This has been posted on EST1892 by somone claiming to be this person Iwill quote first the FA document on the key point: “90.Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Whydid you kick me?", Mr Suarezreplied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at thetime Mr Suarez made that comment,he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a ******".He now says thathe believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you areblack".” Endquote. Iread the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo,currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US.It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra isinconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I amsurprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised thispoint. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms ofSpanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evrareported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made thewhole thing up. Thisis, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it woulddestroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted thatSuárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just nota way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porquetu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolly apparently stated),which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. Youdon’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata areathat way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. Thereis no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our useof Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro”(as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax.In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the thirdperson of singular while it should have been conjugated in thesecond, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don'tknow what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I ampositive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot evenspeak Spanish... Whatfollows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said isunreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form ofSpanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porquetu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything--“porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evradeclared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porquetu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideoor Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way.In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evrareports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts hisword? Looks like Evra is making this up. *** Thatsaid, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FAhas managed the Spanish language in their report. “138.Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told himnothing happened. He saidthat there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and MrEvra told him "Don'ttouch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarezsaid he had replied"Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) Mr Comolli confirmed undercross-examination thathe believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting wasthat the words he hadused to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"."Endquote. “Porque, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is noSpanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” inthis case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their officialreport (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since theytreat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannotbe translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had totranslate it, it would be something like this: “why, you areblack?” I have no idea what that could mean. AndMr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s ownstatement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported: "141.Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said thatMr Comolli explainedto him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to thereferee that MrSuarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. MrComolli asked Mr Suarezto tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had saidto him "Don'ttouch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por quenegro?". Mr Suarez told MrComolli that this was the only thing he had said." WhatSuarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Riode la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by theFA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I haveno idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non nativespeaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his ownwords… Thelinguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here,and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’ssee how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, bylooking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by theFA: "284(...) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you areSouth American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "TuesNegro" which translates as "youare black"." Endquote. Itis ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything,would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might haveunderstood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barelyunderstands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say thisbecause “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot betranslated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’ssimply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”.Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the matchis unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through aLiverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong itmakes me laugh. Insum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, whichwould be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de laPlata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOSnegro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone,not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am anative speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, andcurrently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I wascalled to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, wholived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born inSalto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is noway in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as areaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eresnegro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist.Simply “tues” is no Spanish. Despiteof that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report,and substantiate their conviction on these words. *** ReadingEvra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evramisunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué,negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, whileSuárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly havesaid that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly tocalm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like thatwithout thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clashseems more important, and it is working against Suárez becausenobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems toeven start understanding the common way we use the term “negro”in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and theirexperts explained the different options of our use of the worddepending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury justdecided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by bothsides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not usethe "negro" word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Theirinterpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the onlyone possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’ttouch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, anda very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun,not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completelyunderstand why a British or an American might start not understandingthe tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearlyunderstand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. Ihear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing toEvra. Finally,the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements: 1)The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purelysubjective element) 2)The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish languageallegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their owninterpretation of that very Spanish language. 3)They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in adescriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means theydon't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area.This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravatedthem. Apity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion.Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there isNO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evraattributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement. Evraconvinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (againstthe "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be afterAlf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and mediaheads.
