T-shirts "shameful" yet undisputed racism is a laughing matter.
MUCH has been written and said about the Suarez-Evra case, particularly in the few days since The FA announced the verdict, and it’s safe to say that little new can be added, at least until the written reasons for the verdict are made public.
Opinions vary on how right or wrong the verdict was, how suitable the punishment was and how appropriate the response has been. People have opinions on people’s opinions and it’s practically impossible to find an impartial opinion.
Yet these opinions are all based on ‘facts’ that are still rather vague, few of which are actually on record anywhere. Words like “negro”, “negrita” and “sudaca” are getting mentioned almost everywhere as being part of the exchange between the two players – but haven’t been mentioned anywhere on the record, in public, by any of those remotely involved in the case.
The opinions being voiced now may well change when, eventually, the full facts of the case are known. The opinions may still be polarised even then, but at least by then it will be possible for those who really care to base their opinions on something other than speculation, sensationalised snippets and spin. There will always be those who struggle to see beyond club v club and those who see no issues in using a situation like this to suit their own needs in some other way – but this spiteful debate could actually become positive if it was based on fact and not innuendo. Individuals normally critical of decisions made by football’s officialdom are suddenly blind to any possibility that there could be a problem – minor or major – with the verdict.
Kenny Dalglish said, yesterday, “It would be helpful to everyone if someone gave us some guidelines about what you can and cannot say.” Whether that would be helpful or not (again, opinions will vary) it would be far more helpful to hear what was or wasn’t said.
Not that any of this bothers the people with an eye on viewing figures and circulation numbers. It’s controversial, it sells, it brings in the punters. And to keep it going they need people who can speak from experience to throw their opinions out there, to help promote even more debate.
Thankfully for them Twitter provides ideal candidates and eases the need to explain in the awkward early part of the phone call why they think that person’s opinion might be relevant. Instead they see the person’s opinion in 140 characters or less and there’s their excuse to call.
One of the people with an opinion on the issue is former Manchester United player Paul McGrath. He’s not seen the written reasons for the verdict either, but he’s clearly satisfied that there are no problems with it. His mind’s made up and he thinks it’s shameful that Liverpool – and one of Liverpool’s players in particular – is willing to even consider there could be a problem with the verdict. It hasn’t crossed his mind that the player he singles out is entitled to his own opinion.
McGrath was speaking about the Liverpool players wearing t-shirts showing their support for Suarez: “It puts the anti-racism campaign back to the beginning as far as I’m concerned. Maybe Kenny is trying to make a statement to the FA but I just think it is in bad taste that he sent them out in those T-shirts.”
It was Liverpool’s right-back he singled out: “If I was in Glen Johnson’s situation, I’d have thrown the shirt to the floor. If that had been someone in my time and I’d heard the comments or even suspect he was guilty, then I would not wear a T-shirt with his name on it, saying all is well and good here.”
We’ll come back to that in a moment. He went on: “It would have been much better for Liverpool if they’d have worn anti-racism shirts. It’s about respect. There’s this issue going on about respecting your opponents. It is actually a game. The game itself has gone too big; it’s about winning and the money. The actual element of football being a game has long since gone; it is all about protecting your interest, protecting your best players.
“A lot of children watch these games and to have done what they did, doing their warm-up in T-shirts with his smiling face on it, having just been done for a supposedly racist comment to one of his opponents, is shameful for football.”
Johnson wore a Luis Suarez t-shirt, he didn’t go into details about his opinions on the case or what he based those unaired opinions on. He clearly knows more about the case (at least Suarez’s side of it) than most, but for various reasons he’s not in a position to actually go on record to elaborate, not yet anyway.
One incident of racial abuse in football that hit the headlines happened off the field in 2004. It was Manchester United’s former manager Ron Atkinson, working for TV, who was heard making comments about Marcel Desailly from the commentary box: “He’s what is known in some schools as a f*****g lazy thick ni****.”
The “n” word used by Atkinson was far stronger than the variations Suarez is speculated to have used and it wasn’t a case of his word against that of an accuser. It was all on tape, there for anyone who wanted to hear it with their own ears to do so. If that was what Suarez had said, unprovoked, and if that had been caught on tape, this debate wouldn’t be taking place this week. There wouldn’t be a grey area and Liverpool would probably have started a self-imposed ban on their own player from the off.
Nobody would be able to defend Suarez for that, absolutely nobody. Yet Atkinson was defended when he came out with that slur. He lost his job and he lost his status in the game but he was still defended by some. He was defended by one in particular. Mr Paul McGrath.
McGrath’s defence of Atkinson was astounding, even more so in the wake of his comments about Glen Johnson and Kenny Dalglish: “Well, Ron’s old school, I have to say that.”
What does that mean? Does “old school” mean old-fashioned, from an era where using words like “n****r” would be acceptable? Did he think Ron maybe just needed educating that the culture of the olden days wasn’t the same as culture of modern-day England. In other words, let it go with an apology?
He didn’t say, he just said the man who called a player a “n****r” wasn’t a racist. “Jesus, he’s one of the furthest men away from being a racist. He might say the odd word that makes you think ‘Jesus, what’s happening here?’ He had this thing in training, where he’d say ‘it’s the c**ns against the rest’.”
How did McGrath, now so annoyed with Johnson about a t-shirt, react to Atkinson’s alleged use of insulting racial words in training? “We’d just laugh about it.”
Really? “And the so-called c**ns had a good team – me, Yorkie, Dalian Atkinson, Cyrille Regis – so we were delighted. Never once would any of us have taken exception.”
These comments were made around three years after Atkinson’s, he’d had plenty of time to reflect on it, he still wasn’t willing to show the same contempt to Atkinson that he would later be showing to Kenny Dalglish.
Dalglish wore a t-shirt with a player’s name number and image on. Atkinson called a player one of the most objectionable racist words known. “What he said about Desailly, that’s something you shouldn’t be saying,” said McGrath.
Paul McGrath is entitled to his opinion, but people reading it are entitled to see it in context. He can’t be right both times, can he?
Context doesn’t sell papers, sensationalism does. Far too many people claiming to care about racism have it further down their priorities than they would care to admit.
Great article Jim, Mcgrath has jumped on the bandwagon and assumed guilt without having seen or heard the ‘facts’. Could it be something as simple as an ex Man Utd player putting the boot in on Liverpool FC because he is black and people will think he is credible? Ron Atkinsons comments were disgraceful and for Mcgrath to defend him probably does more harm to the racism problem than anything that Luis Saurez did or didn’t say.
