Suarez: Innocent or Guilty? This Question May Never Be Answered

By on October 26, 2011

There is a theory in life, that anyone accused of a crime remains innocent until proven guilty. This though is something many forget to uphold in all aspects of life, and something both Patrice Evra and Luis Suarez may be beginning to realise.

Since the race row allegations that happened over a week ago, both players have had harsh views and negative connotations to deal with, depending on your view of the incident or your allegiance to the respective clubs or either player.

Those that are a Red of heart – a Mersyside Red that is – are calling into question Evra’s character and suggest that he may be lying about the incident and if that is proven to be the case, many are calling for the player to be fined. After all, this is not the first time that the French player has been involved in a race row. In 2008 he was involved in an altercation with ground staff at Stamford Bridge after it was alleged that a groundsman aimed racial slurs at Evra. However, nothing was proven and Evra was heavily fined.

Similarly, Suarez has already been labelled by a few as racist, without any proof of such behaviour. Unfortunately as the Uruguayan will find out, the taboo of being a racist is a hard mantle to drop, even of proven innocent.

For this reason, it is good that the FA seem to be taking their merry time over what could prove to be a major blow to the reputation of either player, dependent on the outcome, whether that be the man that cried wolf or the man that is out of touch with 21st century manors and etiquette…

Although, my main fear is that there is no conclusion that is reached regarding the incident. When Evra approached the official’s post match, it became clear that he had not been aware of any racial slurs, despite the constant consultation with the pair as they bickered throughout the game. Similarly, no player has backed Evra’s claim. It is almost unthinkable to my mind that nobody else present on the pitch would not have heard it, were it said.

However, the Frenchman has claimed that TV footage backs his allegations that he was racially abused ‘more than ten times.’ But for me, if neither are proven, it will be one mans word against another and as a result both men will be guilty without being proven innocent.

Without conclusive proof, you will have a group who believe Suarez to be racist and a group that will believe that the Frenchman cried wolf one too many times, both will have negative connotations which would not vanish any time soon, such is the judging way of life.

Loading...

12 Comments

  1. Garry Marshall

    October 26, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    We all know that he is guilty by just watching the other games he plays against other teams.
    His is also a diver and a dirty player along with been accused of been a racist.

    • Redsmail

      October 26, 2011 at 12:38 pm

      Are we back in the 16th century or something.

      Is he a diver – Probably yes – but that puts him in the clear majority in the Premiership. So letspraise those who dont as its impossible to evenly vicimise thouse that do

      Is he dirty – in general play there is no evidence of this and but he has his record from Ajax that he will have to live with. No dirtier than Scholes, Terry, Vidic, Gerrard, Vieira, Rooney….

      Is he a racist – unproven. If he has been accused of doing it once and the camera didnt pick it up, he may be lucky to get away with it. But 10 plus times. John Terry will atest to the fact that the cameras catch everything (see this weekend). So is Suarez a racist – not without proof, he isnt.

      If he had said this 10 times, in all Evra’s persistent conversations with the ref during the game, why did he never think to mention it. He had about 8 opportunities.

    • L22Red

      October 26, 2011 at 3:03 pm

      That’s a really stupid comment, how old are you about ten?

    • j bond

      October 27, 2011 at 5:30 am

      what a prick you are,how many games do u see him racially abuse someone,how many fouls does he give away per game,check your stats before you make such an ill imformed comment,as for diving maybe one day he can become as good as nani at it

  2. rodri

    October 26, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    Garry,

    no doubt you are a dirty devil !

    any way he might falls down easily in physical battles and if its called diving than he may be a diver at times.but i also saw he escapes from rough tackle and pushes if when he can fall down easily.

    but he is no way a racist imo.he plays with some blacks in his NT,he played in ajax where lots of black players and in dutch league where there are lots of black players.he never found guilty before.

    he is just a fighter when he plays.

  3. L22Red

    October 26, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    The only thing Suarez is guilty of is giving Evra a nightmare of a game.

    The absence of any TV evidence whatsoever, suggests that at best Evra was mistaken, or at worst Evra is a bare-faced liar. (I’ll leave you to make your own decision) but considering the number of TV cameras at Anfield, and the allegation that the abuse took place on “at least ten occaisions” I’m sure SkySports would have been displaying re-runs of every single incident they captured.

    To me, the fact that they haven’t captured and displayed any, suggests that Evra is a liar.

  4. Kalps

    October 26, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    Did it ever occur to anyone that Suarez is probably a ventriloquist and therefore Evra is probably no liar?
    After all it’s probably a trick that Saurez has mastered over the years of growing his goofy teeth which would probably make him quite devious.
    Notice the use of probably? The only fact is that Saurez does in fact have larger teeth than most, which he has used on an opponent in the past.
    So it’s best to refrain from inferring that one is liar or the other is a racist. Best we just call Saurez Goofy!!!!

  5. JJ

    October 27, 2011 at 2:10 am

    Definitely GUILTY of raping the Stoke defense today!!!

  6. j bond

    October 27, 2011 at 5:24 am

    EVRA….how many times does this man have to cause controversy,why did he not tell the ref during the game it happened 10 times according to him,he was booked for discent did he not think it was important to tell the ref at that stage what was going on,or did he forget,did it take him long after the game was over to remember,why did no one else on the pitch here anything,or jump to his defense,after all it happened over 10 times did it not patrice,and as for video footage it shows nothing to support his claims….verdict innocent,as for evra using the racism card is worse than commiting the offense it self,he should be made an example of,after all its not the first time is it evra

    • Facts are confusing...

      October 27, 2011 at 10:15 pm

      I have to agree with you on the 10 times piece… However before you make an example of Evra you’ll need concrete evidence… You’ll be hard pushed to find it.. Given the recent revelations (yet to be proven) against Terry there does seem to be a fair amount bubbling under and who knows Evra may indeed be seen as the catalyst for finally kicking racism out of the English game. A bit of a wait and see me thinks…

  7. Dave Jones

    October 27, 2011 at 7:16 pm

    Patrice Evra is the biggest cheating scumbag in professional football in the world!

    Constant False racism claims.

    Brandishes imaginary cards to Referee’s in every game he plays to get opposing players into trouble.

    Dives and rolls around the pitch like he’s been shot in every game he plays.

    Has no loyalty, tried to cause a mutiny in the French National Team. Chose France over his native Senegal.

    I hope he gets put on a lie detector machine for this latest in a long line of racism claims and The FA ban him for a long time. He won’t be missed the game will be a lot better without him.

    • Facts are confusing...

      October 27, 2011 at 10:08 pm

      This is his first claim.
      The Steve Finan claim was a claim by a spectator.
      The Chelsea claim was by those around the groundsman.
      He was allegedly the intended recipient in both cases.
      now don’t let facts get in your way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *