Liverpool Claim FA Were ‘Determined To Charge Luis Suarez’

Chris Wright

21st, December 2011


By Chris Wright

Once again, the giant globe-spanning Illuminati conspiracy established to keep Liverpool from ‘having their year’ has come into effect and has demanded that the FA ban the club’s most effective player this season for the next eight games and fined a week’s wages just for openly and admittedly calling a black man a ‘negro’ a few times during a game of football.

Yesterday evening, shortly after Luis Suarez was made a pariah of by the powers that be, Liverpool released the following club statement:

“LFC considers racism in any form to be unacceptable – without compromise. It is our strong held belief, having gone over the facts of the case, that Luis Suarez did not commit any racist act.

“It is also our opinion that the accusation by [Evra] was not credible – certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations. It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said ‘I don’t think that Luis Suarez is racist’. The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suarez was not racist.

“It appears to us that the FA were determined to bring charges against Luis Suarez, even before interviewing him at the beginning of November. Nothing we have heard in the course of the hearing has changed our view that Luis Suarez is innocent of the charges brought against him and we will provide Luis with whatever support he now needs to clear his name.

“We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult.”

So what should have been yet another convenient platform to address the ongoing and insiduous issue of racism in the game has instantly been turned into a childish bout of pissy tribalism. Well done, hats off. No-one does ‘hair-trigger persecution complex’ quite like Liverpool Football Club. It’s always someone else’s fault isn’t it? Though I would say that, I’m just part of the London media bias machine.

Objective observers could feasibly argue that, given his generally abhorrent conduct on the pitch as a matter of course, Luis Suarez was long-overdue another lengthy ban, but that’s probably by the by.

Posted in Liverpool, Opinion

Share this article: Email


  1. Ian Wright says:

    What a disgrace. aboslute outrage. If this deserves an 8 match ban, then surely Terry will be looking at the electric chair, and still we see no decision.

    Next – Liverpool will appeal and will get refused because suarez does not play for the English National team. Comsidering the ambiguity of the Luis case compared to the concrete evidence against rooney this does not make any sense to me.

    The english FA have completely ignored the fact that suarez case is Uraguay v France in England, three different interpretations of dialect.

    In Uraguay maxi periera, suarez team mate is know as ‘El Mono’ translated to the monkey! I think maxi will be shocked to here that Suarez has been handed 8 matches for calling evra a negrito translated to ‘little black man’ is this racist? no – its offensive, but no more racist than the bla bla blacksheep,

    Th FA have handed suarez a PANIC ban! After blatters handshake comments, they were given a great chance to hit back with this and show their “zero tolerrence” on racism. If they had such zero tolerrence, why wold they allow Terry to captain the nation, an out and out racist from a family of racists! It infuriates me!

    The FA have made an example out of the wrong person!!!

  2. McRico says:

    Suarez admitted a while back that he said “Negrito”. On top of this however he also admitted during the case that he called Evra a Negro at least once. “Por Favor, Negro” to be exact.

    He has held this back until now and this is what done him. Evra only ever said that is was this in an argumental context which annoyed him. If Suarez said it once he said it 10 times as far as the FA are concerned.

    To be fair 8 games is getting off lightly. He will be on 11 with his pending middle finger case and potentially 14/15 if their potential appeal fails. Not a year ago he was banned for 7 games for biting a players ear. He didn’t get the backing he wanted from Ajax hince Liverpool signed him.

    Liverpool should be sanctioned for failing to control their players and also for the ridiculous statement they released further scapegoating the victim. The social media sites are now flooded with fans calling for Evra’s blood – SICK!

    Liverpool, as a club, disgust me with their handling of this affair. I’m sure the World Media are on the side of the victim.


  3. Paddy_Viera says:

    It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said ‘I don’t think that Luis Suarez is racist’. The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suarez was not racist.

  4. Fletch says:

    No doubt the comments will start flooding in from scousers soon enough so ill get my comment in before all the shite fills up the page.