As always Jim – spot on.
Great journalism. Liverpool under Dalglish are a force in the ascent and Suarez should be a big part of our future unless he can be excluded and demonised out of the English game. I have smelt a rat from the very beginning of the whole racism story and I’m not at all surprised that certain people are coming out to criticise the club.
It will be fascinating to see how these people react if Evra himself is charged with making racist insults.
Knowing McGrath’s history it’s unfair to expect consistency from him.
Well said author! Fair article, fair opinion, get his point right. Sometimes bias exist in this situation. What if the same ‘situation’ happens to player of other rival teams eg. Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal etc. Just think about it. The same situation of which Suarez was in. Could you imagine that? I guess they probably could’ve done the same thing as what Liverpool had did for Suarez. Suarez had his case to proved himself innocence in this matter. For now, we just have to wait and see until the written ‘reasons’ for the verdict made by the FA are made public.
A very good piece its nice to see someone discussing something where all the facts are public knowledge as opposed to hearsay. On McGrath’s part I think its a blatant bit of hypocrisy the idiot would have done better to keep his mouth shut so to speak. I find it funny as well the calls today saying in the terry case innocent until proven guilty, that’s entirely as it should be but where was that for luis because the overwhelming reaction I’ve witnessed since this started was that luis should be crucified. It really makes me wonder at times the british attitude to racism and combating it, alot of good work has been done and I don’t want to take anything away from that but it seems to me quite often its merely an appearance in order to comply with social conventions rather than any true conviction, the lawmakers and judges for lack of better terms seem to be the most racist of the lot.
Regardless, the lack of tact shown by the club on which is a very sensitive subject (a subject to which in that same city a boy died with an AXE BLOW to the head because he was black) is astounding. Fact is that Suarez has been found guilty on this charge. Some humilty and respect to us black fans just to deal with it in a less confrontational and aggressive manner would have been nice. Instead to attack Evra on half truths and straight out lies sends the message that if you just deny it, claim some black friend or relation and completely sh!t on the complainant you can get away with it. I’m ashamed to be a fan right now because it shows us that the well being of one player with an established dubious character is more important than a black fan of over 30 years. I wonder what they have planned next. A charity We Are The World record to pay off his fine? Embarassing.
Desy,
You are talking about a club that has been at the forefront of tackling racism on the inside and the outside of football for years. A club you say you yourself have supported for 30 years.
If, as appears, you don’t understand why the club and its ‘multi cultural’ fanbase are putting forward the stance they are showing, maybe you would be better off saving your ‘shame’ and ‘walking alone’ with some other club!
Sadly your comments put you in the same company as the likes of Paul McGrath. Good intentions, wrong tact!
Yes, and that is why I’m so shocked at Liverpool’s tactless and insensitive approach. I’m not a sheep and I won’t be railroaded into a position simply because it would make me feel better. If the reason for believing Luis Suarez is that he’s been here for less than a year and that Liverpool have done PR stuff about equality (I can bet your bottom dollar Millwall have done as much or more) then I’m not buying it. This time last year we thought Torres was a saint. Now he’s evil incarnate. I simply don’t look at Suarez as an angel who can do no wrong. He is a player who has behaved in some deplorable ways on the pitch in the past. He does not present the character that deserves my full support. And even if, as widely believed by supporters of him, he said what he said in a jovial and respectful manner then he and the club have handled the matter in a poor way but not just apologising, explaining the misunderstanding and attempting to move on. Alan Hansen did just that and what he said and the context of how he said was way less offensive or antagonistic than how Suarez has been accused of saying it. It just doesn’t add up to me and as a result I cannot give Luis Suarez, a player who has bitten opponents, likened his cheating to a new hand of God, pulled opponents hair, dived about, made gestures at crowds, publicly forced transfers from not one but two clubs, the benefit of the doubt. If that makes me a black sheep to a large group of Liverpool fans then so be it. But my heart is in the right place and I am happy with that.
I don’t know why McGrath’s opinion matters so much. He is clearly in the United camp as an ex-player, he has a history of drunken behaviour and clearly condoned Atkinson’s use of racially abusive language. Given that background and the fact that he knows no more that any other outsider, his opinion is virtually worthless.
Great article… The issue of racism makes hipocrites of a lot of people. I reserve judgement until the facts come to light!!
All I could find to say is that both of these clowns are from the British Isles – where you’ll find hypocrisy is pandemic
Shame on you Liverpool fans. You have been through so much adversity, seen so much injustice, but are now blind loyalty to the situation unfolding in front of you.
Issues of principle should never be reduced to the whims of tribalism. This is what Liverpool supporters of all types have been doing.
If the shoe had been on the other foot – if Suarez had made the allegation against Evra – the reaction of Liverpool FC and its fans would have been the opposite to what it is. You don’t see it but you are destroying your reputation amongst people who can see the situation fairly across the country.
Jim – shame on you! This is an extremely complex case yet you’ve done just the same as the most pathetic tabloids and passed it off as simply black-and-white. Let’s just wait and read the actual ruling before you head up the Lynch mob…
Jim,
Maybe a question needs to be asked of the F.A.
With the 2 players involved being ‘non-English’, where they the ideal ‘guinea-pigs’ to show a stance against racism without harming the chances of the national teams ambitions?
“Kenny Dalglish said, yesterday, “It would be helpful to everyone if someone gave us some guidelines about what you can and cannot say.” Whether that would be helpful or not (again, opinions will vary) it would be far more helpful to hear what was or wasn’t said.”
As a black person I think it would just be easier if Kenny came out and told all black people what is and isn’t racist. He seems to know better than any of us exactly what does and doesn’t cause offence so his input would be greatly appreciated!
Nonsense Richard, exaggerating helps nobody.
As it happens I agree with your piece but the comments in my last post reflect exactly how myself and many others feel. You may not appreciate it and that is your choice. If Mr Dalglish really wants some guidelines I would suggest the following:
Do not under any circumstances make reference to a person’s skin colour when on a football pitch or at a football match. There is no reason to. That is hopefully straightforward enough to avoid any confusion.
