The FA publish written reasons for Suarez's ban

[king7]

Reading the written reasons from FA is just unbelievable. They seem completly unaware of the seriousness of the charges and condemn a man without any evidence and a very one-sided reasoning.

 

The whole basis for the verdict is the panel's subjective judgement on demenour, inconsistency and probability.

 

On demenour they call Evra an impressive witness, while Suarez was unimpressive, evasive and unclear. Evra spoke in fluent english, while Suarez had to use an interpreter. Also Suarez was the one beeing charged and would therefore be more anxious in the situation. I'm used to speaking to people with an interpreter and the result is almost always some misunderstandings and unclearities, especially when the person you are talking to has a very different cultural background.

 

They make a lot out of some small inconsistencies in Suarez's testimony, mostly about his intentions when he touched Evra and what he said to Kuyt and Commolli after the game. These inconsistencies occured after beeing interviewed with an interpeter or takling to people who are not primary spanish-speakers. The content is a heated exhange a few seconds in the middle of a match several weeks ago. The only way someone can be 100% consistent under such circumstances (as Evra is apparently) is if the statement is prepared and rehearsed. How they can put so much weight on this is fantastic. At the same time Evra has said different things on french tv, something the panel brushes aside. Also, in the statements from the manu players they all describe different phrases that Evra had told them Suarez used, but those blatant inconsistancies the panel doesn't comment on.

 

The section on probability is so biased it makes uncomfortable reading. The panel judges that it's improbable that Evra lies since he would not "act in such a disonest way in order to damage the reputation of a fellow professional", not commenting that he has made exactly the same claims twice before without evidence. About Suarez they acknowledge that his background and lack of previous instances makes it unlikely that he would act in this way, but then simply states that "it is a real albeit unattractive trait of human nature that we all act from time to time, to greater or lesser degree, in ways which may be out of character"!! How someone can juse such pseudo-psychology as a legal argument is astonishing, not to metion that it comletely contradicts their argument about Evra. :wallbutt:

 

The whole thing is such a biased, subjective, mockery of a reasoning. Just can't belive it.

 

Sorry for the long post, had to get this off my chest...

[me1]

I hope to hell that Evra has a nightmare match against England at Euro 2012 and that the little shit combusts.

Gerrard and Johnson should go at him constantly.

He'll be bricking it.

[king7]

You can quote that untill your face turns blue. Mr Evra did not report it to the referee during the match.

 

According to himself he told both the referee and Ryan Giggs. They both didn't hear it apparently.

[MLB]

It's an almost unbelievably flimsy case against Suarez, based on hearsay and actual bias.

[xerxes]

Reading the written reasons from FA is just unbelievable. They seem completly unaware of the seriousness of the charges and condemn a man without any evidence and a very one-sided reasoning.

 

The whole basis for the verdict is the panel's subjective judgement on demenour, inconsistency and probability.

Sadly, I think it is Suarez' own testimony, plus that of Comolli, plus the video footage that was the core of the case against.

 

The latter part of your post rightly points out the "pseudo-psychology as a legal argument", but I don't find it surprising, and links back to your belief that the FA seemed unaware of the seriousness of the charges.

 

I think they were aware.That statement was an attempt to tiptoe amongst the distinction between being racist, and using racist language.

 

What we don't know is whether a deal has been struck between the FA/LFC and Evra regarding making a criminal complaint. Has Evra agreed to leave this in the hands of the FA? If the basis for any LFC appeal is to discredit Evra, do we risk him making a criminal complaint?

[dave u]

Even with expert witnesses saying the key phrase Evra claimed to have used was unlikely to have been used by suarez because it was a european spanish construction and not south american

 

Which part was that? I read it, but was confused by that part as my head was spinning by that stage. I actually thought they were saying the opposite, that Suarez may have used that because he's been in Europe for so long.

[xerxes]

You can quote that untill your face turns blue. Mr Evra did not report it to the referee during the match.

