The FA publish written reasons for Suarez's ban

[xerxes]

evra didnt complain to the ref during the game you liar.

One of the problems here is that a lot of comment is being made by people who have not read the report.

 

"3. Mr Evra made a complaint to the referee during and immediately after the game about what Mr Suarez is alleged to have said to him while they were waiting for the corner to be taken. "

[TheResonator]

We have played a significant part in our own downfall from the start, and its not over yet.

 

Mate, everyone knows you've got a hard-on for Ayre. Stop banging that drum. It is not his fault that the British tabloids work in the way that they do, nor that England is so hysterical about racism, nor that the general public love a scandal. Yes, perhaps the club could have handled this better, but that is not the key issue in all of this and, to be honest, looking for a scapegoat in-house is totally unhelpful when we're under-siege from the outside. Not to mention totally fucking redundant due the complexity of the factors at play.

 

Drop the self-importance as well, please. It's so pervasive that you've somehow managed to give your posts a nasal tone.

[HolyHank]

Evra claims he told the ref that he was called "a fucking nigger". Dirk has stated that he heard Evra tell the ref that "you only book me because I'm black", but Marriner has denied this. Marriner is quoted in the rapport to have said in to Ferguson after the match, when the racism-claim was made: "Oh, so that's what you talked about during the match" (or something like that, can't remember the exact words.

[beejay]

One of the problems here is that a lot of comment is being made by people who have not read the report.

 

"3. Mr Evra made a complaint to the referee during and immediately after the game about what Mr Suarez is alleged to have said to him while they were waiting for the corner to be taken. "

 

Not according to Kuyt you fanny.

 

You are doing the same as the press - using the findings of the Commission as FACT when in reality they have taken Evra's word at face value in virtually every respect despite there being no corroborative evidence eg Marriner did not hear Evra complaining to the ref about being called a fucking black and Kuyt says he is 100% sure that what he actually said was "you are only booking me because I'm black".

[xerxes]

Mate, everyone knows you've got a hard-on for Ayre. Stop banging that drum. It is not his fault that the British tabloids work in the way that they do, nor that England is so hysterical about racism, nor that the general public love a scandal. Yes, perhaps the club could have handled this better, but that is not the key issue in all of this and, to be honest, looking for a scapegoat in-house is totally unhelpful when we're under-siege from the outside. Not to mention totally fucking redundant due the complexity of the factors at play.

 

It's cause and effect.If we had handled this differently the outcome would have been different.

 

Asking why we are under-siege IS the key issue.

[WoOGii]

A lot of shit current/ex black footballers seem to be getting more radio/presenting jobs as a result of this saga.

 

Jason Roberts must owe Suarez a whole stack of cash the useless prick, the guy can’t even break into the fucking black team. I’d love somebody to racially abuse him, with a fucking baseball bat.

[xerxes]

Not according to Kuyt you fanny.

 

You are doing the same as the press - using the findings of the Commission as FACT when in reality they have taken Evra's word at face value in virtually every respect despite there being no corroborative evidence eg Marriner did not hear Evra complaining to the ref about being called a fucking black and Kuyt says he is 100% sure that what he actually said was "you are only booking me because I'm black".

 

Either the referee did substantiate that, or he did not.If he did not it would not be in the report.

 

The key evidence is corroborated by Luis himself- and Comolli.

 

If you are now claiming that Kuyt calls whether or not Evra complained to the referee during and after the game then you are well off beam.

 

"10. On Sunday 16 October, the day after the match, the referee Andre Marriner submitted to

the FA an Extraordinary Incident Report Form in which he referred to the complaint that

was made by Mr Evra immediately after the match."

 

As I said, some people simply have not read, or understood, the report.

Edited January 1, 2012 by xerxes

[TheResonator]

It's cause and effect.If we had handled this differently the outcome would have been different.

 

Asking why we are under-siege IS the key issue.

 

If you seriously think that the right PR would have killed this story, you're crazy.

 

1) Suarez was already unpopular before this was leaked.

2) The worst case scenario is a field day for the press. It sells their papers.

3) The British public love a scandal.

4) Manchester United have most of the media in their pocket.

 

We could've had North Korea's spin-doctors working this for us, the press coverage was never going to land in our favour. It's in the nature of what happened, not in the way that it was handled.

[me1]

Suarez was badly advised and ill prepared for his hearing.

Dennis Smith is a big friend of Ferguson and Gill is a Utd director so there was no way they weren't telling the Utd team just what the FA wanted from Evra - to be a good boy and show respect. There was so much in dispute that it was down to a toss up between the 2 players as witnesses. Utd played up to the FA and won.

Anyone familiar with legal comment can recognise the FA's statement as poor. It is not that well written and it has failed to present a clear and coherent account.

