Liverpool FC

[George2Loose]

Evra accuses Suarez of racism. That's the 4th person accused of racism by Evra with the first three cleared, and in the last case Evra's accusation was called "exaggerated and unreliable".

link?

[outragous76]

feel free to post any non-liverpool proof of your claim from before this season

[The Baron]

Questions being asked about Evra's previous links with accusations of racism.

The FA report into the 2008 Chelsea fracas states that Evra (who was facing disciplinary proceedings for a post-match altercation with a Chelsea groundsman, and whose behalf #mufc launched a counter-claim of racial provocation) "never claimed to have heard any such remark" -- ie: "You fucking immigrant".

Instead, the allegation was made by two of the #mufc coaching staff (Phelan and Hartiss), when according to them Evra and the #cfc employee (Bethell) accused of it were facing each other and about four yards or six metres apart, according to their own (contradictory) evidence.

So while Evra himself "never claimed to have heard" to the remark, he would have been in the perfect position to have done so (or not done so) and chose not to contradict his colleagues, allowing the serious allegation to progress to an FA tribunal.

The most charitable view to take of this aspect would be that Evra was not listening for a few seconds during the original heated argument and then decided to let justice take its course. A less charitable interpretation would be that Evra decided to let others who were nearby make the accusations for him as an excuse for his poor conduct. He had "witnesses" that time.

And justice did take its course:

The FA's report:

"The next two (witnesses) were Mr Phelan and Mr Hartis. Even before hearing the rest of the witnesses, we did not feel able to place strong reliance on their evidence. Mr Phelan particularly did not impress us. He supported his contention that he heard the racist remark by telling us that throughout the renewed incident following Mr Evra's running back towards Mr Bethell, his Mr Phelan's attention was directly focussed on Mr Bethell. There is a point in DVD4 where Mr Phelan remained adamant that he was looking directly at Mr Bethell though the members of the Commission could all see plainly that Mr Phelan was actually looking more sideways at his own colleague Mr Strudwick, who was himself clearly in an aggressive state and appeared to be shouting towards the Chelsea group. That is not the precise point at which he claimed in his statement to have heard the racist remark but it nevertheless reinforced our doubts about Mr Phelan's evidence. We were also not convinced by Mr Hartis, who claims to have heard the same remark from a position at a similar distance from Mr Bethell. We prefer the evidence of Mr Bethell himself."

And:

"For the reasons summarised above, our finding is the alleged racist remark by Mr Bethell (calling Mr Evra a "******* immigrant") was not made."

And of Evra:

"We find Mr Evra's account exaggerated and unreliable."

The full FA report:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1097030/The-Football-Association-v-1-Patrice-Evra-2-Chelsea-Football-Club.html

[The Baron]

feel free to post any non-liverpool proof of your claim from before this season

Feel free to read what the enquiry made of these accusations. The French FA found racial accusations groundless too a while back.

Feel free to defend what you obviously haven't read up on.

[The Baron]

BTW, don't get me wrong, if he did it then throw the book at him. That goes without saying, whether he's our best player or not.

[outragous76]

feel free to post any non-liverpool proof of your claim from before this season

Feel free to read what the enquiry made of these accusations. The French FA found racial accusations groundless too a while back.

Feel free to defend what you obviously haven't read up on.

you said it was a well known fact, which infers he has done it for a while......................

[The Baron]

Obv not well known enough, but a fact that he's made groundless accusations in the past yes. Probably twice. Possibly three times.

I guess this is 4th time lucky. But I'm sure you Utd fans know all this...

[outragous76]

this thread turns normally rational people into ..................... well something else

[The Baron]

this thread turns normally rational people into ..................... well something else

You ask for proof from before this season. I provide the opinion of an FA tribunal of Evra's unreliability. Now I'm irrational? Ummm ok.

Happy to post more opinions from independents about Evra's bullshitting if it helps show him for the liar he is but somehow I doubt it will.

[outragous76]

this thread turns normally rational people into ..................... well something else

You ask for proof from before this season. I provide the opinion of an FA tribunal of Evra's unreliability. Now I'm irrational? Ummm ok.

Happy to post more opinions from independents about Evra's bullshitting if it helps show him for the liar he is but somehow I doubt it will.

from before this season if he reknowned for it please

i dont read newspapers for the very reason I couldnt care less about opinion, especially commenting on a current topic

provide me with fact based evidence and ill listen to what you have to say

[david3103]

Obv not well known enough, but a fact that he's made groundless accusations in the past yes. Probably twice. Possibly three times.

I guess this is 4th time lucky. But I'm sure you Utd fans know all this...

Probably twice?
Possibly thrice?
Fourth time lucky?

Evra may well have had previous incidents where no offence was proven, but Suarez didn't deny this one, lucky eh?

Punishment is harsh IMO but you do yourself no favours by focussing your anger on  Evra's probable/possible history.

What price a similar length ban for JT?

[kinboshi]

There's no 'proof' that Suarez said anything racist. He said he didn't, Evra said he did. Looking forward to the seeing the other evidence that the FA have in order to find him guilty.

Terry won't be found guilty. His is a police matter, and the criminal justice system requires more evidence than it appears the FA requires.

[kinboshi]

Obv not well known enough, but a fact that he's made groundless accusations in the past yes. Probably twice. Possibly three times.

I guess this is 4th time lucky. But I'm sure you Utd fans know all this...

