Thought it was consensus here to be confuzzed about that.
Touche! But not enough Zzzzzzzz's though. Which is rapidly where I am headed with this whole process. I am old fashioned. Calling someone racist is a BIG thing. It's not something you want to be labelled with. Also I understand on the field of play competitive professional sports people will try almost anything to get an advantage. The margins are that thin. So it's OK for Evra to run around calling Suarez's mother a whore. Or his sister. Or his wife (which is what Gerrard has endured all his career).
I am going to defend Terry here (much as I abhore the player). If he's been found not guilty in a court of law, why is the FA sticking its ore in (and yes, I understand the difference of beyond reasonable doubt and balance of probability)? But this is big. It's labelling someone racist.
Same with Suarez. The guy is labelled for life. Is he racist? Don't think so. His paternal grand-father is coloured for crying out loud.
Political correctness gone crazy.
Decent analysis here
http://tomkinstimes.com/2011/12/suarez-is-not-a-racist/
----------
Not so
from the Independent Regulatory Commission's report;
"Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and clear way."
That's just the BBC website.
There are inconsistencies in Evras testimony. In his evidence, Evra states that he told the players after the game that Suarez said he kicked him porque tu eres negro (because I am black). None of the four Spanish speaking Manchester United players recalled Evra saying this in their witness testimonies. In the FAs report, they confirm this is the case but state that it is possible the players simply forgot he said it. They do not point to the other possibility: that he did not say it. Under this scenario, it could be used as evidence that Evra is an unreliable witness.
There were four pieces of evidence presented by Suarezs lawyer to the FA that suggest Evra is an unreliable witness. The interesting one is the coin toss. Here is the transcript of that incident:
Mr Marriner explained that he used a FIFA coin which is blue on one side and yellow on the other. He asked Mr Evra, as the visiting captain, to call the colour. Mr Marriner tossed the coin, it came down yellow, and he awarded it to Steven Gerrard who elected to stay in their current ends. Manchester United had kick off. Mr Evra remonstrated that he had called correctly but, Mr Marriner said, he had not. Mr Evra then spoke to Ryan Giggs about it, and Mr Marriner walked over to Mr Evra to assure him that he (Mr Marriner) had got it right. Mr Evras evidence was that when such a coin was used, he always called yellow given that the alternative, blue, is a Manchester City colour, which he would never call. The toss came down yellow and so Mr Evra knew that he had won it. He particularly wanted to change ends at the start, he explained to the referee that he had called yellow, and why he had done so. Mr Evra was angry but the referee did not change his mind.
Evra either could not remember what colour he chose or lied about it afterwards. This at best questions his reliability as a witness and at worst suggests he is willing to lie to gain an advantage. Crucially, he reacted outwardly far more to the coin toss than he did in the goalmouth when he claimed that Suarez used the word negro five times. Had that really been the case, surely Evras reaction would have been much stronger?
Another inconsistency is Evras use of the term ten times to describe how many times Suarez allegedly said negro. Evra has retracted this claim and said it was a figure of speech. Really?
What about previous form? Suarez has no history of any form of racism and is an ambassador for racial equality. Evra, on the other hand, has been at the centre of a racism scandal in the recent past. It was alleged that ground staff at Chelsea racially abused Evra in 2008. The allegation was thrown out and here is how the panel described Evras testimony:We find Mr Evras 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 Evras suggestion that he was concerned about Mr Strudwicks 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 Griffins pitchfork gave some reason for concern about Mr Strudwicks safety is ridiculous
We find Mr Evras account exaggerated and unreliable. It is an attempt to justify a physical intervention by him which cannot reasonably be justified
Compare this to the conclusions drawn by the panel in the Suarez case:
We considered it improbable that Mr Evra would act in such a dishonest way in order to damage the reputation of a fellow professional whose footballing skills he admires, with whom he had had no previous run-ins, and who he does not think is a racist.
There is therefore evidence to suggest that both Suarez and Evra made statements that were not 100% true during this case, and that Evra has a history of doing this.
Evras account as the truth, the FA have concluded that Suarezs entire evidence can be completely discredited whilst the inconsistencies in Evras testimony, and past, can be ignored.
