News24

Suarez 'sorry' for race row

2012-01-05 07:56

London - Liverpool striker Luis Suarez on Thursday issued an apology after receiving an eight-match ban for racially abusing Patrice Evra, but stopped short of saying sorry to the Manchester United defender.

Liverpool said on Tuesday they had accepted Suarez's ban for calling Evra a "negro" but the player issued a statement the same day maintaining his innocence.

But in another statement issued on Thursday, Suarez said: "I never, ever used this word in a derogatory way and if it offends anyone then I want to apologise for that.

"I told the panel members that I will not use it again on a football pitch in England," he added.

The Uruguayan international served the first match of his ban during Tuesday's 3-0 Premier League defeat to Manchester City.

In the 115-page written ruling from the case released last Saturday, the FA panel said Suarez had given "unreliable" and "inconsistent" evidence during the hearing, where elements of his testimony were "incredible."

A Liverpool statement released on Tuesday maintained that the case against Suarez remained "highly subjective" and was "based on an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated."

However the club said it wished to draw a line under the affair despite disagreeing with the verdict.

"There are ultimately larger issues than whether or not Luis Suarez has been treated fairly by the Football Association in this matter," it said.

Suarez insisted in another statement issued Tuesday he had done no wrong.

"I am very upset by all the things which have been said during the last few weeks about me, all of them being very far from the truth," he said.

"But above all, I'm very upset at feeling so powerless whilst being accused of something which I did not, nor would not, ever do.

"In my country, 'negro' is a word we use commonly, a word which doesn't show any lack of respect and is even less so a form of racist abuse. Based on this, everything which has been said so far is totally false.

"I will carry out the suspension with the resignation of someone who hasn't done anything wrong and who feels extremely upset by the events," he added.

AFP

Comments
  • Deon - 2012-01-05 08:44

    According a report of BBC's website is still claims to use the word only once, even though it was proven through linguistic specialists and Video evidence that he said it to Evra 7 times in the space of 2 minutes. It may not be offensive in Uruguay but he needs to understand that he isn't in Uruguay.

      Paul - 2012-01-05 10:07

      The conversation was in Spanish. The context of the word would of been different in that language.

      Paul - 2012-01-05 10:26

      http://www.empireofthekop.com/anfield/2012/01/01/suarez-evra-and-reliable-witnesses/ This link shows how little was needed to prove Suarez inconsistent and Evra reliable.

      Deon - 2012-01-05 10:43

      Your right about the word having different meanings when translated, The FA are well aware of that and even make note of that in there report. Read the 115pg report and you'll see the lengths the FA go to in this investigation. Language experts, Linguistic experts, Spanish interpretors, Video footage, Eye Witness reports (Not just Evra).

      Len - 2012-01-05 11:21

      @Paul. I suggest you read the report (http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx). Suarez told 2-3 (Kuyt and others) other people what he had said, but then changed his story, which is why he was deemed unreliable. Also, why is there a need to tell someone they are "negro" whether the intention is good? Does Evra need reminding, especially when he is angry about being fouled?

  • Sean - 2012-01-05 08:44

    Apology not accepted

      Paul - 2012-01-05 10:20

      Whether you choose to accept the apology or not is irrelevant. Evra himself said that he does not think that Suarez is racist.

      Len - 2012-01-05 11:24

      @Paul. Suarez is not apologising for being racist. He was not found guilty for being racist. The FA has no legal standing to judge whether someone is racist on not. They can only rule on actions i.e. did he utter hurtful or insulting words? Yes, he did. 4 years. Did these include reference to someone's race? Yes. This then becomes a factor in doubling the sentence. It is not necessary to be racist to be found guilty of referring to some's race in an insulting way.

  • kuwanda.james - 2012-01-05 09:00

    Apology not accepted. The word Negro is disrespectful!!

      Len - 2012-01-05 11:27

      Again, that is not the reason he was found guilty. Mentioninging someone's race is not accepted, especially if it is used with sneer

  • camiel.phillips - 2012-01-05 09:09

    the apology is not sincere,and for Liverpool to support him its thumbs for them.They just showed what they think of people of a certain race.Do they have a "black" player in their team?

      kingswing69 - 2012-01-05 09:14

      ACTUALLY they do have a few black players on the team. and Suarez grandfather was black.

