I believed he's not talking about which culture is holier than the other. It's irrelevant. It's more about know your ground, know where your feet stays on. You don't expect FA to consider every single culture in the world. It's ridiculous. The same with our working environment. Know the rules.

Yes, I agree football cannot eliminate but then again, I also think even the world and it's governing body cannot. Do you seriously think we can eliminate racism? Having said that, football can do so much more than promoting racism.

---

Added on December 25, 2011, 11:20 pmIs budak got anything to do with color?

This post has been edited by likeicare: Dec 25 2011, 11:23 PM

we are talking bout offensive words ..both of this words also consider offensive to ppl in certain area.

budak is a sensitive word in indonesia but not in malaysia

negrito is a sensitive word in england but not uruguay

not same?

We are talking about racism here...
If you wanna talk about offensive word, there will be probably no football matches probably bcos most players got ban for uttering the word fucuk not only to intimidate opponent, but to themselves when they miss opportunity and stuff.

Rooney: "Fucuk, I should have score."
Ref: "Off you go".
FA: "8 matches babeh".

In fact, Dalglish probably got ban for his word to Arsene, Fergie with his fucuk word etc.

This post has been edited by likeicare: Dec 25 2011, 11:28 PM

answer me first.. national gk get 8 matches ban for calling indonesia player budak. you happy or not ?

we liverpool fans are not happy with the 8 matches ban and how fa control this situation.

rooney that case is different . He swear in front of camera sure get punishment and he aint get 8 matches ban for that .

Lol...I am not even referring to Rooney case.
Does Indonesia FA rules stated this word/scenario is offensive?
If yes, ban. If not, no. This considering he's playing in Indonesia of course.

No one will be happy if the player they supported get banned. Whether he's wrong or not.

This post has been edited by likeicare: Dec 25 2011, 11:41 PM

Why wouldn't? He could be making up the case of him being unaware of the term being insulting in other parts of the world besides Uruguay.

Only he himself knows if he did mean it in insulting term. From the punishment handed out, it seems that FA thinks he did.

Common sense would tell that, in a match like that, the odds of Suarez calling Evra that just to tease him is very unlikely.

Then again, as many have said, no one will ever know if Suarez intended to insult Evra except Suarez himself. Most liverpool fans do not think so, and most of other club's fans think otherwise.


PS: The link was not posted by me. Plus I was just baffled by the amount of liverpool fans here still defending his actions not deserving of the ban when a few forums I've visited were quite in acceptance of it. By no means trying to force it down any of your throat since it is a very subjective issue.

read this a few days ago, couldn't exactly put my thoughts into words but this will do



This post has been edited by Mak_ko: Dec 26 2011, 04:17 AM

IGNORANCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE. Did you miss my post on that line?

If our National GK found belittling the Indonesian players, ban him. He is there to play football and at the same to promote the country's image. Racism shouldn't be allowed.

I've been in and out of the country(mostly to Indonesia), I found it is surprising that most of them have been belittling us in every single thing. When asked, I just replied, we have no issues with Indonesians over here. Unlike them, of course. And that, is an another subject.

Back to the topic, Liverpool FC, the player himself and the fans played the "innocent till proven guilty' card.

When Suarez admitted he did use some words against Evra, you lots seemed to discount that fact.

Remember, this is not between Liverpool and United. This is between Evra and Suarez. And along the timeline, Evra and United kept quiet and professional about this. Leaving to the authorities to decide the matter. Yet, Liverpool and Suarez came up with all sorts of interviews. Plus, with those other Uruguayans players backed Suarez up. (This is to reply to some Liverpool fans that asked why Evra kept quiet..)

When being found guilty by an INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE, the FA charged Suarez with 8 matches ban. Liverpool FC and the fans seemed to be riled up. Trying to defend the player from all kind of angles. And, Liverpool FC came up with that ridiculous statement. What is even disappointing, the club decided to produce that Tees and wore them for warm up when playing against Wigan. Without realizing the more important job to do, 3 POINTS.

Most of Liverpool fans(including Liverpool FC) trying to play the 'victim' card. Trying to point the finger to Evra and how some of them been saying it was Ferguson's plot after all. What is even more ridiculous, Liverpool FC claimed that Evra has said something derogatory to Suarez as well which was unfounded. The fans follow suit. Again, playing the sentiment of Liverpool vs United. By all means, if Evra has said something demeaning to Suarez and found guilty, ban him as well.

What I found even funnier is, when some of the Liverpool faithfuls are on their sense, most of other fans just ridiculed them. For an example, Collymore himself has been abused by the fans. How is that even possible?

Again, ignorance is not an excuse. That Negrito term might not be offensive in South America but it is demeaning in England. Like I said, one can only question Suarez's motives to call Evra by that word. Especially in a heated rivals clash between Liverpool and United.

This post has been edited by boxsystem: Dec 26 2011, 06:16 AM

can i in this country, ask all the malay to go back to Indonesia and say "hey, in my country of origin, its a kind gesture where we ask our mate to go back kampung to have a holiday?"