Why let the written evidence get in the way, eh?;)

[xerxes]

Which part was that? I read it, but was confused by that part as my head was spinning by that stage. I actually thought they were saying the opposite, that Suarez may have used that because he's been in Europe for so long.(Even with expert witnesses saying the key phrase Evra claimed to have used was unlikely to have been used by suarez because it was a european spanish construction and not south american)

 

I agree.

 

The words used were confirmed both my Suarez himself and are on the video. When you have lived away for five years you assimilate local expatriate phrases in any case.

[Guest San Don]

I have had a chance to read the document, it helps`. The FA were right to publish earlier than they had said they might, but wrong not to release the verdict and adjudication simultaneously.

 

Yes and I've read it three times now.

 

Evra complained to the referee during and immediately after the game, a point not previously made public. The availability of video evidence for some of these incidents was also not previously made public. There were two charges, that Luis used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Evra contrary to Rule E3(1) and and that this breach of Rule E3(1) included a reference to Evra's ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race within the meaning of Rule E3(2).

 

evra does not complain to the ref immediately. He says he told the ref 'ref, ref, he called me black' yet mariner says he didnt hear this. So how do you 'complain' if the man in charge hasnt heard? Dont know about you but if I say something to someone and they dont react to it, I repeat what I said and make sure they hear it. Then I want some reaction from the person who I said it to. So why didnt evra if he made a 'complaint' immediately?

 

I agree the insulting and abusive charge is a piece of shit. Every player on the pitch does it. Certainly dennis smith, the ex pro on the panel knows it goes on so why was that particular charge given a scrap of credence if not to be the tenuous thread to hang a charge on?

 

 

The issue of abusive and/or insulting on its own is a bit of a red herring because it is linked with the race abuse allegation.

 

I have been a staunch advocate of the semantics card , having read the detail now, it seems less convincing. It also seems like the Club has handled this poorly. How Comolli became involved is a mystery, and his testimony will not have helped. Given that this blew up immediately, why this was not handled exclusively by our Club Solicitor (it had, and still, has the potential to be a criminal matter)is a question that JW will no doubt be asking Ayre.

 

If you read the report as you say you had, you'd be aware exactly why comoli was involved. He was in the dressing room when Dalglish was made aware of the situation. Comoli speaks spanish. He acted as interpreter in those initial moments and in the time after in the refs room.

 

Its pretty amazing you wonder why comoli was involved if you ask me and gives little credence to the rest of your thoughts if you cant determine that basic premise.

 

The matter of Suraez’ inconsistent evidence is inexcusable. Given the potential for future criminal charges all answers should have been approved by our Solicitor. You decline to answer to avoid incriminating yourself in a future criminal investigation, you give a pre-prepared approved answer or you elect to defer answering until you have consulted your lawyer, and come back with an answer later. What happened appears to have been a balls-up, an own goal, which did Luis no favours.

It is true that some allegations are “one man’s word against the other”, but the confirmed words are enough.

 

138.is particularly baffling. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him "Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". Mr Suarez was emphatic that he had not said anything that could be classified as racial abuse. Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black”

 

This following perspective is relevant. Black people in Colombia, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile and Brasil are treated as the lowest of the low. In those countries they are entirely powerless and are considered beneath even the indigenous people . This powerlessness is a constant source of frustration for black people and discrimination and racism is overt and rarely hidden away. Preferential treatment for whites is typical and the norm and it would be social suicide for a black person who has made some way up the ladder to complain about the treatment of others in a similar position as him and it is in this context that Suarez' comments must be judged. It may not be deemed offensive for white people to say it but for the vast majority of black people the term 'negrito' is pejorative and highlights just how powerless they truly are to do anything against it.