Richard
You’re dead right Richard. I recently heard a lot of moaning from certain circles who want football managers “skin colour” to matter. They were actually suggesting that this should be an issue and that we should have a quota of “black” managers (whatever that is) regardless. Did you ever hear anything as ridiculous or racist.
No more needs to be said, other than this article needs to go media mainstream. Absolutely top drawer jounalism!
No this is the fairest and most balanced article thus far. We can trip over ourselves to defend Suarez but the boy’s character is NOT sound:
http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/les-murray/blog/1086893/Why-Suarez-is-a-racist
@Desy – Have you seen the evidence of what Suarez actually said? Very few people have and a lot of the speculative attacks on Suarez – like the one you’ve linked to – are based on the idea Suarez said “Negrito”. Quite apart from this word having no direct equivalent in English, none at all, there is still no confirmation it’s the word he used. The word that others are suggesting was used was the word “Negro”, a word used in a part of the conversation that was in Spanish.
That word means “black”. In English the word “black” is used to describe colour – amongst other things. A black t-shirt. A black coffee. Black ink. A blackhead. A blackboard. A blackbird. A black sky.
It’s also used to describe the colour of someone’s skin – like when people claim something underhand must be going on if there are so few black managers, or when they report on this actual case and carry quotes from players referred to as black, expressing their views on the case and the aftermath.
The ignorance on display is astounding. Ignorance in the sense that there is a complete unwillingness to even consider that Suarez may well have cultural reasons to say whatever it was he said (we still don’t actually know what it is). Racial tension is made worse all around the world when individuals or groups are unwilling to spend time understanding or accepting the cultures and customs of those who might be different to themselves.
If you are a Liverpool fan then you should be ashamed right now. Ashamed that you are so prejudiced towards anyone different to you that you think Suarez should be compared to someone who used an axe to murder a young person due to racial hatred. Ashamed that you think it’s fine to bring Heysel and Hillsborough into a discussion about whether or not it’s right for someone to act in a way considered completely respectable in his own culture.
You even claim Suarez has “an established dubious character” to help with your argument! He handballed a ball on the line once, he must be racist? Or maybe you mean, deep down, “he’s white – he must be racist”. I hope not – but it’s not that far removed from “he bit someone, he must be racist.”
If you are a Liverpool supporter and you think it’s fine to condemn Suarez – based on speculation you’ve read in the papers – how about Mr Evra’s alleged insult to Suarez? It’s now being widely reported that Evra called Suarez “sudaca”, a very offensive term used in Spain to refer to South American immigrants.
I can’t think of a word in English – because there isn’t one – that replicates exactly either of the two speculated words that might have been said by Suarez in the context he is speculated to have used it in. I can, however, think of similar words used in England to that allegedly used by Evra.
What depresses me more than anything about this case is that far too many people are willing to send Suarez off to be burned at the stake without actually having even a small clue what really went on. The least the FA could have done was release the information that would tell us what really went on – then we’d at least be debating the rights and wrongs of what happened, not the rights and wrongs of various guesses at what really went on.
Zero tolerance is all well and good – except it’s a lack of tolerance of the customs and culture of others that causes so much of the race-related problems in this world.
Zero tolerance was the problem to begin with.
@Jim This is the kind of convoluted double argument that has plagued this debate. The article linked is quite clear. The reported words used, whether ‘negro’ or ‘negrito’ can be used as terms of endearment, but can also be used with negative connotations. That. Is. It. I doubt Suarez wouldn’t have been aware of the ambiguity so why use the term for a rival in a heated moment? That’s the question I ask. I can’t account for Evra and being that I hate United, I don’t need explain how much I hate their captain.
But what frustrates me is your wilful misinterpretation of my post. Did I compare Suarez to an axe murderer? No. However I did state that in a city where not long ago a boy was killed with an axe to the head, the subject of racism should have been more sensitively broached than lying about the complainant’s past record. As a black man the message is that if I complained about racial abuse I am game for lies and misinterpretations of my past. The boy who didn’t cry wolf.If a ruling body accepts my complaint then that body must be corrupt and heavyhanded. Or maybe the reason that deliberation took so long is that they were considering the likelihood of the word that Suarez admits saying being used as a chummy phrase that he did not expect to offend. Maybe they considered that argument to be bollocks given the situation. Maybe people like you who suggest that I shouldn’t conclude that Suarez said something racist (note I DIDN’T call him a racist just said that he may have made a racist utterance), should take your own advice and not make supportive conclusions based on the same information. Because if the report shows that the matey use of those words have been considered and discounted for good reason then the whole club will be in a very tough and unforgivable position. Supporting a man who made a racist comment.
Then you question Suarez’s dubious character. This time last year he was serving a seven match ban for biting someone on the shoulder. We’ve all seen his pained expressions when lightly fouled. We saw how he celebrated that penalty save and refer to it as the new Hand of God. I saw him pull Raphael’s hair and openly talk about a future at Barcelona while a Liverpool player. Yet I’m chastised if I doubt that he attempted to wind up Evra using his race. You have blinkers on my friend.
Many Liverpool fans think it’s fine to support Suarez based on what they have read in newspapers and via an incoherent, laughable missive from the club. If I have condemned Suarez it is based on HIS OWN INTERVIEW. His own words where he admits to using the word negrito. Now having a clearer idea of the ambiguous way in which it can be used and Suarez’s previous character which includes BITING A MAN, I think I can reasonably conclude that this word was used in a derogatory and condescending manner (equipped with a pet like pat on the head). Because I’ve been a Liverpool fan since Ronnie Whelan curled a beauty past United at Wembley I have to back this man? Because when my father first came to this country he lived in Liverpool and worked in the mines in Speke, cementing his love for Liverpool by sneaking into Anfield on his way home (he walked from Toxteth to Speke to work), I’m supposed to support this man? I was Liverpool before Suarez first sprouted his buckteeth and I’ll be Liverpool after he’s forced a move to Real or Barca or Chelsea or Man City in a couple of years.
@Desy Genuine question – can you please send me a link to this: “HIS OWN INTERVIEW. His own words where he admits to using the word negrito.” I’ve not seen it myself.
By the way, referring to Luis as “buckteeth” would probably be considered acceptable in Uruguay, even directly to the person’s face, judging by what I’ve read recently. Would you go up to someone in your own daily life and address them directly in that way?
