Synyster Graves

Consistency is a dish best served cold

by on Jan.04, 2012, under Epic FA-ils

The FA have finally released parts of the report which has pretty much condemned Luis Suarez as a racist, and as you’d expect it’s about as watertight as a colinder made of toilet paper. In the reasons for the sanctions the independent regulatory commission claim Suarez gave “unreliable” and “inconsistent” evidence to the commission. The 115-page document goes into detail of the case and the conversation the two players had during the match at Anfield on 15th October. The report states in its summary: “Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and clear way. It was, for the most part, consistent, although both he and Mr Suarez were understandably unable to remember every detail of the exchanges between them.

Now anyone who just accepts this after reading the article after reading all the previous statements should raise some alarming questions, if not then you’re an idiot.

When the news first broke out the statement was that allegedly Suarez had called Evra a “negrita”, which sparked me to write this article. Upon further investigation into the use of the word I had discovered that in fact “negrito/a” is not actually a racial slur at all, rather more a comical jibe at someone’s stature, basically the same as calling someone “chubby” or “short arse”. Upon further investigation on the world wide web, I stumble across this article written by a Colombian author on this subject, of which it is very interesting to read, seeing that the authenticity of the author is actually South American,  unlike the “independent panel” used by the FA, which probably had people who have eaten paella before, or possibly had a moustache.

But this is where the inconsistency shines through greatly. In the published report from the FA, it was documented that:

Mr Evra’s evidence was that, in response to his question “Why did you kick me?”, Mr Suárez replied “Porque tu eres negro”. Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suárez made that comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean “Because you are a nigger”. He now says that he believes the words used by Mr Suárez mean “Because you are black”. We shall consider further below Mr Evra’s understanding of the Spanish word “negro”.

Firstly, they have now substituted in the word “negro” instead of “negrita”, probably because they didn’t know what it meant and couldn’t be bothered to find out. Secondly if this is the “evidence” they have taken, it’s a bit objective against Suarez isn’t it? The fact that the FA have changed the word to the more evocative word of negro, as many people would perceive that as a racial slur. Of course, these people are uneducated as Martin Luther King referred to himself in the famous “I Have A Dream” speech in 1963, beginning with:

 ”this sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn…”. 

With only Evra's account the FA were willing to listen to, does that make it a fair hearing? I think not.

So much so that the term “negro” is considered as politically correct when referring to someone of African origin. But Evra’s perception of  ”Because you are a n*gger” is totally objective because one person mis-perceiving something does not mean that it’s deemed racial abuse. This is completely objective against Suarez because Evra can easily feign offence because as soon as you play the race card, everyone jumps to the moral high ground. But I’m going on a tangent here, from analysing the FA’s ineptitude to remain consistent. The point I was trying to make was that they have changed the accusatory word from something to mean “ethnically pygmy” to something which means “ethnically black”. The interpretation is completely switched and purposely changed in order to make it seem way worse than it actually is. With the knowledge that I have of the comprehension of the word “negrita”, which Suarez said in the first report, this is a mere banterous pop and Evra’s height, which correlates the immediate connotation of someone who is short. But the fact remains that the FA have altered the information between their two statements to allude to the fact that their punishment is just. But ultimately, the FA changing the claim to “negro” does not mean “n*gger”. While the words are similar, they are not the same.

Secondly this is also stating that the integrity of the evidence is enough because “Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and clear way”. If this is enough for a whole case to be decided on then there is something seriously wrong with their thought process. Evra’s credibility for a start has a value less than nanoscopic, and unlike the FA here is the evidence:

  • Evra has pulled the race card before, against Steve Finnan, funnily enough when he was playing for Liverpool, but since there was zero evidence, this incident was thrown out the door.
  • Evra has also claimed to have had racial abuse from the groundstaff when playing away to Chelsea, this time spearheaded by Mike Phelan
  • Evra’s credibility comes into the most comtemptuous when you remember how he was the ring leader in the World Cup 2010 revolt against coach Raymond Domenech, which was lead by, yes you guessed it, Patrice Evra

Don't misunderstand me, Suarez is stupid to even say anything to Evra, but no one was expecting to Evra to play the race card

These three occasions here clearly illustrate his willingness to embellish and escalate matters which at face value to people with IQs above 20, seem pretty trivial. It is for this reason that because he has urged this to become so prominent in the public eye, which under the spotlight of the media, have caused the FA to fail so spectularly. While attempting to seem more pragmatic than the general public perception of them being gutless. toothless and frankly retarded, their almost Draconian handling of this case has led one to doubt their ability to handle anything major in future. Which brings me to my next point of someone accounting in a calm and composed way is not, without of a shadow of a doubt, indicative of someone telling the truth. After lengthy research on my part being calm and collected is not exactly indicative of being credible, as the following were reported to being so at their respective trials:

The FA’s apparent bias towards Patrice Evra’s account is still shocking as this most recent report seems to appear to be tailored and chronically lacking in physical evidence yet they seem to have punished Luis Suarez to the full extent of the law. Seeing that unlike John Terry’s case whereby there are actually more than one witness, and there is video evidence, which is probably why that case is being handled by the Crown Prosecution Service. Interestingly enough I found an article written by Graham Poll, former referee who stated:

Now the FA disciplinary department will rightly investigate the matter but they will struggle to make any charge unless video evidence is found to substantiate the Frenchman’s claims. 

Evra claimed afterwards that ‘there are cameras, and you can see him say a certain word to me at least 10 times’. If such evidence exists, then Luis Suarez will be charged and suspended but players must be presumed innocent unless evidence proves otherwise.

Evra's over-embellishment and frankly unsubstantiated account has caused widespread havoc now as no one can even talk to him without him playing the race card

Having read the FA report, there is no substantial evidence whatsoever, video or otherwise, they have just taken Evra’s word over Suarez’s. It is clear from the FA’s stance and subsequent actions that they were committed to punish Suarez regardless of the findings. It’s almost that they done an inquiry in reverse, i.e. they know the outcome they wanted, just asked the questions to substantiate this, rather than approach the subject in pragmatic manner to find the truth. The crux of this being that there is no evidence which substantiates these claims and if this was handled by the CPS, it would be thrown out of court on the grounds that the evidence was inconclusive, yet one person’s account is enough to draw a sentence in the jurisdiction of the FA.

The FA also said Suarez’s account is “unreliable”. On what grounds did they make this conclusion? If you have one person’s account palyed off against anothers yet deem one to be unreliable, surely that is only favouritism factored in as the difference? The fact that the FA have dismissed any account from Suarez is evidence enough that no matter what his account was, they were going to charge him. Evra played the race card, brandishing it like Excalibur, and the FA leapt onto the band wagon before hearing both sides of the story. The whole report and hearing is completely objective and by proxy the FA have admitted favouritism by branding Suarez’s entire testimony as “unreliable”.

The FA’s handling of this matter now it has reached a conclusion can only be brought into question by their totally bungled manner in dealing with this and the way that this has been conducted seems completely biased in favour of Evra. Their Draconian approach can only lead us fans to question their authority when it comes to major matters (especially since they lowered the suspension on Wayne Rooney for common assault) and I’m not happy the way they have failed to conduct a fair hearing.

:, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply