#9526077, By Nades The all-new Premier League thread

  • Nades 24 Apr 2013 10:59:32 2,906 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The-Bodybuilder wrote:
    Nades wrote:
    President_Weasel wrote:
    It's harder to conclusively prove racism than it is to prove biting.
    Although Teflon Terry could probably tear a bloody chunk out of someone's arm live on television and skate with a warning.
    If it wasn't conclusively proven, he should never of got in trouble for it in my opinion.
    So.....his biting should't be as long as his racist ban, yet you're also saying his racism wasn't conclusive, and thus an explanation as to why it should't be that long/shorter than the bite?

    In other words.....get back to RAWK.
    Suarez got in trouble for the racism even though no one had proof, therefore its unfair for him to get the ban, ect. I mean come on Suarez is basically black himself! And secondly my point was the FA give Suarez a ban for the racism, but they ban him for longer for a bite. I'm the one who said it wasn't conclusive, not the FA, so they thought Evras lie was 100% true somehow, they just decided to believe him, bet if he wasn't playing for United they wouldn't of gave a toss.
    And wtf is RAWK? Lol

    Edited by Nades at 11:01:35 24-04-2013
Log in or register to reply