PS: I have a SERIOUS problem with this statement:
…Or maybe you mean, deep down, “he’s white – he must be racist”. I hope not –but it’s not that far removed from “he bit someone, he must be racist.”…
That is such a ridiculous and crazy statement I find it hard to even begin to argue against. But to my chagrin I will repeat I DID NOT LABEL HIM RACIST, I JUST ADJUDGED HIS COMMENT TO BE RACIST. Secondly, a man who is prepared to bite an oppenent on the field of played in my mind is capable of saying some deplorable stuff to an opponent to wind them up. Suarez, like Materazzi, Barton, Mihailovic et al appear to be well rehearsed in the dark arts of football. The yellow card waving, the pained expressions and screams, the dives, the dirty tackles, the nasty comments. As far as I’m concerned his argument appears flawed being that the words reportedly used would likely be seen as derogatory in this context even in South America.
I for one would love to have seen Suarez exonerated. My heart sank when I heard of the accusation. But I absolutely WILL NOT allow my lifelong love of the club and the manager skew my opinion and concern. I’m not a hypocrite and will not support a guy beyond reason simply because he’s played for the club for less than a year.
Jim you make some very good points in your last post especially when you say “Have you seen the evidence of what Suarez actually said? Very few people have”
Nobody has seen the evidence apart from the two parties involved and the panel. The panel have found him guilty and given him an 8 game ban. Liverpool don’t accept that verdict and that is their want.
Despite this there is a certainty amongst Suarez’s supporters that he is innocent. What exactly is that belief in his innocence based on?
What depresses me more than anything in this whole situation is the unwillingness to even contemplate that Suarez might just maybe have said something to Evra that constituted a racial insult.
I am not saying that this is the burden of proof on which he should have been found guilty but rather wondering if those defending him have ever stopped to contemplate that as a possibility.
I of course have no evidence of what Suarez said and will have to wait for the judgement to be published.
I would however be genuinely interested to hear if you think there are ever circumstances under which it is acceptable to refer to someone’s skin colour during the course of a football match.
Quick reply to your last question Richard. Yes. If the answer is no then surely that means there is never a time to refer to someone’s skin colour.
Yes, if purely descriptive (i.e. ‘mark that black guy at the near post’). No, if done in a derogatory manner.
Interesting. I would actually disagree with that.
I have never (as far as I know) had my skin colour referenced during the course of the match in a descriptive way. If someone was picking me up at a corner I’d expect them to refer to my shirt number if it was an organised game or if it was a kick about by something I was wearing.
I would never expect my skin colour to be referenced nor would I refer to someone else by their ethnicity or race. I’d find it very odd to say the least.
Richard, do a bit of research (or read a few posts back on here to a link to an article Rory Smith wrote for The Anfield Wrap) and you’ll see that we’re arguing about what you (presumably) an Englishman brought up and living all his life in England does, not what a Uruguayan does.
If you needed to identify someone to another person, not just in football but in any situation really, would you really stick to what they were wearing as a means of identifying them? You’d not even consider referring to anyone as ‘the man with beard’, ‘the bald man’, ‘the man with the grey beard’, ‘the bald man with a bit of grey hair at the back’, ‘the tall lad’, ‘big nose’, ‘him with dreads’, ‘the old guy’, ‘the tubby one’, ‘ginge’, ‘the one built like a brick s***house’ etc?
You go into a shop after you’ve had a problem with something. You’re asked: “Any idea who served you?”
In England very few people would refer to skin colour in the description, even if it was of great help to do so. Five people in front of them, one female and four males, they’d have no problem saying: “The woman with the green hat on.” Five people, one of them with different colour skin to the others, there’s no way they’d say: “The white/black man with the green hat on.”
In Uruguay, from what I’ve seen from a growing number of people with at least some expertise on the country and its culture, they’d have no problem whatsoever in referring to skin colour if it helped to identify someone.
I see your point but at times someone may have their front to you or something. Like anything context is everything. But just to state that the words reportedly used are always a positive reference seems to be a bit of a falsehood. Especially in light of the article I cited. The failure to consider this and the willingness to return ire to the complainant concerns me deeply.
Richard – I don’t think there’s certainty Suarez is innocent – there’s doubt that he’s guilty. It’s a slight but important difference.
I can only really speak for myself.
Before LFC’s statement I felt the most likely explanation was a misunderstanding of some kind. I didn’t think LFC would deny it so strongly had they thought there was any truth in it. But – and this is quite important too – this was all based on the fact that LFC only had their own players’ words for it. They had Suarez’s version, plus anything any of their other players may or may not have heard. That in itself must have made them fairly certain he’d done no wrong – in my view – otherwise they’d have gone for a deal of some kind – in my view.
As time went on there was always a chance that some other evidence would pop up. A mobile phone video of the incident for example, or a camera angle previously missed. Even – considering Evra claimed it happened ten times – footage from some other point in the game that hadn’t previously been examined. From what I can tell that didn’t happen and it all went on the word of Evra and Suarez.
After Liverpool’s statement I still feel the most likely explanation was a misunderstanding and I also feel that this was a misunderstanding that will have now been adequately explained – but that explanation has been ignored by the panel. I’m sure I’m not the only one who bases their doubts on the verdict on that kind of scenario.
How about the punishment? I think there is also, for some, a feeling that even if the verdict was correct it was only correct on a very literal use of the FA’s rules and didn’t reflect the nature or intent of what was said.
The panel’s imposition of an eight game ban + £40k fine means, under the FA rules as we know them, that the insult Suarez uttered was worth a 4 game ban and a £20k fine. The “aggravating” of that insult by reference to the other person’s race doubles the punishment for the insult.
In fact, under those FA rules, players should be charged and punished the same way for (for example) going to a player and saying “You fat man” or “You ugly Welshman” or “You dumb Catholic”. One part is the insult, the other is the aggravating factor (references to any one or more of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability).
In fact, I imagine, had Suarez said “You’re too slow son” or even “Your lot were crap in the World Cup” it would – under those FA rules – be subject to the same penalties.
Maybe the issue is that we wouldn’t expect an 8-game ban for “You’re too slow son” or “You fat man” – maybe we wouldn’t even expect a yellow card. Maybe we’re wondering why the punishment was so heavy for what sounds like, at worst, a genuine mistake on Suarez’s part.
