Luis Suarez claims huge Manchester United conspiracy during Uruguay interview

Luis Suarez cannot be so unintelligent that he's unaware interviews in his home country will find their way to England quickly, so you have to assume these latest comments - if genuine - have been made to send a message to the authorities and press in this country. All day we've been seeing quotes attributed to him on social networks and have been looking for a transcript of the interview, or the actual video which we could translate ourselves.

We haven't been able to find that, which does give some doubt, but now Mirror Football have got hold of the quotes and we trust that they have been able to put more research into it than we did. Suarez talks in detail about how he felt after the incident with Patrice Evra.

They say Suarez said during an interview with TV show RR Gol "People at the club are sure that it was a way that Manchester United used to put me out of the team and stop Liverpool.

"But in England, Man United has this political power, and you have to respect that and shut your mouth."

It sounds almost childish and something a paranoid fan would dream up and that he still thinks the whole thing was an organised conspiracy against him is odd to say the least, it paints a picture of what the reaction at Anfield will have been like surrounding the incident.

It's not just the football authorities which Luis Suarez thinks are run to benefit Manchester United and harm Liverpool, but the press too. In another bizarre claim, he said "It was a misunderstanding, what happened between me and Evra at Old Trafford when we were to shake hands.

"In fact, I think it was all arranged against me again, as it had happened with the punishment."

He doesn't hold any grudges against Manchester United fans "But Man United fans respect me.

"I have an anecdote: One day, after what had happened with the Man United player, a Man United fan came to the restaurant where I was having lunch with my wife and asked for a picture. He told me, 'I admire you as a footballer.'"

Liverpool have a new director of communications following their shambolic handling of this issue, no doubt he wishes he could control what players say when talking to journalists in their own country. 

Views: 10091

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Good on him. Rafa also said something similar about the preferntial treatment Ferguson gets. It's about time the way the media and the FA roll over to let United walk all over them was exposed. Also the way Liverpool FC defended Suarez during the farce of an investigation was magnificent. He was innocent, the Club knew it and Suarez was defended. It's a shame that the same United loving media didn't challenge the appalling bias of the FA 'investigation' rather than accept it's corrupt findings hook line and sinker.

I'm not sure about a conspiracy to get Suarez banned but anybody with their eyes open could see the case was weighted in Manchester United's favour.

You've got the Chief Executive who also sits on the FA board, a member of the independent panel who ruled on Suarez previously claimed to have 'saved Alex Ferguson's job' and influential Kick It Out chairman Lord Ouseley who happens to sit on the board of the Manchester United foundation.

I wouldn't allege these men aren't impartial but nor can they be said to be independent.

What a biased article. The press all jumped on the bandwagon on this incident, and of course Suarez is going to feel "paranoid". What Suarez said vs Evra was childish to say the least, and the way Evra reacted was childish. It was then bloated up by the media who ripped Suarez apart, issuing an "investigation". Everyone knows the guy is still settling in England, his English is bad, and that he comes from a poor background. People say he should know what he says is wrong, and should know better, but come on were all adults! Has anyone seen the words that come out of players mouths half the time on the pitch. You can here insults galore, but not anything can be said about it. How childish it is if you go to the FA and complain about a player making fun of your mom on the pitch. Empty words, mean nothing. No racist intent. Yet an 8 game ban. Scrutinized by the press, who should be controlled by the FA yet they are given the freedom to rant with pundits who know nothing of what really happened. Look at the Terry incident. Higher power's to be obviously dusted that one under the carpet. As for the handshake, if it was me, I ain't no fake person. If some one has done me wrong why would I shake his hand. People misunderstand and think its unprofessional and makes Liverpool look bad. Im a Liverpool fan, and I have no problem with Suarez showing his true feelings. At the end of the day, what is more important, sacrificing your own integrity for a object like LFC, or defending your own ethics. In every language I guarantee there is a reference to color and there is a common name that everyone uses and accepts, except English. 

Can you really blame him for believing this? He was tried by a panel including Denis Smith who once boasted in his autobiography that he had "Saved Alex Ferguson's job" and was close to Alex's son Darren when manager of Wrexham.

He was then found to be "probably" guilty with no clear evidence. The word in question was deemed to be seen as not racist in his homeland or anywhere on the continent of South America. The issue of cultural differences was never raised.

The churnalist media then proceeded to slaughter him in print without ever actually reading the document produced by the FA. Almost every newspaper printed the incorrect word that was never actually uttered by Suarez (nor was he accused of saying "negrito").

To add insult to injury, John Terry was acquited of using a clearly insulting racial slur with a far greater body of evidence against him. Wouldn't you think something was up?