Probably twice?
Possibly thrice?
Fourth time lucky?

Evra may well have had previous incidents where no offence was proven, but Suarez didn't deny this one, lucky eh?

Punishment is harsh IMO but you do yourself no favours by focussing your anger on  Evra's probable/possible history.

What price a similar length ban for JT?

Correction. Suarez refuted the allegation he made racist comments towards Evra.

[david3103]

Obv not well known enough, but a fact that he's made groundless accusations in the past yes. Probably twice. Possibly three times.

I guess this is 4th time lucky. But I'm sure you Utd fans know all this...

Probably twice?
Possibly thrice?
Fourth time lucky?

Evra may well have had previous incidents where no offence was proven, but Suarez didn't deny this one, lucky eh?

Punishment is harsh IMO but you do yourself no favours by focussing your anger on  Evra's probable/possible history.

What price a similar length ban for JT?

Correction. Suarez refuted the allegation he made racist comments towards Evra.

So he said he said it, then he said he said it but didn't mean it to be offensive, then he said he didn't say it?


I believe he's been harshly treated here and an appeal against the sentence is reasonable. I just don't think LFC have done themselves any favours in the way they've handled it. Up to and including yesterday's statement.

[MANTIS01]

Questions being asked about Evra's previous links with accusations of racism.

The FA report into the 2008 Chelsea fracas states that Evra (who was facing disciplinary proceedings for a post-match altercation with a Chelsea groundsman, and whose behalf #mufc launched a counter-claim of racial provocation) "never claimed to have heard any such remark" -- ie: "You fucking immigrant".

Instead, the allegation was made by two of the #mufc coaching staff (Phelan and Hartiss), when according to them Evra and the #cfc employee (Bethell) accused of it were facing each other and about four yards or six metres apart, according to their own (contradictory) evidence.

So while Evra himself "never claimed to have heard" to the remark, he would have been in the perfect position to have done so (or not done so) and chose not to contradict his colleagues, allowing the serious allegation to progress to an FA tribunal.

The most charitable view to take of this aspect would be that Evra was not listening for a few seconds during the original heated argument and then decided to let justice take its course. A less charitable interpretation would be that Evra decided to let others who were nearby make the accusations for him as an excuse for his poor conduct. He had "witnesses" that time.

And justice did take its course:

The FA's report:

"The next two (witnesses) were Mr Phelan and Mr Hartis. Even before hearing the rest of the witnesses, we did not feel able to place strong reliance on their evidence. Mr Phelan particularly did not impress us. He supported his contention that he heard the racist remark by telling us that throughout the renewed incident following Mr Evra's running back towards Mr Bethell, his Mr Phelan's attention was directly focussed on Mr Bethell. There is a point in DVD4 where Mr Phelan remained adamant that he was looking directly at Mr Bethell though the members of the Commission could all see plainly that Mr Phelan was actually looking more sideways at his own colleague Mr Strudwick, who was himself clearly in an aggressive state and appeared to be shouting towards the Chelsea group. That is not the precise point at which he claimed in his statement to have heard the racist remark but it nevertheless reinforced our doubts about Mr Phelan's evidence. We were also not convinced by Mr Hartis, who claims to have heard the same remark from a position at a similar distance from Mr Bethell. We prefer the evidence of Mr Bethell himself."

And:

"For the reasons summarised above, our finding is the alleged racist remark by Mr Bethell (calling Mr Evra a "******* immigrant") was not made."

And of Evra:

"We find Mr Evra's account exaggerated and unreliable."

The full FA report:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1097030/The-Football-Association-v-1-Patrice-Evra-2-Chelsea-Football-Club.html

I think you are being rather biased with your views here Baron. And I am struggling to understand why a Liverpool fan would support a Liverpool player at the expense of a Man Utd player, oh wait, no I'm not. The previous case you detail is one where Evra does not make any allegation of racism, in fact he categorically denies hearing any racism. The inquiry states there was a serious altercation on the pitch and submit "It is also clear to us that from this point Mr Bethell's attitude and language, particularly towards Mr Evra, were extremely aggressive". Following this heated and aggro comfrontation Phelan and Hartiss make the accusation which Evra does not support with his evidence. If Evra was the type of character to bullshit about racism that would be the perfect scenario to bullshit about racism, yet he does not. You don't consider the language barrier as a factor in not being able to support his colleague's evidence as the inquiry does either.

The quote "We find Mr Evra's account exaggerated and unreliable" is specifically with reference to the accusation Griffin was overly aggro with a pitchfork and not with reference to his overall evidence as you are trying to imply.

I don't think it's plausible to use the reliability of a previous FA inquiry to support your point that the Suarez FA inquiry is unreliable either. Your evidence seems biased towards Liverpool, the evidence of Man Utd staff seems biased towards Man Utd, and the evidence of Chelsea staff seems biased towards Chelsea. I can kinda see a pattern developing here. The accusations had to be declined by the FA chiefly because other Chelsea ground staff failed to support the accusation that one of their colleagues made a racist remark. How surprising. This does not mean it categorically did not happen.

It was difficult for the FA to make any conclusions with 100% conviction here and so they did not uphold the claim. After reading the full report the only accusation I have 100% conviction in is that Gary Neville was behaving like an aggro little shit. Yes, I believe that totally. So you can see that claims aren't upheld without complete conviction. And the Suarez one was upheld.