    Its irrelevant that suarez’s comment is ‘OK in uruguay’ or other spanish speaking countries, hes not in spain and wasnt talking to a spanish player.
    Hes also been in Europe long enought to know it was an insult.

    Also lets see after the inevitable appeals that liverpool will lodge, if Suarez is found guilty will Liverpool also fine and suspend their player for racism and if/when they dont, are they condoning racism?

    i think everyone knows the answer to that one.

    On a funnier note, its gonna make that chip on Dogleashs shoulder even bigger and its gonna be hilarious to see Carroll up front for liverpool for the next 8 games.

  5. McRico says:


    He was charged for being a racist. He was charged for using insulting comments referring to a player’s colour.

    He called Evra a “Negro” <- <- <- Read it – its in black and white!

    If he was charged for being a "RACIST" he wouldn't be playing at all in 2012.

    Jesus, Liverpool fans not just don't get it ! ! !

  6. Collat. says:

    There are a few things that bother me about the whole affair.
    First; from what I have read, Evra said something that implied “South American” in a negative context, admitted it in the match report, then Suarez says he didn’t hear it, so the FA didn’t not ban him. Surely you would punish both, or is it a tree that falls in a forest and noone is around?
    Secondly, did Suarez actually admit to calling him a ‘negrito’, because all i can find is that he “called something his teammates at United call him”. I’m happy to be proven wrong; but if that’s it that could range from Postman Pat to something a lot worse, and I think that’s a major aspect for the ban.
    Thirdly, if some of the conversation was in Spanish and some in English; does that change the context and meaning of language? The Japanese have plenty of words for love; each with a slightly differing meaning. From what I’ve read the supposed word he used means little black friend, so (acceptable or not and context aside) does the meaning actually change?
    Next, I read that the verdict was made by an ‘independent panel’- who was it made of; and why did they come to the conclusion that 8 games was necessary? Did they have a fair, reasonable and objective way for the decision? If they have 2 weeks to appeal; can Liverpool wait to see if an outcome is made in relation to John Terry and see if the verdicts correlate?
    Last, has anyone seen John Terry lately, or is he in the foetal position in his bedroom sobbing?

  7. Paddy_Viera says:

    @mcRico So someone who has been found guilty of racist remarks is not a racist? Then surely the punishment should not be 8 games. It’s all or nothing.

    You cant say a person who possesses pornographic images of children on his computer is not a paedophile, he is just a person who has sexaul preferences towards children, in that case we will not imprison him, he will be handed a suspended sentce, this would never happen, its a grey area and this attempt to make it clear is pathetic, the wrong time to pick a victim and its the wrong case,

    The terry case is black and white, England captain, England players involved, both of whom promote #kickracismout, witnesses and video evidence so why use this case, if terrys punishment is greater than suarez then I have no further argument, but history indicates that he will get off very lightly!

  8. McRico says:


    Nice comparison to paedophilia. I’m sure Liverpool would have avoided that in their defence.

    If suarez called someone a Negro – he gets a lengthy ban. This case 8 matches. If he rides around on the back of a horse wearing a hooded garment and burning crosses he gets kick out all together.

    May first line of “He was charged for being a racist” was a typo. It should have read “He …. wasn’t … charged for being a racist”

    Bottom line FA Rules were broken by Suarez by using the colour of their skin whilst insulting someone. He has admitted this. He has been charged. End of Story! (sadly not)

  9. pipe down says:

    The bottom line is Suarez referred to Evra’s skin colour during several confrontations. There is set rules on this conduct. Rules have clearly been broken. United have experience of this as United’s players have been punished for breaking other set rules. The best thing for Liverpool to do as a club is take it on the chin. Africa, Asia, America and the rest of Europe will get the news in summary. That summary will probably read along the lins of “Suarez banned for racism” – “Liverpool defend him”. Surely a poor reflection of the club in the bigger picture. If only 0.1% of the world have a view point that Liverpool is a racist club that’s more than yesterday.