But the punishment isn’t just 8 games and £40k. The case was hanging over him for ten LFC competitive fixtures. The verdict was announced on Tuesday and he went to Wigan the next day having seen back page headlines branding him “racist”. Elsewhere fans were celebrating one of their rival teams’ players being banned for so long. The written reasons could take another month, after which he has two more weeks to appeal. He could play ten more games with this hanging over him.
Only then, twenty competitive games after the accusations were heard, would he start the 8-game ban.
And if, as LFC seem certain should be the case, the decision is overturned, that would be 20 games with it hanging over him and the damage to his reputation already done.
He is being made an example of – and it might yet turn out he did no wrong or it might turn out he did wrong but completely unintentionally.
Silly response. The imposition of punishment isn’t a ban per word basis. It encompasses the whole offence. The offence is abusing on the basis that you stated. Not abusing then a couple of more added on for the manner in which you abused.
My point is that if he did wrong unintentionally surely the reasonable thing to do is apologise. At no point has LFC or crucially Suarez himself contradicted the very wide reports that words such as negro or negrito were said. In fact Suarez seemed to suggest this himself in a radio interview in Uruguay. So if this was the case why the need to lie about Evra’s history of complaints? Why the citing of Suarez’s black grandfather?
Have you seen the FA’s rules then Desy or are you just guessing at them?
Either way you’re wrong:
=========
(1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
(2) In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an “aggravating factor”), a Regulatory Commission shall consider the imposition of an increased sanction, taking into account the following entry points:
For a first offence, a sanction that is double that which the Regulatory Commission would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present.
===========
Then I stand corrected and I apologise.
See how easy it is.
Jim even though I was born here I have not lived all my life here. My parents are not from here and I have been fortunate to live in a few different countries although I have spent the majority of my life here.
I have lived in countries (granted not uruguay) where the majority population use certain terms to refer to the minority black population. Said black population do not agree with the terms used but have no power to object and change the prevailing culture. If you asked a member of the majority population if the terms they used were acceptable they would say yes without for a second giving any thought to whether those they are referring to feel the same.
I can tell you that in my experience, people here have no problem referring to someone in terms of their ethnicity or race away from football. I have frequently had people describe me using the colour of my skin away from the foorball pitch. People have no qualms saying the black guy in the green hat or the Asian girl in the green hat. There is no lack of use of those terms in general society.
What there is however is a recognition that on the sporting field there is no need to use those terms. Again I can only speak of my experience and those of people I have spoken to. I have never in all my life been described by the colour of my skin on a pitch in Britain or in any other country. Shirt number -Yes, Shirt colour (if not an organised game) Yes but skin colour? never. Nor has anyone else I know.
” I have lived in countries (granted not uruguay) where the majority population use certain terms to refer to the minority black population. Said black population do not agree with the terms used but have no power to object and change the prevailing culture. If you asked a member of the majority population if the terms they used were acceptable they would say yes without for a second giving any thought to whether those they are referring to feel the same”
Great point. Anybody got a concensus from the black population of Uruguay whether this kind of reference to a rival in a hotly contested derby match would be seen as acceptable? The article I cited suggests not.
Richard,
I’m quite astounded at that and wonder if you’re just here for a bit of a wind-up.
What you’re saying, basically, seems to be that it’s okay to reference someone’s skin colour anywhere in general society but not in a football game. So if Suarez had said this word, whatever it turns out to be, down at Costco it would be fine, but not on the pitch at Anfield?
What is the difference? Why is it right in the shops but wrong in the football ground? Is there a list of places where it’s okay and not okay? Maybe it’s okay in the supermarket but frowned upon in the diy shop. Or it’s fine on the tube but not on the bus. In the pub, fine – in a cafe, no way. Rugby yes, football no.
Either it’s okay or it’s not.
I think he’s saying that that referencing is strictly descriptive and not necessary outside IDing someone. On a football pitch with numbers and names on the shirt IDing by race is not really necessary and a bit odd, maybe even loaded. Anywhere else it may be necessary for identifying someone. For instance why would you label someone ‘the big black guy’ when you could just say ‘the number seven’?
Jim, you can be as astounded as you want. That is the reality. Desy’s answer below shows that he has understood the point easily enough. Nowhere have I said that I think referring to someone by race in everday life is ideal. I have simply said that people do it. That was a response to you saying that people don’t use those terms in Britain, a comment I found at odds up with my experiences.
As for your point that it’s either wrong or right, now I would question whether you are on a wind up. Are different things not said depening on where you are? Society generally wouldn’t look down on you if you broke your arm and shouted f*** as the pain hit you. If however, you walked into a primary school and started throwing that word around I dare say people would have something to say about it.
I am really not on a wind up. All I have tried to do is explain things from a perspective and background that is different to yours.
I guess from your reply that you are not interested in taking those points on board and are satisfied that you know all there is to know. Fair enough. It is your blog after all.
Richard,
I’ve just gone back to see what you started off with in your comments on here:
“As a black person I think it would just be easier if Kenny came out and told all black people what is and isn’t racist. He seems to know better than any of us exactly what does and doesn’t cause offence so his input would be greatly appreciated!”
In a later comment:
“Do not under any circumstances make reference to a person’s skin colour when on a football pitch or at a football match. There is no reason to. That is hopefully straightforward enough to avoid any confusion.”
You seem to be switching between what is right or wrong – in your view – and what does or doesn’t happen – in your experience.
“People have no qualms saying the black guy in the green hat or the Asian girl in the green hat. There is no lack of use of those terms in general society. What there is however is a recognition that on the sporting field there is no need to use those terms.”
I can’t work out if you mean it’s okay in general society but not in football – or if you mean it happens in general society but not in football.
Every single instance of one person referring to another’s skin colour is potentially offensive or inoffensive and whether it is or not depends on both the intentions of the person saying it and the perception of the person hearing it or the person referred to.
What you seem to be saying is that it’s best never, “under any circumstances”, to refer to another person’s skin colour, because it might offend that person, no matter how well-intentioned it was.
If that’s the case then that’s a shame.
For all my doubt of Suarez I often do a WWJD especially during this festive season i.e. What Would Jesus Do? Or better yet, What Would I Do? For instance if I was in a different country and referred to someone in a friendly way but unbeknownst to me was a term that could be considered extremely offensive. What I would probably is apologise for the use of the word and stress that it was a misunderstanding. I would do that both privately and publicly and be very honest and remorseful at causing offence. I wouldn’t expect exoneration but I would expect reasonability from both the complainant as well as commentators and any ruling bodies. Maybe that would lead to a dropping of the charges or at least mitigation in any punishment.
But no, Liverpool and Suarez went for the most aggressive and most combatative approach to this case. I hate to say it but ‘doth protest too much?
What if you didn’t know you’d said anything offensive? What if it was three weeks before anyone came to tell you what it was you were supposed to have said? Three weeks in which you read all manner of claims about what you’d said, all of which sounded completely false to you? Three weeks before anyone saw fit to explain the allegations, three weeks of hearing claims you just did not recognise?
And, if we’re playing the ‘if’ game, what if you’d made efforts to find out what the problem was only to be rebuffed? What if you’d already been falsely accused of doing something else that day, unpleasant but less serious, by the same group of people now saying all this about you?
And this is what would you do, not what should you do.
And on another note, if you were the one accusing someone else, would you (or Jesus) refuse to listen to the other person’s side of the story, or even consider from the outset that more than one explanation was possible?
If only someone with an open mind had gone to both clubs and both players that night, or the next day, and listened.
Oh come on! Be serious. You say something and the guy goes crazy the second you say it. The thing you say is in reference to his skin colour and it takes you THREE WEEKS to know what it was? I mean if they had a two hour conversation on constitutional reform I could understand the confusion but cmon!!!
Desy, the only public mention of what was said came from the quotes attributed to Evra on French TV. The inference was that he’d used an undeniably racist word and he’d not just used it once, he’d said it TEN TIMES!
That is the word that many people based their opinions of Suarez on. It was a month before any newspaper reports appeared that suggested either ‘negrito’ or ‘negro’ might have been the word.
What will be interesting, when the FA finally release details, is to hear whether Evra’s complaint to the referee matched what he said to French TV, and if that – in turn – matched what he said when asked to give his evidence to the panel. Did he stick to his “ten times” story, did he elaborate in his complaint to the ref on what the word used was? (He didn’t say it to French TV, he just left people with the impression it was something undeniably offensive, in any context.)
F**K EVRA! I don’t care if he embellished or not. The strong suggestion is that at least once Suarez referred to Evra as negrito. That is enough in this country for reasonable complaint. Suarez claims that he only referred to him as something his teammates would refer him as. In all likelihood that word is negrito. It’s one of the few racial based Spanish words that can be taken as a term of endearment or an insult depending on the context.
If Suarez just said it once or twice why didn’t he just apologise and state what he said before he was even charged? It could have been seen as an honest mistake. If we are waiting for the FA report just to pick holes rather than offer a reasonable explanation to an obviously long deliberated decision then it will be us who are carrying out a witchhunt.
But what if I ADMITTED IN A RADIO INTERVIEW TO REFERING TO HIS RACE IN THE DISCOURSE? This argument of ‘proof’ is bordering on the insane when Suarez has admitted to saying words which clearly appear to be either negro or negrito.
As far as I have read he was accused of referring to Evra as negrito. As far as I have read Suarez’s defence is that he used it as a term of endearment. Is it reasonable for Evra or any other black person referred to as this as an opponent in a heated derby to see this as a racist reference? I think so. So with that in mind surely an early apology (public and/or private) would have been appropriate. Instead we get a cryptic interview suggesting something racial was said but in a way that his teammates would say it. Given an assessment of the situation I say bollocks.
Having said all that and if what has been reported is true, Evra should see some censure for referring to him as a South American in a derogatory way. Of course criticising someone for being South American doesn’t necessarily hold the same stinging offence as racial abuse (history and events such as slavery, rape, genocide and torture have led to that) but it still is offensive and can lead to very ugly situations such as this. If Evra did say that then, despite it being no justification for what Suarez was found guilty of, Suarez should have counter complained and Evra should be up. But that’s only if what has been reported is true. The LFC sources are so biased and when the official statement includes lies and defamation of the complainant’s character it’s hard to believe anything that is not from an official news source.
@Desy Just repeating this from above in case you missed it:
Genuine question – can you please send me a link to this: “HIS OWN INTERVIEW. His own words where he admits to using the word negrito.” I’ve not seen it myself.
By the way, referring to Luis as “buckteeth” would probably be considered acceptable in Uruguay, even directly to the person’s face, judging by what I’ve read recently.
Would you go up to someone in your own daily life and address them directly in that way?
Yes I would call a mate buckteeth if it was a mate. But not a stranger, no. Apparently that is the same thing in Uruguay. You haven’t stated at all if it would be acceptable for someone in Uruguay to address him as Buckteeth in a derogatory or condescending manner. Bear in mind Evra and Suarez are not friends. I doubt Evra has many friends at all. Either way, upon finding out you have offended someone surely you would apologise for the misunderstanding?
Would you apologise if they’d lied about you? You say something once, they take it in a way you never intended, they tell your bosses, your family, your friends and just about anyone who knows you that you said something worse, and that you said it ten times.
Me, I’d go on the record, probably, explaining my side of the story and then showing how they’d lied about it to make me look worse.
I would apologise for any offence caused. In this country referencing in that way causes offence. That is clear. And in certain contexts referencing like that in Uruguay also offends.
In fact I would apologise publicly so everyone is clear on the manner in which I said it and how contrite I am. It also gives me a chance to frame the story in a proper light without seeming petty or accusatory. It’s all very easy and just needed a common sense approach if Suarez did honestly mean it in a jovial way. Given the context and the condescending pat on the head I believe he tried to wind Evra up. Evra may or may not have exaggerated his story, but given Suarez’s past indiscretions coupled with the amount of misinformation and dripfeeding coming from A nfield and Suarez, I have to say that, even as a Liverpool fan who prayed that Suarez was innocent, I find his reported version of events even more unlikely than Evra’s.
http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2011/11/08/2747949/liverpools-luis-suarez-denies-racially-abusing-manchester-united-
http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2011/11/08/2747949/liverpools-luis-suarez-denies-racially-abusing-manchester-united-
I think that this, in conjunction with Gus Poyet’s statements below suggest that something relating to Evra’s colour was said. It’s been widely reported as negrito by official news sources so to any reasonable person its somewhat clear that that word was said.
Sorry Desi but that really doesn’t work does it?
