When will Suarez finally leave Evra alone?
When I first saw the Luis Suarez comments on Twitter yesterday afternoon, I assumed they were taken from an interview months ago “surely even he wouldn’t be THAT stupid” I rather well, ‘stupidly’ thought. It seems every United fans least favourite Uruguayan striker is indeed THAT stupid and “just can’t get enough” of devoting a large section of his thoughts to Patrice Evra.
I’ve written several articles on the subject since that fateful day at Anfield way back in 2011 and have lost count of the number of comments and tweets I’ve received from angry Liverpool fans for my stance on the matter. While I’d love nothing more than to dissect Suarez’s latest ridiculous offering, I came across this superb article by Dale of Stretty News and realised he’d pretty much summed it up perfectly- including my actual opinion on the matter.
Dale wrote:
Luis Suarez has re-opened the race row again, despite being ordered by Liverpool’s representatives not to discuss it.
The Uruguayan admitted to calling Patrice Evra a “negro” during last season’s fixture between Manchester United and Liverpool at Anfield. Throughout the game Suarez and Evra argued constantly which lead to the Liverpool striker losing the plot. Not only did Suarez kick and punch Evra, but he slapped him around the head also.
After being reported to the FA for racially abusing Evra, Suarez argued that he was calling the United left-back a “negro” in a friendly manner, just like he would call his black friends back in his homeland. Once found guilty, Suarez picked up an 8 match ban and a fine worth £40,000.
However, speaking to Uruguayan TV he accused Manchester United of wielding their political power to get him suspended and fined. “Manchester United command the politics of sports in England,” said Suarez. ”You have to accept, there’s no option.”
That wasn’t the only issue Suarez spoke about during his television appearance. He claimed: A) United are the political power in the Premier League. B) The Reds did all they could to get him banned. C) He was the victim in the handshake incident. All Evra’s fault. D) His wife and himself were reduced to tears by the ordeal. E) United fans offered him respect.
Reaction to each point expressed by Luis Suarez
A. Ridiculous claim to make, especially after admitting to calling Evra a “negro.” If Suarez could expand on why he believes this, it might make it easier to argue with but no, he just feels hard done-by. The FA didn’t have any other choice. Racism is not acceptable.
B. Heh, typical Liverpool. Blame everyone but themselves. Maybe, Suarez, if you kept your mouth shut and controlled yourself better on the pitch you wouldn’t have gotten into this situation. Suarez didn’t listen though. Fenway Sports Group told Liverpool FC to stop showing the club up because they finally realised what damage Dalglish and Suarez were doing to the club. He ignored that, unsurprisingly.
C. Like I said above, typical Liverpool. Always the victim, it’s never your fault.
D. Awh, poor Suarez. Bless his cotton socks.
E. Excuse me, what?! United fans never offered Suarez respect. To play as the victim after racially abusing someone is beyond pathetic.
I couldn’t have put it any better myself and think Dale’s article perfectly sums up both the incredulity and weariness many United fans feel towards Suarez and his whole behaviour. The man just won’t leave it alone, and similarly to Glen Johnson a few months ago, seems determined to get his view across and accuse Evra of being the real villain.
I’m tired of it all as I guess most of us are, but like Dale and many other Reds, am not just going to ignore Suarez’s rantings regardless of how preposterous his claims are. Personally I think it’s time the FA acted and put a stop to this whole sorry episode by punishing those players who won’t.
You can read Dale’s article as well as many others on the excellent Stretty News, just click HERE and also follow him on twitter @strettynews
ARTICLE: http://strettynews.com/2012/07/suarez-plays-victim-again-while-re-opening-race-row/
The trouble is, after the verdict in the John Terry trial, Suarez does now look quite hard done by……
He also said ONE United fan asked for his autograph, and added that he respected him as a footballer.
I disagree, Jim. The John Terry case was dealt with by the magistrates court, whereas the FA looked after Suarez themselves.
