Luis Suárez banned for eight matches for racial abuse of Patrice Evra
and fined £40,000. The ban runs for all first-team matches, including 3 Man City matches, pending appeal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/20/luis-suarez-patrice-evra-racism
= new reply since forum marked as read
Even though I'm a Red fan, I would have to say that, if Suárez had actually used intentionally racist language against Evra, the FA should throw the book at him. However, that matter is far from clear:
-- Although the ref had to separate the two players on more than one occasion, Evra never mentioned a word about Suárez using racial slurs against him, although it's in the ref's jurisdiction to penalize a player for using such slurs. The charge only came about after the game, when Evra was being interviewed on French television.
-- The ref heard no racial slurs at all.
-- Nor did any of Evra's own teammates report such slurs, or substantiate his claims later.
-- Although the match being videotaped, no examination of the video or audio shows any racial slurs.
-- When the conviction and ban were announced by the panel, they did not provide any evidence to the public to substantiate their verdict. Instead, they said such evidence would be released "shortly." Word now is that said evidence might be released by sometime in mid to late January. (Of course, that leaves several weeks for the "Suárez is a racist" meme to be spread by the press and supporters of other clubs.)
-- According to speculation and "in the know" rumors (since, as I pointed out before, the actual evidence -- or lack thereof -- is currently being withheld), the sole backing for the charge is that Suárez admitted calling Evra "negrito." The problem here, as strange as it might seem to U.S. or British ears, is that, in South America, that word does not have a racist or even racial context, and can be used toward whites just as much as blacks, with a meaning (either sincere or sarcastic) similar to our "buddy" or "pal." (To be honest, I was skeptical about this until I asked my wife, who is from Colombia and, incidentally, not an LFC fan. She thought it was unbelievable that anyone could be called racist for using "negrito," as it simply does not have a racist meaning at all there and, as was reported above, is used as often toward people of European ancestry as of African ancestry.) It certainly does not mean the same as "negro," let alone the other n-word, in English. Also, apparently, Evra's own teammates call him "negrito" without offense.
-- By contrast, Evra admits calling Suárez "sudaca" before the latter called him "negrito." "Sudaca," by contrast is a very demeaning word in Spanish concerning South Americans that basically means something like "half-breed" in the sense that their Spanish ancestry has been polluted with native and, yes, even African blood. (For that matter, Suarez himself has one-quarter African ancestry.) Strangely, though, even though "sudaca" is quite a bit more offensive than "negrito," the FA panel decided not to charge Evra for using the word he admitted using.
The problem here, for both Suárez and LFC, is that (as I indicated in the subject), this case is rather complex and hinges on some murky cross-cultural and even cross-language issues. But the average fan or news-watcher doesn't know about such issues and doesn't want to know about them; all she or (usually) he needs to hear is that Suárez called Evra "negrito" (which might not even be the case in any event), and immediately jumps from there to a certain understanding that "Suárez called him a 'n****r'! Throw his ass out of football!" and then goes on to feel smug satisfaction that a British panel had the "courage" to take such a "strong stand against racism." To paraphrase the old saw, ignorant "conventional wisdom" is half-way around the world before truth has the time to get its shoes tied.