You said this:
“If I have condemned Suarez it is based on HIS OWN INTERVIEW. His own words where he admits to using the word negrito. Now having a clearer idea of the ambiguous way in which it can be used and Suarez’s previous character which includes BITING A MAN, I think I can reasonably conclude that this word was used in a derogatory and condescending manner (equipped with a pet like pat on the head).”
I asked you to show me where he “admits to using the word negrito”.
You can’t.
This is the best you can manage:
(Suarez) “The FA will have to clarify things with [Evra]. There is no evidence I said anything racist to him. I said nothing of the sort. There were two parts of the discussion, one in Spanish, one in English. I did not insult him. It was just a way of expressing myself. I called him something his team-mates at Manchester call him, and even they were surprised by his reaction.”
I don’t see any reference to “Negrito”. “I called him something his team-mates call him…” What? Pat?
And Gus Poyet’s comments are not Luis Suarez’s comments any more than my comments are yours.
Ok he didn’t explicitly say it, but given his comments and the widely published acceptance of reports from established news sources like the BBC or the Liverpool Echo is this even a point worth arguing? Or is it just another tenuous distraction from the overwhelming likelihood that he used that word. Being that Gus Poyet is a good friend of his from the same country and has obviously spoken to him on the matter, surely his comments hold value on this point? Or are we just believing and stressing what we wish to believe?
It seems to me that there is no consistency in your arguments and all you seem to do is try and pick holes in widely and consistently reported versions of events where it suits your general thrust of argument. First you seem to acknowledge that the word used was probably either negro or negrito. Then when you realise that negrito might not always be utilised in a jovial manner or that if it was an apology and clarification should have been offered, you go back to questioning whether that word was used in the first place. Now you say that the word could have been Evra’s name. OK, until the report we do not definitively know. But surely given the evidence and the thrust of Suarez’s interview we can reasonably conclude that it probably negro or negrito. The lack of reason ability shown by yourself and many other fellow supporters concern me. Citing newspaper reports as both shoddy unreliable evidence and vindication of Suarez’s innocence is what troubles me most to be frank. Suarez will throw a strop and leave eventually. I have to stick with you lot until I die.
Desy,
Why did you claim Suarez had admitted to using that specific word in that interview when he hadn’t?
Was it a deliberate lie or was it a genuine mistake? I assume it’s the latter.
You were using something that didn’t happen as part of the basis for your own verdict on Suarez. You weren’t the only one – others have done the same. You refer to him as bucktoothed, you make stuff about him, you use unrelated incidents as extra weight for your arguments.
I and others who are supporting Suarez are not saying he is innocent. We are saying there are major doubts about the verdict. That panel took a week to make its mind up after having two months to gather its evidence. It was hardly an open and shut case, whatever the final verdict, and that adds to the doubts about it being the correct verdict.
Note the word used – ‘doubt’.
Meanwhile, having seen none of the evidence yourself and having made some bits up (intentionally or not) you seem annoyed that anyone dare point these doubts out.
As for this: “I have to stick with you lot until I die.”
That’s the end of this conversation for me. You’re a prejudiced man and there’s no point whatsoever in trying to engage with you.
You really are clutching at straws Jim. The bottom line is that he is likely to have used that word. If BBC News are reporting that then it is likely to have happened. It’s pedantic to argue about or support the man if you also claim not to have a clue what he said. To say you have major doubts about the FA’s decision then suggest that you have no clue to what he said means that you would just be blindly supporting a man of questionable character because he plays for Liverpool. But if like most reasonable observers you believe that the word negrito was said then the debate is about context. If your argument is we don’t know what he said at all then NO ONE should be supporting him and the only evidence we have is that an independentpanel deliberated for an extended period of time and found him guilty.
YOU referred to him as bucktoothed. I said I would call a friend bucktoothed but not a stranger or rival unless I was trying to antagonise them. My accusation on Suarez is based on him saying that he only called him something his team mates would call him. Given the racial element to the complaint and the wide reports it is reasonable to assume that that word was negrito. If that indeed is the word all I would look at is the meanings of the word and the context used. That’s what I base my opinion on. That’s what most fans are doing however when it is suggested the context is not always positive you attempt to derail the argument.
Then laughably you attempt to play the reverse race card. Now I’m prejudiced. You lot refers to other Liverpool fans of all colours and denominations. I have been one since I was three. On occasion I will refer to groups of my family as you lot. The fact that I said that I will be part of you lot til I die suggests the opposite of being prejudice right? It’s a desperate and cartoonish argument that just displays lack of rationality on this subject and your dash to claim victim status.
Wow Desy, now you’re even making things up about what you’ve said on here! You said: “I was Liverpool before Suarez first sprouted his buckteeth and I’ll be Liverpool after he’s forced a move to Real or Barca or Chelsea or Man City in a couple of years.” You say you’d only use it to someone you didn’t know if you wanted to antagonise them – well the point I was making is that in Uruguay the chances are you’d use it without any intention to antagonise someone, different culture, different rules. So I’ve been told.
Am I “blindly supporting a man of questionable character because he plays for Liverpool”?
Hasn’t it occurred to you that I and many others are supporting him because we trust the word of one of the few people who have seen the evidence?
Kenny Dalglish has more class and character than many figures in the game of football and I for one trust Kenny Dalglish far more than I trust a reporter whose job it is to report on MUFC or someone who makes things up about what was said in an interview. From day one I’ve been guided by what people like Kenny Dalglish have said on the issue, knowing that while Kenny will always be protective of LFC that he’ll also gladly take whatever punishment comes our way if it’s fair and consistent.
As for the word “negrito” – “most reasonable observers”, whatever that means, accept that there are two possibilities for the word spoken, the other being “negro”.
I’ve lost track of what your argument is meant to be.
You seem to accept it was possible he meant no harm in using whatever word it was – but because he didn’t apologise it must mean he intended harm. Your argument seems to be that if he was innocent he’d have said sorry.
You refuse to support him. You refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt, or to even reserve judgement, until the evidence comes through. Your reason for this is, in some part at least, because of him handling the ball on the line, his biting someone, etc.
I hope to hell that you never find yourself in a similar situation to the one Suarez *might* be in.
Jim you’ve consistently taken this into irrelevant cul de sacs it’s hard to keep track.
The bottom line is that he appears to have said negrito. Negrito can be a positive or negative term depending on the context used. I don’t believe that Suarez used it in a friendly manner. Therefore I find it difficult to support him. I believe that Dalglish knows that Suarez is a valuable commodity and as such he will wholeheartedly support him to protect that asset, just like the fans are.