 

It is not at all baffling, confusing or anything else that Suarez statement changed. So too did evras! evra went from saying he'd been called 'nigger' to being called black, from saying he'd been called the word ten times to five, to saying '10 times' wasnt meant in a literal sense. No inconsistencies there then. Amazingly, this is glossed over yet inconsistencies by Suarez, a man who hardly speaks a word of english and is a good few years younger than his accuser(s), are played out for all it is worth and a sign of guilt.

 

According to the report, Evra asked Suárez why he had kicked him, to which the forward replied: "Because you are black." When Evra challenged him to repeat the answer and said he would "punch him", Suárez said: "I don't speak to blacks."

 

 

The report said Evra then told Suárez he was going to hit him, to which the Uruguay international replied in Spanish: "Dale, negro, negro, negro." That translates to: "Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". The video shows a heated exchange and the words exchanged. I think that in the circumstances most Reds would question whether Luis was engaged in fond affectionate badinage with the captain of Man U.

 

I think the comission say video of this supposed exchange doesnt show Suarez saying ok bring it on blackie. so, I dont think most reds would agree with you there.

 

The border between an FA racist offence and a criminal one is unclear. The reason why the FA are being coy about the racist tag, is, I suspect to try to avoid precipitating Evra making a criminal complaint. Some are suggesting that a criminal complaint, if Evra was prepared to make one, might be a soft option. I am not so sure. At all of our places of work saying “ I don’t speak to blacks” would be instant dismissal for gross professional misconduct and bringing the company into disrepute. The rest that has been admitted by Suarez, Comolli and is on video is enough for a case. For Suarez (unlike Terry) the consequences of a criminal conviction would be modest, for LFC they would be serious.

 

The commission by its own statement says the more serious the allegation, the more robust the evidence must be. They then go on to use balance on which to base their judgement. Balance is not robust enough by their own statement to find as they have.

 

If you said 'I dont speak to blacks' at work, you wouldnt and in fact couldnt be sacked without corrobarative, independent evidence as its your word against the other party. That's the whole fucking point. There is no corrobarative independent evidence.

 

I think that the chances of us now appealing the verdict are slim, of having the verdict overturned negligible. Appealing the sentence is a runner. The Club is going to have to be considerably slicker than it has been to date in how it handles this now. As I suspected might be the case, the key evidence against has come from our end. An early apology was not, and has not, been offered for “unintended offence”, a poor call. The executive control of this has been poor. Who was in control? Who is in control now? How this plays to a broader audience DOES matter. At a time when FSG are looking to monetise our international support the adverse affect this publicity has is obvious. 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.

 

This has not been our finest hour. Some evidently feel that the evidence is still in our favour – in which case the Club failed in successfully advocating the case. If Ayre can’t handle this maybe JW should put in a call to Broughton? It is the combination of diplomacy and skill in handling the big cases that Broughton so excelled at that is required now. Whichever way you cut this Ayre has presided over a PR disaster for the Club, which could get worse if it is not brought under control. I’ve watched us now for over thirty years, Peter Robinson would not have allowed us to get caught as flat footed as this.

 

These last two paras are just the ramblings of a feeble mind trying to take the moral high ground. The club has an excellent basis on which to make any challenge to this jumped up unsubstantiated decision.

[Jack the Sipper]

According to himself he told both the referee and Ryan Giggs. They both didn't hear it apparently.

 

That's right, and as such it was a disputed claim by Evra. This should've then ben used as evidence against the credibility of Evra's testimony. In the ref's post-match report he only notes that Evra complained after the match (153). Also, note that the ref claims in this report (also confirmed in his witness statement - 131) that Evra only gives one instance of 'racial abuse' to the ref - very different to the longer, persistent racial abuse he later claims Suarez made.

 

This is just one of many instances where Evra's testimony can be seen to be unreliable. It's also interesting, and a damning indictment of the LFC's lawyers incompetence, that, at 212, the panel note that, while a witness's (Evra's) prior reliability (or otherwise) as a witness can be useful in later, unconnected cases, the panel decided not to factor this here because McCormick (LFC lawyer) didn't argue for it. This is a massive get-off the the panel; had McCormick successfully argued that Evra's prior credibility should be taken into consideration, the panel would've had no choice but to refer to the FA's own findings, that Evra was deemed an 'unreliable witness'.