And the deterrent issue is disgusting - nothing more than a crass desire to punish.

Wouldn't even get near a court. Disgusting.

[Jack the Sipper]

One of the problems here is that a lot of comment is being made by people who have not read the report.

 

"3. Mr Evra made a complaint to the referee during and immediately after the game about what Mr Suarez is alleged to have said to him while they were waiting for the corner to be taken. "

 

Well, the ref claims Evra (with Ferguson) made the claim after the match, but also claims not to have heard Evra complain about it during the match. Firstly, it seems odd, to say the least, that Evra (as Evra himself seems to concede) would just make passing comments (103 & 112) about such a serious incident on the pitch; secondly, in giving his evidence, the ref claims that he never heard what Evra was complaining about (105 & 112), yet the report later claims that the ref did hear what Evra complained to him about (116). Also, in his testimony, Evra claims that, after the match, when complaining to the ref, the ref replied 'Oh, that is why you were talking about being called black' (130) - something the ref dosen't note in his own published testimony, although the panel accept Evra's testimony that the ref said this.

 

In short, Evra's testimony here is questionable. And your quote (which states as a fact that Evra complained during the match) is because the panel decided that, due to Suarez ill-advisedly accepting the testimony of the ref and Giggs as evidence, the panel decided this was proof that their testimony was correct. Ferguson, in his published testimony, also fails to mention the ref saying what Evra claims the ref said after the match.

 

Don't you have a problem with the fact that much of the 'corroborating' evidence against Suarez comes from testimony from the ref and evra's teammates - testimony that Suarez should never have accepted was true, and that, even allowing for the incomptence of his lawyer in advising Suarez to accept it, the panel should stil not have used his acceptance as proof that the testimony's were fact, given that the panel knew Suarez was in no position to know what was said by the ref and Evra's teammates after the match?

Edited January 1, 2012 by Jack the Sipper

[WoOGii]

Black supporters are also under-represented at Anfield, how this plays to the black community in Merseyside and the country also matters, nor should the impact on potential black player transfer targets be underestimated as well as on co-owner Lebron James.

 

It won't have an impact because he isn't a racist. I’m Black, and intended to continue to support both Suarez and the club any black fans who turns their backs on Suarez can fuck off, and If Lebron James or “future Black signings” have a problem with Suarez they can fuck off as well.

[xerxes]

If you seriously think that the right PR would have killed this story, you're crazy.

 

1) Suarez was already unpopular before this was leaked.

2) The worst case scenario is a field day for the press. It sells their papers.

3) The British public love a scandal.

4) Manchester United have most of the media in their pocket.

 

We could've had North Korea's spin-doctors working this for us, the press coverage was never going to land in our favour. It's in the nature of what happened, not in the way that it was handled.

 

This is not about PR, it's about poor practise.

 

Given that the complaint was made immediately, the only person who Suarez should have been talking to was the Clubs solicitor, with him present when he was interviewed by Kenny and Ayre.He should also have been banned from speaking to any media.

 

That Comolli's testimony should effectively end up in the case for the FA is absurd, and embarrassing.

 

At the hearing itself that same solicitor shlould have provided Suarez with approved answers. Anything off script they were free to ask for an adjournment to discuss - or to decline to answer the question.Because there was, and still is, a possibility of criminal charges, such action would have been acceptable, and not implied guilt, as he has the right not to offer testimony which might count against him in a subsequent criminal trial.

 

IF that had been put in place, a coherent, controlled picture would have emerged.

[TheResonator]

This is not about PR, it's about poor practise.

 

Given that the complaint was made immediately, the only person who Suarez should have been talking to was the Clubs solicitor, with him present when he was interviewed by Kenny and Ayre.He should also have been banned from speaking to any media.

 

That Comolli's testimony should effectively end up in the case for the FA is absurd, and embarrassing.

 

At the hearing itself that same solicitor shlould have provided Suarez with approved answers. Anything off script they were free to ask for an adjournment to discuss - or to decline to answer the question.Because there was, and still is, a possibility of criminal charges, such action would have been acceptable, and not implied guilt, as he has the right not to offer testimony which might count against him in a subsequent criminal trial.

 

IF that had been put in place, a coherent, controlled picture would have emerged.

 

If the report's true, the mistake was Comolli's or Luis has just outright lied. Frankly, when a statement is 3/4 words long I don't know how you get it wrong. The difference between por que, negro? and por que, tu es negro is clearly massive. Nonetheless, that's not Ayre's problem. He's not in the dressing room after the game. Once that had happened, the damage had already been done.

