wrong in misleading the club and this has been addressed and this is apparent by them forcing him to issue an apology, which he has done. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned.
Page 7 of 16
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12