 

The whole case revolves around the relative credibility of Evra and Suarez. Leaving aside the idea that such a serious charge should need more evidence than taking one mans word over another, there's more than enough evidence, even within the panel's own published findings, to show that Evra cannot be seen as a reliable witness.

[dave u]

It's an almost unbelievably flimsy case against Suarez, based on hearsay and actual bias.

 

It is, and to me the reason we're in this mess is because the mancs have much better legal people than we do.

 

Looking at the case, it's hard to believe we actually managed to lose it. Heads should roll for this, as it's unacceptable. We may as well have had Lionel fucking Hutz defending Suarez.

[beejay]

I've conducted my own investigation both from the actual evidence in the Commission report and from watching the videos again. I was also at the game and recall some of the incidents. My findings are as follows :

 

Evra was an angry guy from the start of the game, because of the mix-up over the coin toss. He was picking fights with different players including going spare at Downing on one occasion when Stuart took a dive. He was winding up the crowd and also had flare-ups with Kuyt & Agger where words were spoken and there was pushing & shoving. He was also playing sh*t and Suarez clearly had the beating of him.

 

Then comes the incident where Luis fouls him right in front of the Kop. It's not a bad foul in fact there is hardly any contact but Evra goes to ground and jars his knee. He makes a right meal of it, the crowd are giving him all sorts of abuse for time-wasting and Kuyt accuses him of diving, telling him to get the fuck up. He resumes play but his demeanor continues to suggest he is in a rage for reasons other than racism.

 

At the corner a few minutes later, he is marking Suarez and the body language strongly suggests that Suarez's version is more credible. Evra is clearly on the wind-up, he is the aggressor both in his actions chasing Suarez and his facial expressions. It's so obvious that Kuyt comes over to get between them because he thinks Evra is having a pop at Luis. Suarez is opening his arms in a "what's your problem" way and his actions are defensive. Words are spoken but neither player is overtly affected and none of the others in a crowded goalmouth show any reaction. The idea that Luis is calling him blackie blackie blackie at this point is risible to be honest, there would have been a much stronger reaction. The "pinching" episode is nothing, it's so slight and to infer that he is pointing out the colour of his skin is ludicrous. Again, it looks to be more of a "calm down" gesture rather than anything more insidious.

 

The play moves away from the area and they continue the argument until the ref calls them over. Evra is still in a fury while Suarez is trying to play it down. The patting of the head was somehow construed as hostile by the Commission but it is part wind-up part let's get on with the game and Luis tries to shake his hand to end the argument but Evra shoves him away. That's when Evra says "Don't touch me you South American" which doesn't ring true - it's probably an insulting remark which prompts Luis to say "why, black?" which to Suarez in his own language is pretty mild, inconsequential.

 

Evra interpretes this as being called a nigger and he kicks off again. The ref books him and he carries on the rest of the game in the way he started it, having a go at Kuyt and the crowd.

 

After the match someone asks him what he was so angry about and he rants on about being called a nigger, with degrees of exageration. This causes Ferguson to bring it to the ref's attention and Liverpool are asked for their version. Commoli & Kuyt both speak to Luis and say he has been accused of calling him a nigger, Suarez denies this and explains he called him "negro" not nigger. This is passed on to the ref and our people think that's the end of it, it's a misunderstanding.

 

Evra refuses to back down, the press get on their high horse and the FA intervene just at the point where Blatter makes his faux-pas and Terry is in the dock for a more blatant example of racism. The FA decide to make an example of Suarez for political reasons and carry out a stitch-up which is manna from heaven to the media pack.

 

That's it basically.