 

As for 'a controlled, coherent picture' -- don't make me laugh. Suarez is the poster-boy for the FA sticking two fingers up at Sepp Blatter. This was always going to be a complete shit-storm, however we played it.

[Hades]

Done reading it.

 

My opinion is that the FA's skills are wasted on this dispute. With the job they've done here, they should be out there proving the existence of aliens. If this were an actual legal document, Suarez would have justifiable claims for defamation of character. The brazen dismissal of any evidence that would weaken Evra's case juxtaposed with the heavy-handed opprobrium of any inconsistency in Suarez's is truly galling. Not going to bother going into specifics because it would take at least 500 pages to expose the utter bollocks on display.

 

With regards to individuals, Comolli should be fired immediately for his role in this. He tried to play lawyer and mediator and failed miserably at both, in fact compounding Suarez's plight. I feel less upset at McCormick's because the FA absurdly ignored even his most reasonable arguments. Suarez is a silly, naive boy but in no way a racist based on this report. Evra and Ferguson are truly wicked creatures. They lied, exaggerated and effectively character assassinated a man before any sort of fair trial. They deserve total misfortune and abuse.

 

Finally, the FA and the media. Agenda driven, witch-hunting vultures. They found an easy target and went after it. There has been a genuine miscarriage of justice here, but it's Suarez who has been victimised, not Evra. If any Liverpool fan can read that and objectively ascertain Suarez's guilt then they should seriously fuck off and support the Mancs.

 

The most tragic part about it all is that Marriner admitted that Evra should have been sent off before the incident even happened. A yellow for asking for Downing to be booked, a yellow for inflaming the crowd, and a yellow for lashing out at Kuyt.

[xerxes]

Well, the ref claims Evra (with Ferguson) made the claim after the match, but also claims not to have heard Evra complain about it during the match. Firstly, it seems odd, to say the least, that Evra (as Evra himself seems to concede) would just make passing comments (103 & 112) about such a serious incident on the pitch; secondly, in giving his evidence, the ref claims that he never heard what Evra was complaining about (105 & 112), yet the report later claims that the ref did hear what Evra complained to him about (116). Also, in his testimony, Evra claims that, after the match, when complaining to the ref, the ref replied 'Oh, that is why you were talking about being called black' (130) - something the ref dosen't note in his own published testimony, although the panel accept Evra's testimony that the ref said this.

 

In short, Evra's testimony here is questionable. And your quote (which states as a fact that Evra complained during the match) is because the panel decided that, due to Suarez ill-advisedly accepting the testimony of the ref and Giggs as evidence, the panel decided this was proof that their testimony was correct. Ferguson, in his published testimony, also fails to mention the ref saying what Evra claims the ref said after the match.

 

Don't you have a problem with the fact that much of the 'corroborating' evidence against Suarez comes from testimony from the ref and evra's teammates - testimony that Suarez should never have accepted was true, and that, even allowing for the incomptence of his lawyer in advising Suarez to accept it, the panel should stil not have used his acceptance as proof that the testimony's were fact, given that the panel knew Suarez was in no position to know what was said by the ref and Evra's teammates after the match?

 

I agree that the handling of the case pre-tribunal, and during it, resembles a comedy of errors rather than a legal defence.

 

I also agree with some of your concerns. A Tribunals job is to gather together all the evidence, some of which may be contradictory, some wrong by accident, some wrong by design, and sort through it. The key question is not whether there will be some doubts, invariably there will be, but whether there was enough to find Luis guilty of the charge, and whether there is enough doubt to appeal against the verdict.

 

I don’t think that there is enough to appeal against the verdict. Time will tell whether or not I am right.

 

This isn’t about Luis Suarez alone. It is about Liverpool Football Club, our reputation, and how we handle things. Getting this right matters.

[Jack the Sipper]

Also, and perhaps I've read this wrong, but, for all the criticism on here for the'Manc' experts, it seems to me that they only based their opinion that Suarez was being racially abusive if they were accepting Evra's words as fact (which it would be hard to argue otherwise). I77-186 covers this.

 

When, however, they were asked to decide whether what Suarez claims to have said was racially abusive, the experts say 'no' (187-194).

 

But then, looking at 201, 201, and particularly 202, it appears the panel decide that, even accepting the experts opinion that Suarez's claim of what he said shouldn't be seen as racially abusive in intent, they go on to dismiss it by arguing that, while the term suarez claims to have used may not have had intended racist connoctations, it is abusive in England - totally disregarding the 'cultural and linguistic differences' defence.

[Magic Sponge]

The referee has no recollection of evra reporting it to him' date=' as far as he was concerned he was rambling on about something black, could of been anything sidney poitier's cock for all he knows.[/quote']

 

Your posts make my fucking eyes bleed.