Desy,
If you think Kenny Dalglish would put the integrity of the club and his own personal integrity on the line for the sake of money, for the sake of protecting an asset, then you hold one of the greatest men to have ever been involved with this club in extremely low regard.
And if that was what it was all about, surely that apology you keep asking for would have been the best way to deal with it. It would have shortened the time taken to get to a hearing and it would have possibly lessened any penalty.
I think LFC want to clear their player’s name because I think LFC genuinely believe he is innocent.
Time will tell.
Just want to highlight this:
” I and others who are supporting Suarez are not saying he is innocent. We are saying there are major doubts about the verdict. That panel took a week to make its mind up after having two months to gather its evidence. It was hardly an open and shut case, whatever the final verdict, and that adds to the doubts about it being the correct verdict.”
So as I read it your doubts on the case are not based on any evidence to say that Suarez is innocent but the fact that the panel took its time to do extensive research and took time for a thorough deliberation? The longer the deliberation the more that they would have examined Suarez’s testimony. Therefore the decision to discount it wouldn’t have been a light one.
I said I’d finished with this conversation but for some reason I carry on.
“So as I read it your doubts on the case are not based on any evidence to say that Suarez is innocent but the fact that the panel took its time to do extensive research and took time for a thorough deliberation? The longer the deliberation the more that they would have examined Suarez’s testimony. Therefore the decision to discount it wouldn’t have been a light one.”
No Desi, you take it wrong. You seem to do this a lot.
Firstly, there is no evidence in the public domain. None at all. So nobody outside of the process itself can base their doubts or certainties on evidence for or against Suarez.
Secondly, do I have to go over all the different reasons why I think this verdict has doubts over it? The length of time taken shows that it wasn’t a simple case – and the less simple a case is the more chance there is of a verdict being wrong. It doesn’t mean it is wrong, it means it could be. The appeal process is there to protect people from such situations.
A man like Kenny Dalglish has said from day one he supports the player – in the absence of any evidence I’d rather be guided by him than anyone else. If the evidence later shows he was wrong then that changes things doesn’t it?
The mention of the time taken was to show that this was no open and shut case, that it would take time to weigh everything up and that ultimately it might even have been the case that the three-man panel were unable to agree.
And your point is you have no point. You go back to the no evidence argument yet again despite all reasonable commentary for and against Suarez stating that the word negrito was said. In that case NO ONE should be discussing the case at all.
Citing Dalglish who will probably be the most biased observer of all is an exercise in futility. Of course he wants to see the best in his best player. If there’s even a 1% chance that Suarez is innocent Dalglish will go for that to save the season and the club’s reputation. I understand that from Dalglish but as a black man it disappoints me. Nevertheless
Desy,
Negrito or Negro. They are the two words most commonly cited as being the ones used. If I had to put a bet on which one it was, based on who’s written what, I’d put it on Negro. If you’ve only seen the word negrito referred to in “all reasonable commentary” then you’ve probably not read anything since you imagined the contents of that Saurez interview.
Your opinion on Dalglish tells me all I need to know about you in terms of how different we are. I can’t explain that, you either get that or you don’t. Most Liverpool fans, sorry, all Liverpool fans I know would understand what I mean by that.
To save me repeating myself, here’s something I think you should read:
http://rockandrollisfullofbadwools.blogspot.com/2011/12/on-luis-suarez-and-little-england.html
Jim, you say that I have switched between what is right and wrong in my view and what does or doesn’t happen in my experience. I don’t see where you get this from.
I have said that I have never in all my life been referred to using the colour of my skin whilst on a football pitch. I have said that I have been referred to using the colour of my skin away from the football pitch. I did not divert from that position.
You say that “Every single instance of one person referring to another’s skin colour is potentially offensive or inoffensive and whether it is or not depends on both the intentions of the person saying it and the perception of the person hearing it or the person referred to.” The setting of where such reference is made can also be a factor as can the relationship between the person saying it and the person hearing it.
My point being that if you refer to the skin colour of someone on a football pitch your chances of causing offence are pretty high. Especially if you don’t know them. Hence the don’t ever do it statement.
Anyway I fear that we are simply going to end up going round in circles here.
Richard,
You make a good point in the sense that manager *should* tell their players not to mention skin colour in any circumstances, no matter how innocent their mention of it might be. The reason for this is that someone somewhere might take offence, or might feign offence. If it’s the former then who would want to do that anyway? If it’s the latter then why give anyone the opportunity to use it against you?
But by the same token I’d have to tell them that if they were on the wrong end of a reference to their own skin colour that they shouldn’t assume it was intended to be offensive. I wouldn’t want one of my players sent off in a Champions League match after taking a comment the wrong way and retaliating.
And maybe it follows that the FA and the various equality campaigns need to get these same messages out, they need to look at cultural differences to ensure there’s no discrimination and they need to see if there’s a need for education.
Zero tolerance shouldn’t mean intolerance.
Jim,
With reference to the first half of your last post to me, I’m glad that we at least have reached a bit of common ground even if I don’t really agree with the second half of the post. But hey you can’t agree on everything.
I have tried to stay out of your spirited debate with Desy as that is a matter for you and him. I was however drawn to this comment in your last post to him:
“Your opinion on Dalglish tells me all I need to know about you in terms of how different we are. I can’t explain that, you either get that or you don’t. Most Liverpool fans, sorry, all Liverpool fans I know would understand what I mean by that”
Similarly much of what has been said shows how different we are. Most black people I know would share Desy’s sceptisim and reluctance to support Suarez based on the opinion and word of Dalglish no matter how decent a man he is. That is also something that either you get or you don’t.
Perspective is everything and clearly ours differ and at the end of the day I guess that is life. Anyway footy’s on now.
On reading the following article, is it possible to believe, that if Brian Clough and Nottinghame Forest had sent their players out for their next game in ‘Suarez’ type shirts in support of Viv Anderson, this discussion would not be taking place?
In the 1970s, future England full-back Viv Anderson endured racist abuse as an 18 year old playing for Nottingham Forest against Newcastle, and was pelted with apples and pears from Carlisle supporters while warming up for
Nottingham Forest as a substitute. When he retreated back to the bench to inform manager Brian Clough of the abuse he was told to go back out and fetch him ‘two pears and a banana’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_association_football