      Len - 2012-01-05 11:50

      Here is a quote from the FA report "It is not inconsistent to have black colleagues and friends and relatives, and yet say things to strangers or acquaintances about race or colour that we would not say directly to those closer to us"

  • AmosMoledi - 2012-01-05 09:15

    Pathetic........ to think Liverpool supported him is even worse

      Paul - 2012-01-05 10:29

      Liverpool stood up for a player who was accused of something very serious with little to no evidence of substance. I fail to see what they did wrong. Are you suggesting we take a guilty until proven innocent approach?

      Len - 2012-01-05 11:38

      @Paul. When you say with little or no substance, is this based on your knowledge of the case? Did you read the report in full? I can understand that we all have biases, but I would suggest you read the report before you claim there was no evidence against him. Evidence against Suarez was his own admission to the Commission and to at least 3 people within the Liverpool framework. He spoke to Kuyt in Dutch and spoke to the Club Manager in Spanish. He then changed his story in his statement which in essence changed the meaning of what he said from "because you are black" to "why black" This was contradicted by those he confided. Also, he claims that the statement he made was made to defuse the situation, but his actions throughout the incident were not consistent with his claim. They used video evidence to establish sequence of events and to corroborate the statements. If the FA had no case, surely, they would have appealed and won, or even taken the matter to arbitration or court. The fact that they have now accepted the punishment does indicate they do not believe they would win, and they would risk a further ban. Here is the report: http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx

      Deon - 2012-01-05 16:07

      @Paul, Liverpool decided to where shirts in Support of Suarez, the say way the wore "free Michael now t-shirts in 2005". Thats the same Michael Shields that was convicted for attempted murder and sentenced to 15 yrs imprisonment.

  • Johan - 2012-01-05 09:36

    I don't know what is the truth....I only feel sorry for the guy! I think he is a great player and he is improving week after week! Hence there is a lot of swearing on the pitch in any case....glad this is over sothat every one can move on! Liverpool fan!

      Deon - 2012-01-05 09:41

      Go read the 115pg report if you want the truth, This is far from over, This is going to bring far more tension to the Utd vs Liverpool games which already have so much tension.

      Deon - 2012-01-05 09:50

      Point 357 from the FA report. According to the FA, Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, to which he replied "Because you are black". Mr Evra then said "Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you" and Mr Suarez replied "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Evra said "Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you", and Mr Suarez responded "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". I don't believe Suarez is racist, i just think he was trying to Wind up Evra, but all the same it was wrong to do it in this manner.

      Len - 2012-01-05 11:40

      If Suarez had immediately gone to apologise to Evra, this issue would not have been taken any further.

  • Meshack Letswalo - 2012-01-05 10:35

    Instead of Liverpool challenging for and winning trophies, all they do is condone what Suarez has done. They are no longer mentioned alongside ManU, Arsenal. For the money they have spent in the last 5 years on average players, it's patently clear where their priorities lie. Shame

      Len - 2012-01-05 11:42

      I feel for Glen Johnson

  • Paul - 2012-01-05 13:19

    "When Liverpool completed their own post-mortem into what went wrong in their own handling of the situation, they concluded Suárez was ill-advised to make any admission that he said anything to Evra. The greatest irony, according to the Anfield hierarchy, is that Suárez’s testimony was considered reliable when he admitted using the word “negro” but dismissed on virtually everything else. Evra, in contrast, was shown to be seriously wrong in his translation of what Suárez said on the pitch, but was said to be a “reliable” witness." "An admission by Evra he used insulting language to Suárez, which provoked the confrontation, has not led to a disciplinary charge against the United defender in breach of rule E3 - another point of lingering discontent at Anfield. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8992809/Liverpool-striker-Luis-Suarez-says-sorry...-but-not-to-Manchester-Uniteds-Patrice-Evra.html

      Deon - 2012-01-05 15:57

      Once again, you haven't read the report. The reason Evra isn't being charged is because Suarez's himself said he never heard what Evra said to him. 87. Mr Evra and Mr Suarez are agreed that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. Mr Evra said that he is not exactly fluent in Spanish but that he can easily converse in Spanish. For Mr Suarez, Spanish is his native language as a Uruguayan. Mr Evra told us that he began the conversation by saying "Concha de tu hermana". Mr Evra's evidence was that this is a phrase used in Spanish like when you say "f**king hell" in English, Mr Suarez did not hear Mr Evra say this. One of the video clips that we have seen, taken from a close up angle behind the goal, does appear to support Mr Evra's evidence that he started the conversation with this comment.

