I’ve heard they’re gonna get the below printed and then stand in a circle…
United stressed that the word was clearly used in an affectionate manner and has different connotations in South America, where Cavani is from.
That was Edo Brandes retort (except he said it was his wife) to Glenn McGrath when McGrath asked him why he was so fat
Have you got a link to that? I can’t find that statement anywhere
MEN says they are aware of the post but have not made an official statement.
If only our Suarez was from the same country
If he used the same word, he gets the same ban. Not tricky.
The context is different though, plus United’s defence is likely to be considerably better prepared than ours was (assuming he’s charged and United contest it).
You mean they won’t turn up in shit t-shirts embarrassing the club?
Contrition was our best defence, they’ll probably learn from our epic mistakes.
Nah, we should have fought it properly on the grounds that it wasn’t racially offensive in the language it was spoken in. The FA should stop trying to apply an English meaning to foreign language and interpreting an exchange in a setting it does not fit. It’s a blatant attempt at language Colonialism and the FA should stop being so arrogantly racist. White men in suits ought to know by now that the world cannot only be seen through English eyes and heard through English ears. You gammon faced bunch of exclusionary elitist bigots. Withdraw these charges or confirm that the FA really is institutionally racist, unenlightened, and out of date.
That’s what we should have done.
Fecking yogurt knitter…
How dairy…
Yoghurt some cheek starting this again…
It was (not to me obviously) considered offensive in the country in which the word was used.
Slightly different…
Cavani wrote it…
Lip reading experts and the testimony of Evra (reliable?) were used to nail Suarez…
Real evidence vs Circumstantial…
Suarez admitted using “negro” so not really circumstantial.
Here
Nah, we should have fought it properly on the grounds that it wasn’t racially offensive in the language it was spoken in.
That’s how we fought it though isnt it? Its just that they found Evra’s evidence more reliable on the ‘grounds of probability’, partly due to contradictory evidence from Comolli and Kuyt.
Im not going to get into a slinging match on the Suarez ban as I’ve been there too many times before. Instead I will leave absolute facts so you can decide for yourselves whether the Suarez and Cavani incidents are similar:
In giving the reasons for the length of the ban, the report said: “Given the number of times that Mr Suarez used the word ‘negro’, his conduct is significantly more serious than a one-off use of a racially offensive term and amounts to an aggravating factor.”
"For example, Mr Suarez said that he pinched Mr Evra’s skin in an attempt to defuse the situation. He also said that his use of the word ‘negro’ to address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence.
"To describe his own behaviour in that way was unsustainable and simply incredible given that the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument.
"That this was put forward by Mr Suarez was surprising and seriously undermined the reliability of his evidence on other matters.
The commission added: “In our judgment, Mr Suarez’s use of the term [negro] was not intended as an attempt at conciliation or to establish rapport; neither was it meant in a conciliatory and friendly way.”
Those aren’t the facts, they are the conclusions of the Tribunal. Our defence of Suarez was pathetic. Everyone, on all sides, was inconsistent. The only person whose story remained consistent throughout was Suarez. The two “experts” were a joke whose evidence we allowed unchallenged, Comolli fucked the case almost from the outset, and Evra has to be the least credible witness ever to go before an FA Tribunal. Our legal team was unprepared (they admitted as much) and shouldn’t have taken it on. I have to say I felt sorry for Suarez on this occasion.
Intention is what matters the most in any case. Cavani quite obviously did not use the unfortunate term deragotary and when that is the case, the some what zealous reaction to it troubles me a bit.
But yes, they should stop using the term “negrito” in Uruguay for historical reasons, just like we Norwegians should all stop using the word “neger” due to historical associations and so on. But some unfortunately use it still and not all who use it are racist. Cavani didn’t mean it racist most probably and then one would punish him for possible structural ingrained cultural racism ? Does not seem right to me.
Because I really don’t believe he wrote “negrito” meaning it as racial slur, makes no sense in that situation, and then for what would you punish him for ? Deterrence ?
I guess I just think it is a shame that may have to carry the “racist” label due to this situation. I find it a bit awkward to watch when I really believe he did not all mean what he wrote as a racial slur.
But yes, they should stop using the term “negrito” in Uruguay for historical reasons, just like we Norwegians should all stop using the word “neger” due to historical associations and so on. But some unfortunately use it still and not all who use it are racist.
Why the heck should stop using it for historical reasons? It is a diminutive, which has no negative connotations in Spanish. The root is the word for black. The use of that root in English and Norwegian is frankly a little bizarre and suggestive of racial attitudes, but that simply is not the case in Spanish. There are multiple examples of racial slurs in Spanish that can be directed at people of African descent, ‘negro’ is not one of them.