To say Suarez was dealt with harshly is insane. Racism is a real problem. If you can’t see that, wake up and smell the coffee.
if you read the full report instead of the papers you would agree with suarez saying it was man u clout with the fa that got him banned,nothink to do with fair,what you say about racism is right but when its done with no proof and the fa and kick it out do articles saying he was guilty before the kangaroo court even talked to him thats wrong the tv and papers do you think they were fair read the report then comment,when you read it if it was u in suarezs place then say it was fair.
I respect your point of view, Dale, but Suarez was banned for being “probably guilty” despite there being no video evidence of the allegation, or indeed witnesses.
John Terry, on the other hand, was seen by millions of people mouthing something a lot more offensive than ‘negro’ but has been found Not Guilty (presumably because he was given a lot longer to concoct his “defence”.) The biggest mistake Suarez made was to admit what he said, and he did this because he obviously did not feel it to be a racist term.
The burden of proof is obviously lower for the FA, and I therefore trust there will be similar (if not more punitive) sanctions towards Terry from them. If not, then it does look like Suarez was hung out to dry.
The FA should have use the incident as an opportunity to educate, instead they decided to make an example of a Johnny Foreigner.
Racism IS a real problem. But racism goes both ways, and until people accept that then the problem will always fester.
“When will suarez finally leave evra alone”
Haha ..what a crock of s***
Blaming Evra for the handshake now as well. This guy is incredible. He’s really learnt the Liverpool/king kenny ‘innocent victim’ stance.
Just to clear a couple of things up…
Firstly, Suarez did not admit to calling Evra a “negro”. The English pejorative “negro” and Spanish descriptive noun “negro” are not equivalent. The English descriptive noun “black” and Spanish descriptive noun “negro” are equivalent. Suarez admitted to calling Evra the descriptive noun “black”.
Secondly, Suarez was NOT found guilty of calling Evra the descriptive noun “black”. He was found guilty of Evra’s allegation; calling Evra the pejorative “black” multiple times, an allegation witnessed by nobody and recorded by no cameras and no microphones.
I’m not one for conspiracy theories but suppose somebody was to investigate Suarez’s comments, they wouldn’t have to look far to find a friend of the Ferguson’s sitting on the FA “independent panel” that ruled on the case, the Manchester United Chief Executive sitting on the FA board and the Chairman of Kick-It-Out sitting on the board of the Manchester United foundation.
I read a very interesting article by a professor of linguistics from Browns University, USA. He said the comment Evra alleged Suarez levelled at him, one which Suarez denied, was as follows.
Evra: Why did you foul me?
Suarez: Porque tu res negro
This professor says the comment translates to “because you are black”. He also commented it only translates into ‘european spanish’, this is the same spanish that Evra has learned. A latin american spanish speaker would have said “porque sos negro” the “tu res” part simply isn’t a latin american term and wouldn’t make sense to Suarez.
Taking into account Evras ‘form’ for this type of accusation coupled with this expert analysis, I would think the ‘balance of probabilities’ would suggest Evra perhaps lied…….and got away with it!!
what ‘form’
“We find Mr Evra’s description exaggerated… There was no good reason for Mr Evra to have run over and barged Mr Griffin as he did. It was unnecessarily and gratuitously aggressive of Mr Evra… Mr Evra’s suggestion that he was concerned about Mr Strudwick’s safety is farfetched. They were two grown men having an apparently strong verbal disagreement but no more than that. The clear implication by Mr Evra that Mr Griffin’s pitchfork gave some reason for concern about Mr Strudwick’s safety is ridiculous…We find Mr Evra’s account exaggerated and unreliable. It is an attempt to justify a physical intervention by him which cannot reasonably be justified…”
Funny that the FA report on the Suarez incident notes: Mr McCormick [Suarez’s representative] did not submit that Mr Evra’s evidence should be rejected because he had been shown to be unreliable in making accusations or giving evidence on any other occasion.
Do you remember that Phelan accused Bethell of racially abusing Evra and Evra admitted he didn’t hear it. Just as he did when Finnan was accused by deaf fans of calling Evra a racist name.
The report on the Stamford Bridge incident that you quoted, notes:
It is after the first altercation between Mr Bethell and Mr Evra that Mr Bethell is alleged to have shouted at Mr Evra “I’ll ******* have you, you ******* 12 immigrant” – an allegation which Mr Bethell has consistently and vehemently denied.
39. The two witnesses who say they heard those words directed by Mr Bethell at Mr Evra are the Manchester United first team coach Mr Mike Phelan and the goalkeeping coach Mr Richard Hartis.
There is some confusion and inconsistency in their placing of the alleged racist insult. We should not have expected complete detailed accuracy and consistency in witnesses’ recollections of a fast-moving disorderly series of events. However, there are aspects of the evidence of Mr Phelan and Mr Hartis which raise serious questions about the reliability of their claims about the racist remark.
The later on in the report: Even if we disregard the fact that Mr Evra has never claimed to have heard such a remark on that day.
Then the Finnan case:
The Guardian: A police investigation has been launched after deaf football fans complained they had lip-read Liverpool’s Steve Finnan making a racist remark towards Patrice Evra of Manchester United.
The Merseyside club immediately denounced the claim as an “outrageous slur” but Greater Manchester police confirmed last night that inquiries are ongoing into allegations that the Liverpool full-back “made an offensive comment” during last month’s 1-0 defeat at Old Trafford.
It is understood that the alleged remark was picked up by fans watching the game on television. Two contacted the police, as well as Manchester United, and claimed they had lip-read what the Republic of Ireland international apparently said. Police are understood to have taken statements and to be reviewing footage of the game.
The revelations drew an angry response from Anfield. “The first either the club or the player knew about this matter was through the media,” a spokesman said. “There has been absolutely no contact from the Greater Manchester police. We have subsequently had a video of the match analysed by a lip-reader, who has told us there is nothing to support this outrageous slur.”
The incident allegedly happened after Finnan had given away the stoppage-time free-kick on Evra that led to Rio Ferdinand heading the decisive goal. Evra, however, was unaware of any racist taunts. The Senegal-born Frenchman, a £5.5m signing from Monaco in January, has not raised any complaints although he is aware of the allegations.
The key phrase here: The Senegal-born Frenchman, a £5.5m signing from Monaco in January, has not raised any complaints although he is aware of the allegations.
Evra has twice been asked if he heard racist taunts against him others may have and he has twice admitted he hadn’t. Yet according to Liverpool fans he made up the allegations against Suarez.
You mention Evra being unreliable yet the actual FA report of the incident with Suarez notes:
The discrepancies between what Mr Dalglish and Mr Comolli reported to the referee on the one hand, and Mr Suarez’s evidence as to what he said on the other hand, have not been satisfactorily explained.
According to Mr Suarez, Mr Comolli misheard what Mr Suarez said in Spanish, and Mr Kuyt misheard what Mr Suarez said in Dutch.
Later on: Mr Suarez claimed that when he used the word “negro” in speaking to Mr Evra, he was doing so in a conciliatory and friendly way.
The FA note: In our judgment, Mr Suarez’s use of the term was not intended as an attempt at conciliation or to establish rapport; neither was it meant in a conciliatory and friendly way. It was not explained by any feeling on Mr Suarez’s part that a linguistic or cultural relationship had been established between them or that the context was one of informal social relations. The video footage, when viewed in detail and when looked at as a whole, shows that the players continued their animosity throughout this incident. Their hostility is shown in their actions and demeanour before, at the moment of, and after Mr Suarez’s admitted use of the word.
The FA report notes: We found Mr Evra to be an impressive witness. He gave his evidence to us in a calm, composed and clear manner….Mr Evra also demonstrated a measure of balance in his evidence.
Suarez was found to be lying during the hearing: Having said in his witness statement that he was trying to defuse the situation when he touched Mr Evra’s left arm in a “pinching type movement”, Mr Suarez eventually answered, after persistent questioning, that he was not trying to calm down the situation by doing so.