  10. CFC_Jay says:

    Suarez Grandfather is black, so that makes him mixed race. He plays for Uruguay who are a very mixed race culture, and he formerly played for Ajax of Amsterdam, notoriously multi- Cultural!!! im not saying he’s an angel (he did once do what Tyson did to Holyfield) but this whole “Negro” slur has been bought way out of context. Evra knows this but is far too arrogant (and we all know how arrogant and up his own backside he is) to admitt this. An incredible discision for the FA to make based on the actual facts presented and i fully expect Liverpool to appeal against this.

    For all those John Terry haters out there, and by the sound of it, its anyone who doesnt support Chelsea…………If you’ve seen this “incriminating” footage of him calling Ferdinand a “Black C***”, then you would have spotted that at the begining you see him mouth the words “No I….” and that at the end of the sentence he says, “you knob-end/head”. Now anyone with a grasp of the english language would know that a sentence like that wouldnt happen……”you f*****g black c*** you knob-end/head”, it just doesnt make sense. If someone was being racist the sentence would have ended with the word C***! Is it more likely that he said….”no i didnt call him a F******g black C***, you knob-head/end” (the knob being the idiot that asked the question in the first place).

    I know off the pitch John Terry has been a complete plank, but he’s not a racist plank so come on, innocent until proven guilty…!!

  11. Tosser says:

    Pronounced with a rolled tongue “nay-gro” and “nay-grito” are now equal to nigger? I better clean up my ipod for my next trip to England then…it’s been a nice ride Jay-Z and Kanye.

  12. Si says:

    A few points:

    (1) It matters not one iota if Suarez’s grandfather was black. By way of an example, it was not uncommon for Jews to assist the Nazis during the Second World War. Using the “black card” as an excuse does not wash.

    (2) The fact that Evra said “I don’t think that Luis Suarez is racist” has no relevance whatsoever. Please, get it into your heads that Suarez has not been charged with being a racist. He has been charged with using offensive language based on someone’s skin colour. Which, incidentally, he has admitted.

    (3) Using accepted customs in Suarez’s home country as a justification for his behaviour is abhorrent. If it were customary to the French to urinate on ginger people, would we accept it over here? Probably, as all gingers are evil and lack souls, but that is by the by… He has played in Europe for years now and he is unaware that calling something what is tantamount to “n!gger” in English proves that if nothing else, Suarez is completely stupid.

    (4) The FA stuck up for Rooney because he is one of their own – ie an integral part of the national team that the FA represents. Conversely, the FA is the governing body for English club football. How people cannot understand the difference is dumbfounding.

    The likelihood is that Suarez’s ban will be reduced on appeal, however the reaction of some fans is, frankly, scary. Get a sense of perspective.

  13. Si says:

    @Tosser – on the assumption that you are not black and as such are not “reclaiming” the word, to use the critical theory construct, if you called someone a “negro” around my neck of the woods, well, let us say that you would only do it the once.

  14. Mr. T says:

    For people who are not lawyers: There are two kinds of offences (generally speaking) – 1. offences where the intent with which the act was committed is relevant and can be pleaded as a defence, 2. statutory offences – where the statute makes an act punishable and the intent behind the act is not relevant.

    I went through the FA Rules. The rule E.3.(1) mandates, “A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour”

    So the rule prescribes that the player should not ‘use’…’abusive or insulting words or behaviour’.

    The rule E.3.(2) mandates that the sanction imposed can be doubled if there is an “aggravating factor” – “In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an “aggravating factor”)”.

    Now, to the best of my understanding the Rule E.3.(1). does not include intent with which the act is committed as a relevant factor. Hence, Liverpool’s lawyers should never have admitted making the statement hoping that the language and cultural differences argument would prevail.

    Secondly, Evra admitted insulting Suarez, and if it is true that the said insult referred in any manner to Suarez’s South American origins, then the said South American origins would qualify as ‘ethnic origin’ as mentioned in E.3.(2) which is termed as one of the ‘aggravating factors’.

    So going by the book, Evra should have been hauled up and punished in the same manner as Suarez inasmuch as he has committed the same offence (a violation of E.3.(1) with the presence of an ‘aggravating factor’ which attracts application of E.3.(2).

