View Single Post
12-02-2012, 10:11 AM
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,939
vCash: 500
"the report is flawed" is such a cop-out argument. You weren't there and you didn't sit in. So you trust an assumption based on utter ignorance instead of something that serves as the ONLY reviewed piece of evidence on the matter.

Congrats you made it so nobody can ever argue against you.

-Has nothing to do with Terry
-"The whole thing was a big misunderstanding" so you were there right? heard him say it right? sat on the review panel and are one of the Spanish experts right?
-No evidence whatsoever - again you being presented with no evidence doesn't mean they weren't, which it's well documented they were.
-Once is enough, doesn't matter how often
-Other people diving is an argument to bust them for diving, not absolve Suarez for being a racist
-"articles on the web" nuff said
-"Two faces" well maybe he should control one of them and try not to be a racist

It is at this point in his witness statement, having referred to these incidents, that Mr Suárez said: "It seems to me that PE misunderstood my use of the word negro. As I have said, it was meant in a conciliatory and friendly way in the context in which I have used the word throughout my life and as set out earlier in this Statement."
If anyone believes this I have no words, and this is only the first part.

We received evidence from four of Mr Evra's team-mates about what happened immediately after the game. They were [Antonio] Valencia, [Javier] Hernández, Nani and Anderson. Their evidence was given in the form of written witness statements. These were served on Mr Suárez on 16 November 2011 with the Charge letter. Mr Suárez did not require any of these four players to attend the hearing for cross-examination and so Mr Suárez accepted their evidence in full. We proceeded, therefore, on the basis that the evidence contained in those witness statements is true and sets out what did, in fact, happen immediately after the game.
As a result, as in the case of the four Manchester United players, Mr Suárez accepted in full the evidence of Sir Alex.
What evidence is that?

Sir Alex and Mr Evra went to the referee's room. Sir Alex went in first, followed by Mr Evra. Sir Alex told Mr Marriner that they had a complaint to make. Sir Alex told him "Evra has been called a ****** by one of the Liverpool players." Sir Alex then motioned for Mr Evra to tell the referee what had been said. The referee told Phil Dowd, the fourth official who was also in the room, to take notes of what was said
Why defend someone who even accepted the evidence against him?

Last edited by GM17*: 12-02-2012 at 10:33 AM.
GM17* is offline