And later on: This was one example of where Mr Suarez’s witness statement was demonstrated to be inconsistent with the facts as shown in the video footage. No satisfactory explanation was given for this inconsistency.
The suggestion that he behaved towards Mr Evra at this time in a conciliatory and friendly way, or intended to do so in using the word “negro”, is, in our judgment, simply not credible.
We found Mr Suarez, in contrast [to Evra], to be an unreliable witness on critical parts of his evidence. His evidence was inconsistent with contemporaneous evidence in the form of video footage, especially with regard to his claims of pinching as an attempt to defuse the situation, and using the word “negro” in a conciliatory and friendly way. He changed his account over time in a number of respects.
Personally i don’t think Fergie wanted anything to do with it. Not sure why everyone brings him into it.
If Fergie didn’t want anything to do with it, he would have refused to accompany Evra to Marriner’s office to make his allegation.
I guess he had to be seen to do the right thing by his player & his club. It’s a no win situation for him.
Yes, well lets see how many games Ferdinand gets banned for after racially abusing Ashley Cole on twitter?
United and Ferguson are complete hypocrites. Where was the moral crusader when Peter Schmeichel racially abused Ian Wright?
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/ferguson-stands-up-for-schmeichel-1280049.html
Selective memories as per usual
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-peace-breaks-out-in-wright-feud-1266505.html
Can’t fault you for your research.
So Ferdinand abused Cole now then?
Ferdinand laughed at a comment posted by a different user…… Though that action itself is still not exactly correct behaviour, & his “fake” excuse is pretty shite.
Twatter users clearly should think a little when putting their thoughts into the public domain.
Glen Johnson was subjected to much the same kind of shite after he CHOSE to wear a Suarez T-shirt. He was called an “Uncle Tom” for standing by his team-mate.
A certain Paul McGrath even argued that Johnson should have refused to wear the T-shirt purely because of his colour, which is inherently racist in itself. And this, remember, is the same Paul McGrath who excused Ron “Coons V The Rest” Atkinson for being ‘Old School’.
There has been far too much rhetoric over this incident. Far too many people with agendas and axes to grind have been allowed their forum.
Like I said, racism works both ways, and we shouldn’t have let the Man U v LFC crap shroud, what in effect was a vexatious complaint from someone who could dish it out, but then couldn’t take it. We should also not let the hatred between 2 sets of fans shroud the simple fact that Suarez was tried by the media and an FA desperate to get back at Blatter.
Fu@k off Dale, u r a t€at….
It was all politics. Suarez was banned for calling a player “black”
Man United players sling homophobic slang on twitter, “Rio Ferdy” essentially calls Ashely Cole an “Uncle Tom” or “Race Traitor” as did Pia Parawar or whatever his name is.
These are fans, and I’m a freaking STOKE fan. Imagine the bullshit I’ve seen…
If I were Saurez, I would have examine myself closely before raining abuse on others. Saurez is the most ugly creature I ‘ve ever seen with his tooth like caterpillar. I can’t imaging him Saurez calling Evra a negro. He should take a look @ his ugly and long head with bulldozer tooth like monsters.
Sorry, “Prince”, but that juvenile comment does the debate no good. It doesn’t matter what Suarez looks like, and nor should it.
I could take a pop at Rio saying he looks like a certain character from The Bash Street Kids, but that would be infantile and pointless.
He does appear to have a cleft-palate though……..
And if you think that telling a black man that he is, well, black is RAINING ABUSE then you have led a very sheltered life.
Let’s be honest here. Suarez was stitched up. He’s no angel but Joe’s comment above tells you everything you need to know.
Look at the Terry case. Video of incident and gets off scot-free. Suarez banned despite no hard evidence.
Rio’s was worse also yet nothing will come from it.
I’m not saying Suarez was completely innocent but he is spot on saying that politics played a HUGE part in the ban!
How was Rio’s worse?
England fa bad take a look at what terry did to ferdinad brother and cuort grant an inocent,just bc is an england.okay why punish suare to that extend.fa shu tell people differ btw negro &black cat.