      Len - 2012-01-05 17:16

      @Paul. I agree with Deon, you need to read the report, and then you can be in a better position to comment. You are relying entirely on second hand analysis and this seems to be consistent with your bias, but not with the facts. It is untrue that Suarez's testimony of his use of negro was accepted. It was deemed unreliable. Then, they said, even if they accept that Suarez's claims were true, the claim that the statement was made to defuse the situation is not consistent with his demeanor. Furthermore, Suarez's claim of when he used "negro" differ significantly depending on each statement he makes. Evra used an Italian translation to arrive at "nigger" but was willing to change when he was informed that he was wrong. Negra in Italian is Nigger, while nero is black. Evra speaks several languages, but not all fluently except French. Evra did not change his story several times to suit the expert reports. Suarez told Kuyt in Afrikaans and someone else in Spanish that he had called Evra "because you are black" and then he changed it to "why black" in his statement. This is what is unreliable. Suarez heard Evra whispering, but did not hear what he said. Evra, on his own volition, admitted what he said and admits he was wrong. Also, note that whether nigger or negro was used is immaterial. Mention of someone's race is a serious offence. Please read the report and see why Suarez was deemed unreliable witness and why Evra was a model witness. He was consistent to all he told.

      aadil.esack - 2012-01-06 09:21

      Deon - as per your post, "Mr Evra told us that he began the conversation by saying "Concha de tu hermana"." I believe that means "your sister's pu**y !" SO, Evra, started the fight. This same Evra that cried "racism" against Chelsea not long ago & was charged & banned for lying. This same Evra that said his own senegalese people are "racist" towards him & that's why he chose France. The same Evra who basically cost it for France in the World Cup. This same Evra who is on VIDEO for using the 'N" word. The same Evra who was complaining in this very game from the start, when the coin was tossed & he was unhappy. I have no reason not to believe Luis - he admits he said it, but in a non deregotory way. Evra in the meantime admits in the report to swearing Luis sister & calling him a dirty South American & recieves NO punishment ? OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE !

      Paul - 2012-01-06 09:42

      Deon, Lenand - are you willing to accept such weak evidence? It's not even evidence, it's just technicalities which are being used to discredit Suarez. Accusing someone of such allegations is very serious and the justification to charge Suarez is insufficient, imo. Of course it satisfies the FA and everyone else who wants to jump on the bandwagon. Technically Suarez mentioned colour and not race but people will interpret it as they see fit.

      Deon - 2012-01-06 10:36

      @aadil.esack, your right the literal translation does mean that, but the Literal translation for what Suarez said in N**ger, so if your going use Evra's Literal translation so do the same for Suarez. Again by Suarez's own admission to the FA was that he never heard Evra's "concha de tu...." but heard whispering and then he ask "what did you say", Evra said "why did you kick me". And we all know what followed. So if Suarez never heard him, is Evra then guilty of "starting it". Evra NEVER cried rascism against Chelsea. Those where comments that Mike Phelan and the then goalkeeping coach made to the FA. And that has been PROVEN. I agree the allocations are serious, but Suarez admitted to using the word but then claims he didn't, now he is claiming he didn't mean it in those terms etc. You going to believe the testominoy of a guy that blatently cheats, bites people etc and claim he's a saint when he has been proven guilty through his own admission, Video footage and liguistic experts.

      Deon - 2012-01-06 11:19

      Liverpool’s official website columnist, Kristian Walsh, claimed on Twitter that “Patrice Evra has accused racism of three players before today. All three have been cleared.” This tweet was retweeted byhundreds of Liverpool fans, as were similar ones. The problem was, that it wasn’t remotely true, not one bit.In fact, before Saturday, Evra had accused zero people of racism, not the three quoted by Mr. Walsh and dozens of other Liverpool fans, not two, nor even one. There have been two incidents involving Evra and accusations of racial insults, the only problem is that Evra did not claim in either that he wasracially abused – the claims came from others.In the 2006 case of claimed racial abuse by Steve Finnan, the accusation was levelled at Finnan by a deaf fan who claimed he lip-read the racial slur. Evra declined to complain. A rather odd thing to do for a man with a supposed inclination to play the race card, I’m sure you’ll agree.