The whole case was a missed opportunity to establish and define what constitutes racism on the football pitch.

There was no evidence and no witnesses for what Suarez was found guilty of and for what Evra alleged. None.

However, Suarez admitted to using a racial term. Under FA regulations, that was enough to find him guilty regardless of the intent.

So why not investigate the words he admitted to using in the context he admitted to using them? Why not draw a line in the sand and set an important precedent? Is it possible to refer to another man's race on a football pitch in any context without insulting him? This is a question we still don't know the answer to.

"that was enough to find him guilty regardless of the intent."

Yes, because what we didn't see is that they pulled out a picnic hamper, sat down, enjoyed a Pimms and watched the sun go down.

They were arguing, more than once. Suarez nipped him on the arm too, but we'll call that foreplay shall we?

I'm not sure what your point is.

Surely you aren't suggesting that a white man can't argue with a black man without resorting to racial abuse?

Surely you wouldn't be that stupid?

No you can argue, it's just when you start making racial references toward sed black player that it becomes a problem... as Suarez admitted to making... This is sheer stupidity from Suarez and Liverpool would do well to get rid of the court jester before...  

So what you're suggesting is that a white man can't refer to a black man's race, in the context of an argument, without being racially abusive.

If that's true, where is the precedent? Like I said in my original post, this case was a missed opportunity to set that precedent.

Instead of learning something valuable about language, culture and race, all we learnt is the depressing truth that under FA regulations, accusations alone constitute enough evidence to warrant guilty verdicts.

Why do you feel the need to mention "race"... are we not all of the make-up? Does skin colour play such a big part to your life that you have to mention it if arguing with some one?

"Accusations" Evra reported him, Suarez admitted saying it.... the issue was over "culture" which has already been dismissed because in any culture "racism" shouldn;t be acceptable... hence forth Suarez was guilty and he and his club should have accepted that punishment with some grace...

The person here who seems not to be learning anything from this is you and Suarez... this is not a difficult concept, and the reason for the social awareness and hypertension around it is because in the not too distant past I think you'll see certain unreasonable discriminations... 

You have a brain, try and engage with it every now and again... you could try taking off the delusion enhanced scouse spectacles too...

Gary.. a player saying "Smell your mum" and a player say "Negro" are two very different situations... general insults and swearing at each other is very different than being abused because of the colour of you skin... as for the excuse that he was poor and from a poor family and a poor background...  I think it is you that needs to grow up... I expect my 10 year old to understand the concept of racism... I think I can expect a 20 odd year old multi millionaire with PR consultants to do so... 

Not only are you disrespectful but your ignorance is risible. Let me explain why.

For argument's sake, let's assume Suarez's testimony was honest.

First of all, there is no more or less "need" to refer to race in an argument than there is to refer to hair colour, stature or any other physical characteristic. However, in British culture and in the English language, to refer to race is considered worse. Why? Because of our legacy of slavery. For a white British person to refer to the race of an ethnic minority in the context of an argument implies the same claim to genetic superiority that led the British Empire to colonise and enslave a continent.

You are correct that "racism" shouldn't be acceptable in any culture. You are incorrect to imply that "racism" means the same thing in other cultures as it does in this one. It was established during the hearing that in Uruguayan culture and in the Rioplatense dialect, to refer to race is NOT necessarily racially abusive. And why? Because the burden of history does not weight heavily on the black and white people of Uruguay as it does on the black and white people of Britain. Uruguay has no legacy of slavery. Therefore to refer to race can be the equivalent of referring to hair colour, stature or any other physical characteristic.

You might say Suarez should have been sensitive to the British attitude toward racism but that isn't the same as being racist, is it? At worst, it is ignorance. But he is no less ignorant than you are, is he? After all, you've demonstrated the same lack of understanding of his culture as he has of yours.

It seems to me you belong to the vast herd of sheeple in this country who accepted the verdict and the findings of the case without fully understanding it. Your postion is to regurgitate the same line followed by the national press who reported it as an open-and-shut case; Evra made an accusation, Suarez admitted guilt and was found guilty.

That is not what happened.

Evra's allegation and Suarez's admission were poles apart as you would know if you bothered to read the report thoroughly or if you'd interpreted it correctly. Suarez's admission did not support Evra's allegation. In fact, nothing supported Evra's allegation. Nobody saw or heard the incident and no cameras or microphones recorded it. Yet Suarez was found guilty of it regardless. So can you not appreciate the feeling of injustice?

It's not so much that Suarez was found guilty that is the problem; it's what he was found guilty of.

That is the single most retarded thing I've ever read in my life, you'd make an excellent candidate for a BNP councillor with logic like that.



© 2019   Created by SPORT WITNESS.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service