I know we are sick of talking about it, but.......

"So to get massively het-up over what seems to be in essence (my interpretation only) primarily a cultural faux-pas of understanding and intent, when we are all pretty well aware that little said on the field of play isn't intended to and doesn't resemble reality off the pitch, it is (IMO) a grotesque overreaction."


This is basically what I said a few posts ago. The sporting arena is unique. Sportsmen use what they can to gain an advantage. For many it's the dive, the feigned injury/rolling round clutching leg or head.... and others 'trash talk'. I think Evra's first put down 'set the scene' for Suarez' response, the fact he did it in Spainsh meant he intended to abuse and expected a reply. In fact had Evra not initiated it, there may have been no story now and no case to answer! Given that Suarez has come out and said what happens on the pitch, stays on the pitch - he wouldn't have expected a fellow professional to blab on him, as far as he was concerned they each gave as good as they got.

Can the FA point to any good that has come from the whole situation. What they have done is opened the door for far more abuse than was said in the original incident. Far stronger words are being used in the condemnation of Suarez than what he used originally. Had Evra gone to him after the match and told him what he thought, the whole thing could have been cleared up. It started as a private conversation on the pitch and should have ended with a private conversation after if it was felt necessary.

 

two english men were prevented from making their views on terry known in the handshake moment. The two ferdinands saw the fa remove said handshake then terry come up with a convenient in jury to avoid rio....

but the two foreign boys.. well you just go and handshake end of. thats double standards and in this case puts evra on the spot. suarez has nothing at all to lose if booed to high heaven or blanked totally by evra. evra has to decide what he's going to do.

terry;s a huge coward and amazingly the evidence is so clear and viewed by all.. yet he maintains total innocence.

 

Completely agree.

 

He's entitled to maintain his innocence - that is his right, up until he is convicted. At this point, should this occur, we'd see a profuse apology to the fans, to the FA, his wife, but most of all to his sponsors for letting them down and portraying their products as being the choice of the whiter-than-white...


Incidently, another poll has given interesting results...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/poll/2011/dec/22/liverpool-luis-suarez-t-shirts

 

The guardian got their smarmy arses kicked there SJ.



Also check the lead headline,They're implying that the Liverpool players wore the t-shirts after the FA "ruling" and the poll still went horribly wrong for them.

 

Thank god it's closed. I can stop voting now.

 

thats pretty poor journalism there.

Terry can miantain what he likes the entire country on sky saw what he said clearly. if he's that stuuborn and is hoping for a jury of 12 cheslea fans like redknapp got.... well if he gets off the 2500 miserly fine while people in both old trafford and anfield got processed within a week and found guilty for racist gestures it really sends a signal of one rule for the masses one for the vips.

my main point is while terry is maintaining innocent he is also avoiding handshakes with the fa#s help and when that ran out of road he convienently got an injury that was not bad enough to prevent him sitting o nthe bench but did avoid a rio incident.

cowardice and maybe cost his side the victory last weekend....

suarez did his time already, we still see monaing but he'll take his medicene off the mancs which will ruin any moral high gorund they could ever claim then he'll hand shake evra or not... its up to evra and its up to daglish to put him in. I hope he does and doens't take the easy route of benching him again.

 

Has anyone been found guilty or charged for the anfield ones?

 

Typical of today, and the mancs say Suarez had an inconsistent story, language experts testimony in Suarez' favour. What a laugh, now their idiocy has taken away England manager just before a finals he got them to, they feel the still innocent Terry will tarnish their muddied reputation further.

Terry has not been convicted of anytihng has he?

 

They'd already decided Suarez was guilty before bothering to examine any evidence so they've probably done the same in Terry's case.

 

If Suarez would(like Terry)have gone to court and the evidence would have been studied by Lawyers on behalf of Suarez the case would have been thrown out.

No eye witnesses
The case being made public before it reached court
Character witnesses changing their stories
The prosecution's client changing his story multiple times
The difference in context of the offending word in a linguistic sense

Suarez is now treated as though he was found guilty in a court of law,when its plain he was made an example off by an organisation with an agenda of providing a sacrificial lamb in the fight against racism.

 

Seriously? Is this a reference to the disgusting lies told by the sun and the police about the appalling events at hillsbrough? Or about hysel?
Please say it aint...I hope youve just not thought about how it reads and it is a reference to some something else cos it comes across really badly.

 

It didn't happen Page because it couldn't happen.

Yes the Report was issued publically but you can bet your bottom $ on ian Ayre receiving a call from the FA along the lines of "Kop it sweet or both Suarez and LFC will be suspended from all FA sanctioned football" ie we'll cut your prime income stream.

Nasty/dirty but I would be prepared to wager close to the truth - hence LFC's reaction.

 

My understanding is that he is refering to the Suarez case

 

Of course i see your point dave,but im saying that the FA's findings are'nt 'legally' true,but in a real legal scenario the points i made would have got the case thrown out of court.

 

I'm no lawyer but i believe that you are right

 

Certainly a damn site stronger than 'arrys defence

 

'Arry's defence was he did'nt like getting looked at by police officers in cort,he was rich so money was'nt important to him,that he could'nt send texts,emails or faxes,that he lied about the accusation to a reporter,that he saw no harm in opening an offshore bank account in a bulldog's name.

So yep tt they were deffo stronger than the spiv's.

 

I hope your right but it reads like he is talking about the suarez case when he says that other fans talking bollocks and how it needs to be opposed til hell freezes over.