FA report on Suarez / Evra spat.

[Gromit]

379. We accepted Mr Evra's account of these exchanges. The principal reasons for doing so were the following. First, Mr Evra was a credible witness whose evidence was not seriously undermined in any material respect, as explained above. Secondly, we found Mr Suarez, in contrast, to be an unreliable witness on critical parts of his evidence.

http://www.thefa.com/...ory%20Commission.ashx

[Philtaz]

7 times he used 'the word' in 2 minutes, according to unseen tv footage.

I wonder what T-shirts Kenny will tell his players to wear in their next game?

[Philtaz]

Thought the Mickey Mousers would have been on here by now defending King Kenny's stance and that of the club.

I can only guess that player, manager, club and fans are too busy digesting the FA report.....

[pa___ul3]

"First, Mr Evra was a credible witness"... his statement said Suarez responded to "why did you kick me?" with "Porque tu eres ***", a phrase which would not be used by Suarez or any Argentian / Uruguayan as the conjugate the verb Ser differently, Suarez would have said "Porque (vos) sos ***".
Strikes me that Mr Evra is perhaps not as credible as the FA are making out, we'll see if that's taken into consideration though!

[Philtaz]

I guess the FA, lip-reading and linguistics experts deemed Evra far more credible and honest than Suarez.

Odd that.

[pa___ul3]

I guess the FA's linguistics "expert" needs a new job if they didn't pick up on that!
This has been backed up by a Professor of Hispanic Studies from Montevideo and something even I was confused about having a decent knowledge of Spanish and having met a couple of Argenitians and Uruguayans in my time.
There's a lot that's odd with this case!

[Philtaz]

They must have become confused, having heard/seen the word '***' mouthed so many times during the altercation, I guess....

I don't see anything that 'odd' with the case. Suarez supposedly admitted using the word but became vague when asked about his re-collection as to the alleged repeated use of it.

[pa___ul3]

so it doesn't seem odd that what Suarez was reported to have said is not something someone from that part of the world would say?
It doesn't seem odd that the FA are deciding to charge Suarez claiming that Evra's evidence was not seriously undermined in any way despite this?
He has admitted to using the word but as we know, whether Suarez is racist or not depends on the context.
In such incidents I'd be more wary of someone whose recollection of events was so thorough! I can barely piece together the events, in any kind of order, of my last game of rugby, certainly not the things I casually said to any opponents.
I suppose, though, when there's an agenda, such things can be ignored!

[Philtaz]

He has admitted to using the word but as we know, whether Suarez is racist or not depends on the context.
-------------------
The words " I don't speak to negros" sounds pretty damning to me.

How does it sound to you?

[pa___ul3]

and they're words that he has admitted using? or are they words that the ever so trustworthy Patrice Evra has claimed he has used?
Funny how "Don't touch me Sudaco" doesn't get any punishment at all even though both parties have admitted that phrase was used....but no, no agenda here!

[Davethedog]

Didn't the report say something along the lines of " understandbly both men could repeat ver batim what was said"?

So you can forget the use of the word 7 times to concentrate on one sentence in Spanish repeated by a French speaker?

[Philtaz]

In such incidents I'd be more wary of someone whose recollection of events was so thorough! I can barely piece together the events, in any kind of order, of my last game of rugby, certainly not the things I casually said to any opponents.
I suppose, though, when there's an agenda, such things can be ignored
-----------------------
Perhaps you'd re-collect things said to you in a certain match if you believed they'd been aimed at you in a racist manner, as it would appear(and more importantly the FA believe) Evra did.

[pa___ul3]

Dave, the only time Suarez has said he used the word was during this goalmouth altercation when the context is everything... por qué means why, porque means because, if the charge is being based on the interpretation of whether it was porqué or por que then the rest of the sentence must be considered also. If Evra has mistakenly quoted Suarez as saying 'tu eres' then he could have equally mistaken Suarez as saying porque. Given that the statement in the OP claims 'Evra was a credible witness whose evidence was not seriously undermined', when his evidence is seriously undermined by claiming he said "tu eres" when he wouldn't have.
Which then leads you to ask why he would claim he said "tu eres"; because he's making it up to sound like that's what Suarez meant? Perhaps.
The point is, Evra's word ceases to be as valid as the FA are making out in this instance so how can they give it so much value?

[pa___ul3]

"Perhaps you'd re-collect things said to you in a certain match if you believed they'd been aimed at you in a racist manner, as it would appear(and more importantly the FA believe) Evra did."
Then how did he get it so wrong by claiming Suarez used 2 words out of 4 that he would not use?

[jackthehat]

Pa____ul3 - As a non Spanish speaker, can you explain to me (if it is possible) phonetically how different 'por que' and 'porqué' sound from each other when spoken?

[Philtaz]

Why did Suarez need to use the word '***' or the equivalent 'negritos' at ANY stage during the altercation? Why make reference to his colour? It's unfathomable and has racist overtones.
The argument that 'it has a different meaning back home' is frankly the lamest defence I've heard since George stood as Counsel in Blackadder's Court Martial!

[Davethedog]

Pa_ul I don't understand the difference however how can anthing qualify the use of the word (don't bother to explain) and I am pretty sure that more than one statement/sentence was used in evidence.

[pa___ul3]

porque, meaning because, is less pronounced at the end, the stress is more on the 'o', where as in por qué it the o is amost swallowed and there is an obvious stres on the 'eh' sound at the end. That's very much in laymans terms and I couldn't tell you how that may change with a Uruguayan accent, you'd probably need an actual Uruguayan linguistics expert to clarify, altghugh my old linguistics tutor would probably have a good go, and he wouldn't be biased as he's a Tranmere fan.

[jackthehat]

So it *is* possible that something said by a Uruguayan (possibly short of breath) to a Frenchman during a game with fan and other noise and subsequently discussed with a Dutchman, etc. and then translated into English, may have suffered from a little mangling and misunderstanding.......?

[pa___ul3]

yeah Dave, you don't understand, neither does Philtaz, neither do I, as neither of us are experts in what is acceptable dialogue in Uruguay so we can't just assume it had racist overtones! The word, despite being ***'d out here, is not in itself a racist word, the context has everything to do with any racist sentiment.
I'm not saying what he said was definitely not racist, I'm saying we don't know, and the fact that a number of Uruguayans have said that word used in that context in Uruguay would not carry the same racist overtines as it would here should be considered, but it's not by anyone who wants to see Suarez punished!

[pa___ul3]

I'd say so JTH yeah, logically. That wouldn't cover the difference in "tu eres" and "sos" though.