[xerxes]

Why do you keep telling lies? Evra did not report it to the referee during the match.

If your going to pick quotes out to make your argument look like its worth arguing about i suggest you go and fuck yourself you complete cockend.

 

"3. Mr Evra made a complaint to the referee during and immediately after the game about what Mr Suarez is alleged to have said to him while they were waiting for the corner to be taken. "

[Kopite]

Won't someone think of the good of the game...

 

http://www.footylatest.com/five-reasons-why-liverpool-should-forget-about-suarez-appeal/25977?

 

Five reasons we should give up... Well the national press are telling us to.

 

Suarez has been caught red-handed apparently.

[TommyW]

I've now read the report twice and sorry to say the most damning thing is how amateur our set up seems the have been in our initial response, the handling of the case itself and our reaction to the judgement

 

We should have spent a bit more time getting facts straight and less time getting angry and emotional as the report shows our side almost to a man being incompetent. For crying out loud, if they cant make the effort to get details right or adequately prep Luis prior to cross examination then we how can we complain when the result doesnt go our way?

 

We then reacted so strongly to the initial judgement with shirts etc and that statement that we'll look daft when (I suspect) we won't appeal. The club must have known at the point it released that statement that our evidence was suspect and didnt stack up, if not then what the fuck were they paying the lawyers for?

 

Im not suggesting Suarez should have been found guilty (and accept that in a court of law there's no way he would have been), I 100% believe they wanted to make an example of him regardless of evidence but anyone reading that report must be pissed off that our incompetence made it so easy for them to do so.

[Kopite]

I've now read the report twice and sorry to say the most damning thing is how amateur our set up seems the have been in our initial response, the handling of the case itself and our reaction to the judgement

 

We should have spent a bit more time getting facts straight and less time getting angry and emotional as the report shows our side almost to a man being incompetent. For crying out loud, if they cant make the effort to get details right or adequately prep Luis prior to cross examination then we how can we complain when the result doesnt go our way?

 

We then reacted so strongly to the initial judgement with shirts etc and that statement that we'll look daft when (I suspect) we won't appeal. The club must have known at the point it released that statement that our evidence was suspect and didnt stack up, if not then what the fuck were they paying the lawyers for?

 

Im not suggesting Suarez should have been found guilty, I 100% believe they wanted to make an example of him regardless of evidence but anyone reading that report must be pissed off that our incompetence made it so easy for them to do so.

 

I just hope that John Henry & Tom Werner look at getting an external legal team in as it's patently obvious our in-house team would make Laurel & Hardy look like beacons of legal competence & professionalism.

[WoOGii]

Im not suggesting Suarez should have been found guilty (and accept that in a court of law there's no way he would have been), I 100% believe they wanted to make an example of him regardless of evidence but anyone reading that report must be pissed off that our incompetence made it so easy for them to do so.

 

Mate, I know what you mean but if you didn’t commit a crime it shouldn’t matter how you handle the aftermath or how big your lawyers dick is, you didn’t do it and that’s it.

 

Maybe, we as a club where so confident in that Suarez didn’t say/mean any racial abuse that we thought we’d win regardless. I do know what you mean though, it's a brand nightmare for the Americans for sure.

[TommyW]

Mate, I know what you mean but if you didn’t commit a crime it shouldn’t matter how you handle the aftermath or how big your lawyers dick is, you didn’t do it and that’s it.

 

Maybe, we as a club where so confident in that Suarez didn’t say/mean any racial abuse that we thought we’d win regardless. I do know what you mean though, it's a brand nightmare for the Americans for sure.

 

given the Commoli situation with the ref immediately after the game (writing down what Suarez supposedly) we should have been aware there was a situation (confident he was innocent or not) that needed managing

 

we needed a strong pair of hands to come in and ensure everyone was prepared and on point and seemingly that didnt happen

[xerxes]

Mate, I know what you mean but if you didn’t commit a crime it shouldn’t matter how you handle the aftermath or how big your lawyers dick is, you didn’t do it and that’s it.

 

Maybe, we as a club where so confident in that Suarez didn’t say/mean any racial abuse that we thought we’d win regardless. I do know what you mean though, it's a brand nightmare for the Americans for sure.

 

It's worse than that.

 

We allowed Suarez and Comolli, inadvertently, to make the FA's case for them.

 

For confidence read complacency and incompetent.

 

LFC have always been one of the most important things in my life and witnessing this debacle is painful.

 

The players know that you don't win a match simply by turning up, you have to perform on the pitch - that applies off it too.

[TommyW]

It's worse than that.

 

We allowed Suarez and Comolli, inadvertently, to make the FA's case for them.

 

For confidence read complacency and incompetent.

 

unfortunately this is exactly right