    So now can someone tell me why Evra has not even been charged, let alone punished? Was the fact that Evra admitted that he insulted Suarez not a mitigating factor? Even if Evra did not say anything about Suarez’s ethnic origins then the same would still be an offence under E.3.(1).

    This decision is a classic example of a governing authority ignoring objectivity and fairplay to ‘make an example’ out of someone. This is fine in theory, but is highly unfair and prejudicial to the person who is being made an example out of.

  15. Degs says:

    “for openly and admittedly calling a black man a ‘negro’ a few times during a game of football.”

    He didn’t call him ‘a negro’, he called him ‘negro’ (once).

    Context is everything – even in Spanish.

  16. Al says:

    @ Mr T – very good point, this completely smacks of Suarez being made an example of by an inept governing body who have consistently failed to apply their own rules or only apply them when it suits them

    @ Si – your pointb 4 is ridiculous, either the FA have rules or they don’t they can’t not apply them to someone because he is “one of their own” ie English that in itself is verging on racism and you saying that is to use your words utterly dumbfounding

  17. Michael D says:

    @Mr T – very nice breakdown and I agree…but of course, that would require the FA to have some semblance of consistency and we all know that’s not going to happen. I wouldn’t doubt that this is also a thumb in the eye to FIFA and Uncle Sepp to show “this is how WE deal with racism”.

    @Ian Wright, @Collat, @Degs – I said it elsewhere and I’m glad others have brought it up: context is everything. There are specific and explicit words and terms in Spanish that are insults based on race/color/etc. Negro/negrito is used fairly commonly and not as an insult, just sometimes an identifier or sometimes even a nickname. Again, I know in English-speaking cultures it is certainly poor form to use and almost on the cusp of racist, but living your whole life in one culture only to use a common term in another culture isn’t anything to ban someone 8 games for. I think the actual fine is more telling that the FA knows this is not the “smoking bullet” of racism they’re trying to eradicate, just a warning. The 8 game ban will likely be reduced to 1 or 2 games, which I think is odd enough. And yes, this does nothing to address the fact that Evra admits to using offensive language towards Suarez and yet he walks away scot-free. I’m just saying.

    PS – I’m not a Liverpool supporter and in fact I’m a Chelsea supporter…but this just smacks of tempest-in-a-teacup of the FA’s making

  18. Si says:

    @Al – the FA did not ban Rooney from European competitions, UEFA did. Had Rooney been banned by the FA domestically, it is unlikely that his ban would have been lessened.

    Ultimately, you are talking about our governing body lobbying the ultimate European governing body. Of course it is agenda-driven, as the FA want England to have the strongest team possible during the Euros, but it has no bearing on the FA’s decision to ban Suarez. To claim otherwise is clutching at straws.

  19. tonys says:

    Uruguay is NOT a very mixed race country as Jay claims. Its black population is actually very minute. Other South American countries have far more such as Brazil and Columbia.

    People need to stop crying. The bottom line is you cannot refer to another play by his race in 2011 in professional sports in Europe. It is not acceptable. So be a man/woman and take it as it is.

  20. pilot says:

    Im Hispanic and if someone calls a black person negrito, he is saying that to insult the black man. That is a term of belittlement. Why does Suarez even have to say those words in the first place.

  21. Redskywalker says:

    Its always someone elses fault with LIverpool, isn’t it?

    Man up and apologise for once, you whiny children!

  22. e212 says:

    i think suarez was just trying to piss of evra by calling him negro. that doesn’t mean he’s racist at all and there is no ban against being racist. telling someone they can’t have their own belieifs is not constitutional and the fa can’t possibly punish anybody for being racist as long as they do not show it on the pitch. the reason suarez is suspended is because he used a racist remark, getting into the philosophy of racism is a much deeper concern than the simple use of disaraging terms, which i think suarez used to aggravate an opposing player. it doesn’t help his cause that he cheats, dives, cries, does anything to damage the opposition.

  23. Luke says:

    Hahaha you’re such a wind-up merchant Chris…

Leave a Reply