      Deon - 2012-01-06 11:19

      In the case with involving Chelsea groundsman, Sam Bethell, it was Mike Phelan and Richard Hartis of Manchester United’s coaching staff who claimed they heard the abuse. As the FA report says “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.” It later goes on to say “Even if we disregard the fact that Mr Evra has never claimed to have heard such a remark on that day, it is notable that there were several other people far nearer to Mr Bethell at the critical point in time than were either Mr Phelan or Mr Hartis.” So in reality, Evra accused neither Finnan nor Bethell of a racist remark. The claims were made by others. These are the cold, hard facts.

      Len - 2012-01-06 18:21

      @Paul. Liverpool accepted it. If Liverpool felt this was weak, they would have appealed. I do not think the FA is considered dictatorial, do you? If you read the applicable rule, a mention of someone's colour or race is prohibited. It is not necessary thing for Suarez to tell Evra that he is a Negro, is it? If not, why even mention it is it was not meant to insult? Also, the idea that someone who was guilty of an offense at another time is open to being insulted by someone who cheated against Ghana, against Fulham and has bit into others does worry me a bit. Suarez, was recently banned a game for a showing a finger to Fulham supporters. Is that the behaviour of someone who deserves to be treated with kid gloves? Also, if he meant no harm, why is his story changing every day?

  • Nigel - 2012-01-05 16:11

    Whilst I am both a Liverpool supporter and like Suarez's soccer, this sounds rather suspicious and unacceptable.

  • cihuhua - 2012-01-05 17:58

    Utterly unacceptable!!!

  • Paul - 2012-01-06 09:34

    http://tomkinstimes.com/2012/01/suarez-%E2%80%93-still-not-a-racist/ Please read the above link. It's a fantastic article, no matter which side of this story you support. It explains why I (and LFC and their other fans) support Suarez and will continue to do so. Let me also state that if Suarez was found to be a racist without any doubt - I would NOT support him. Before you dismiss this post, please read the article linked above.

      Deon - 2012-01-06 10:53

      Evra himself said Suarez isn't a racist. Me made comments out Evra's colour in an attempt to wind him up and was caught and punished for doing it.

      Len - 2012-01-06 18:27

      Suarez was not found guilty of being racist. IF anyone had read the report, they would understand the difference. Please read the report fully, Paul, and remove your Liverpool coloured glasses. There are many articles on the internet that are critical of Liverpool, Suarez and Dalglish. There are even trending stories that accuse Dalglish of being racist and recall an event when Barnes was the first black signing by Dalglish. However, the issue is not whether Suarez is racist. This was addressed by the Commission in full. He was found guilty of using someone's race in a highly charged environment. You even suggest that Evra be charged elsewhere, yet there is no claim that Evra used racist comment. It was Evra who admitted that he started the conversation after being kicked by Suarez.

  • Deon - 2012-01-06 11:21

    Football is a wonderful thing, but can also be a dangerous thing. When we as football fans are switching our moral views, assuming guilt or fabricating incidents based on the shirt a man is wearing, we have gone too far. We cannot and must not lose perspective because of it.

      Len - 2012-01-06 18:28

      What is even sad, Deon, is that we arrive at conclusions without ever bothering to read the full report which is the basis of the findings. If Liverpool felt the case was weak, they would have appeal. That is a logical conclusion. To say that Liverpool would fail to appeal if the case was weak, is to accuse Liverpool of being impotent and incompetent.

  • Deon - 2012-01-07 10:41

    I wonder what's the Liverpool supporters reactions going to be now, with Tom Adeyemi being told by supporters in the Kop to "F**k off you black Bastard", Utterly disgusting behaviour,

      Len - 2012-01-07 15:12

      Dalglish should take blame for this. He encouraged supporters and some of the idiot supporters will now justify their racism on the basis that Dalglish encouraged it. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to know this will happen at Liverpool, a lot and I wonder what excuse Dalglish will say. I now have a better respect for Steven Gerrard

  • camiel.phillips - 2012-01-07 16:24

    How can it be accpeted anywhere in the world,

  • pages:
  • 1