Why use it at first? Was it necessary? The terms they used back in South America is for friends or close mates. Evra and Suarez? There was clearly only one intention in using that word there. It's not a friendly gesture.

He admitted using the word. So there is no question anymore whether he really said that word or Evra made it up. The only question left was if there is any racism element in using the word. And clearly, Suarez is racist in his gesture.

If FA is serious about eliminating racism out of football, I'd say 8 is just a minor punishment. Could have taken back his work permit and send him straight back to South America where he like to use that word.

Thing is I think we can at least agree that Suares used an offensive word, at least in that part of the world. He admitted to it about 2 weeks later by which time I'm sure he was made aware of its severity. He could just as easily denied it or not said a word but for the sake of argument, let's say he felt guilty and came clean (which to a lot of our rivals may not make sense seeing as everyone's calling him a cheat).

I'm not suggesting that Suarez wanted to be friends either. I have to ask though. Does anyone actually know what else he said? I highly doubt from the "video evidence" that all he said was, "eh negrito". Whatever else was said, he did make reference to Evra's color which though widely accepted in South America, isn't in England. FairPlay, he deserves to be punished. I'm confused however that same say he intended it as a racial slur and yet say they don't think he's racist. I'm also baffled that some know for a fact, what he said wasnt to himself the equivalent of "hey fatboy" - physical description for, "rotund" individuals. Now I don't know otherwise but that's my point, no one can claim what they know is fact and the last I checked, a person is innocent until proven guilty or I'm a wrong? Whatever the case, the word is wrong in this context. By punishing him to he fullest extent of the law however, the FA are not only saying they know he used an offensive word eg, "fatboy", "skinny prick", etc, they are suggesting his words had racial intent in the same way John Mackie meant it when he racially abused Carl Asaba back in 2003. It was a more straightforward case back then because Mackie cannot cite cultural differences. Incidentally, Mackie only served a 3 game ban after appealing. I know what the FA is charging him with in black and white, but the punishment suggests he is racist. Do you really think we'd be having this discussion had the FA said, "this word is banned here because it's offensive here", and imposed. 2-3 game ban?

Until today, his case is still mentioned whenever racial issues arise. For those who say they don't think Suarez isn't racist, do realize that it doesn't change the message the FA is sending out. The evidence is all around. A paper has been banned for publishing the word, "racist" featuring a picture of Suarez. Man Utd fans have "Suarez is racist" chants, and sung it in their game against Fulham when Suarez was hundreds of miles away. Wigan fans chanted it when we played them.

The club and fans aren't saying he didn't use the word. We're saying he used it as a description rather than as a demeaning term. If you know otherwise, you'd make a good mind reader. Whatever it is, he had now been branded a racist, something that will live with him for a long time eg John Mackie. The t-shirts everyone is talking about is saying he isn't racist, not that he didn't use a contentious word. The fans are saying he isn't racist, not that he didn't use a controversial term. By imposing an 8 game ban, the heaviest in recent times, the same length as a person who used a more directly offensive racist word, the FA has put across the message that he's racist, hence all the chants and what not I mentioned earlier. It's there for everyone to see which is why examples of what he did in Africa, his mixed heritage and so on we're brought up, to prove that he isn't racist and the ban was befitting of someone who is.

I don't think I can express my thoughts any clearer than this which is why I'm defending him. If you know facts I don't and think what I've just said is all rubbish, you are entitled to your opinion. All I ask is that you read every sentence before responding to fully comprehend my thoughts. Too often because my posts are long, people have browsed through focusing on specific sentences, while ignoring the context in which was used leading me to have to explain it all over.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Dec 26 2011, 10:40 AM

waste time read it, conclusion still suarez is innocent, evra is gulity ... liverpool players always correct,

don't keep say FA bias and pro mu, evra also banned four matches last time after the argument with chelsea staffs last time.

Has there been a heavier punishment in football? Racism is not new to English football and there have been prior cases involving English footballers who grew up in an environment where race is a sensitive topic, get away scot free. But now that this case has been given so much attention by the media, people think we should send Suarez to the gallows for it. You can't give out a sentence without referring to prior cases, drawing comparisons between them or fans would be demanding the death penalty for rival players.

If the FA were serious about eliminating racism, why not learn from South America? The first black superstar for England only emerged in the 1980's in the form of John Barnes and he had bananas thrown at him, in the bloody 80's ffs! By then South American teams were already integrated. Instead the FA are imposing their moral compass on countries where racism isnt as apparent. Hmm

---

Added on December 26, 2011, 10:35 amThanks for proving the last point I made. Where did I say the bolded bit again or any bit for that matter? Not being able to read, I can see why you think it's a waste of time. Disclaimer : "For mature audiences only".

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Dec 26 2011, 10:43 AM

Well Duke,

There's always a limit to everything. Like I have said, one can only question his motives to call Evra by that word in a heated rivals clash.

Justice for Suarez is more likely to ask the FA to reconsider the 8 match ban. What the players do on the pitch carries more messages than those guys do in the stands. He admitted that he used the word. I see nothing more than to rattle Evra.

He should've thought about the consequences before he said it. Easier to say that he has to pay for what he did. And for most people to brand him a racist, it's more to Liverpool FC that brought this upon him.

If Liverpool FC just release a statement whereby Suarez apologized and didn't know the cultural differences, things wouldn't get this messy. Instead, Liverpool FC claimed A and B plus wanted for Evra to be punished. And that act of wearing those Tees, are just stupid, in my opinion. It sends the wrong message throughout.

Which you are entitled to. I'd only be repeating what I said earlier. Not saying the club or everyone involved handled the issue in the best possible manner. Expressing my thoughts and my thoughts alone. Fact is if the situation were reversed, I'd expect you to defend your club or your player to the bitter end until the facts prove you wrong. I believe supporting your club should be like supporting your friend.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Dec 26 2011, 10:45 AM

Like I said, supporting is one thing. But to have a blind faith is just ridiculous.

If my friend is indeed found guilty, then he deserves for what he has done.

i.e. : Rooney being handed match bans because of swearing. He knows what he has done. He deserved to be punished. That is all to it.

Correct but my reasons given earlier suggests it isn't blind faith for me. You just don't agree with my reasons. It isn't as clear cut as say me admitting to Gerrard having dived as it was backed my irrefutable evidence. Funny how some can see it in the same light when there's much less fact in this instance. A fact I do know is that the FA's verdict has been released before the official report which if you ask me is a little irregular. Sentiments in this thread will likely only change when it's out.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Dec 26 2011, 11:44 AM

This is a racial issue. The word "budak" has nothing to do with race.

Again, come up with a similar analogy.

The difference with Mackie's incident was that he did apologise, and even donated his wages to the anti-racism campaign. You can argue he knew the full extent of offense he did, unlike Suarez who claimed he did not. But the fact was that he did apologise while Suarez didn't when he could, and should. Plus, Mackie was also handed an 8 match ban, 5 of which was suspended because of his admission of guilt. Furthermore the incident was almost a decade ago, and we all know football committee are becoming more critical of abuses of all sorts happening on the pitch. Thus justifying the extent of punishment. If liverpool appeals, which is likely, Suarez''s banned could still be reduced(risking further ban).

To make matters worse, when FA made public of the investigation, Suarez even came out asking for an apology from Evra if his claim is unfounded. Which all sound so stupid now after he is found guilty.

Don't get me wrong I read your post just fine. We are all just going in circles and in the end can agree that no one can know if Suarez had the intent of insulting Evra in a derogatory way. Not you, not me, and not even the FA. What matters most is FA independent panel thinks he did. Even if he had no history of racial abuse, had a grandparent who is half black, doesn't make him immune to making such claims in a heated moment. I still wouldn't call him a racist based on an isolated incident. I personally believe that everyone has a racist and stereotypical side to themselves, like having an evil personality, just a matter of being evident or not, so should we be calling everyone racist? But since this is kind of a high profile case, it would be unavoidable he would be labelled as such, even if the initial ban handed out was just 2~3 games.

So to sum it up, if liverpool and suarez have handled this whole case better from the start, I highly doubt we will be having this discussion right now.

I LOL at this thread when i read the comments...

"Don't get me wrong I read your post just fine. We are all just going in circles and in the end can agree that no one can know if Suarez had the intent of insulting Evra in a derogatory way. Not you, not me, and not even the FA. What matters most is FA independent panel thinks he did."

and yet the FA "independent" panel found it without a reasonable doubt that Suarez is guilty. So in the end, if only Suarez and Evra knows, then the FA is based on the fact of hearsay since they decided to brand the word negrito as a now taboo word and has now labelled anyone saying in on the pitch as racist. that's how i read the FA then. they wanted an example and they found it, now the question is what about Terry? with solid proof they should lynch him and burn him at the stake then

What I meant was no one will know what Suarez himself thought of in the heat of the moment, whether if he had the intent or not. Put yourself in suarez's situation, in that situation where he and evra had that argument, the odds of suarez calling him negrito in a derogatory term is the more likely, which I believe is what the panel agreed on.

If FA panel found it without reasonable doubt, liverpool will never have the option to appeal. So I don't know where you get that from.

Regarding Terry, it is an interesting one. Bear in mind Terry's case is based on a criminal charge. I personally think FA will wait for outcome of the prosecution before handing out further punishment. If he indeed is found guilty, the FA will need to punish him accordingly.

"Derogatary" is itself in need of explanation IMO. Was it racially motivated or did he just refer to Suarez by the definition it's given in South America? Was it the same as "you fat bastar*", with "fat" being the descriptor, or did he mean to refer to Evra as a "slave" or any other connotation the English "N" word carries especially in the US or England? If it's true that Suarez isn't racist, then whilst he most likely meant it as an insult (well not in a friendly manner anyway), then maybe it was the former i.e. physical description as the word means "little black man", and "little" as we know is seldom complimentary and more likely than not, disparaging. Given what I've read it's my opinion he isn't racist but still he used abusive language. The severity of the punishment however suggests it was racial which is what I believe he and the club are arguing against.

I do agree however that there were probably better ways the club could have dealt with the case but I don't think the FA are all that competent either. Announcing the verdict before releasing the official report is one such example.