[TommyW]

beejay, you missed the bit where we ballsed the whole defence up

[boatman]

Experience is a wonderful thing. Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and clear way. Well, several years ago he was involved in a similar situation and his evidence was found to be unreliable. He learned from his mistakes and this time he prepared properly, coached his witnesses, knew his lines and no doubt had his lawyer go over his testimony with a fine toothcomb. You can almost see the QC nod approvingly at the the lawyer with a 'job well done' expression. Suarez on the otherhand would have been defensive, indignant and exasperated, as well as being frustrated by the need to communicate through an interpreter. We treated this whole thing as an appeal against an unjust red card, Evra knew what he was doing and treated it with the seriousness the charge merits in this day and age.

[J-V]

As a black Liverpool fan for 25 years I am truly saddened by Liverpool`s and the majority of our fans stance on this. Liverpool and our fans NEED to look at the bigger picture and not back Suarez blindly. Would we be as defensive as this if it had been Christian Poulsen for example? Not a chance. Suarez is afterall our star player. I feel I have lost all support for Liverpool now.

You sound like that twat on 5live yesterday.

[Kopite]

It is, and to me the reason we're in this mess is because the mancs have much better legal people than we do.

 

Looking at the case, it's hard to believe we actually managed to lose it. Heads should roll for this, as it's unacceptable. We may as well have had Lionel fucking Hutz defending Suarez.

 

And this person was our expert on Latin American culture...

 

 

"Halo everybody!"

[Captain]

I haven't read this sorry excuse of a document. And I doubt I will.

[Manny]

I don't think we took it seriously enough at first. Kuyt and Commoli tried to deal with it as a misunderstanding. The mancs seized on this, they seem to have known from the offset that they'd need everything spot-on to make the bullshit stick.

 

Still though, it's telling that despite our errors, the case against Luis is still flimsy at best. It really is simple - there is no irrefutable, independent evidence damning him. Just a lot of hearsay and accusation from his opponent (and his opponent's biased teammates). The only footage doesn't show a thing - it shows Evra getting pissed off and the "independent" panel had used that as evidence that Evra MUST have been racially abused because there's no way he'd have been that angry. Ignoring the fact he was wound up all game. Suarez's testimony is inconsistent. Ignoring Evra's wild "ten times" accusation.

 

I don't know where we go from here. It's obvious that the FA's case is flimsy, but where can we go with this? They won't back down on the verdict - it doesn't suit their agenda. But I'm tired of us having our name dragged through the mud for simply pointing out the flimsiness of this case, and the laughable assertion that Evra wouldn't make this up because it's not in his nature.

 

One thing I've learned. The mancs are the absolute masters of manipulating the zeitgeist to suit their own ends. Poisonous, cynical, disgusting group of snakes.

[satansmutt]

So correct me if I'm wrong but after a full investigation the FA found no video or audio evidence and no witnesses that proved Suarez made an intended racial insult against Evra but after they spoke to both of them they liked Evra more because he spoke prefect English so they decided to believe him.

I can understand why they believed Evra he is the most perfectly balanced individual i've ever seen, he has a chip on each shoulder, one because he's black and another because he's a fucking midget.

[RedPaul]

It seems they have worked on the premise of guilty until proven innocent.

 

Is that how it works these days then?

 

There are so many discrepancies and inconsistencies it will take time to list them, but I do agree that the club has been a little careless legally or naive or best, probably because they didn't believe there was much of a case to answer. They trusted that the right (and fair) judgement would be made.

[beejay]

beejay, you missed the bit where we ballsed the whole defence up

 

Yeah that's probably true but I think we took the view that we would not be over-confrontational and ended up being too nice. That may also explain why our statement was so strongly worded when we found that Luis had been found guilty.

 

We seem to have taken the view that a thorough explanation of the circumstances would receive a fair hearing. That proved to be a naive decision which in hindsight was wrong but we may have been thinking that we should not overplay our hand and risk antagonising the FA and the Commission by adopting a forensic line-by-line rebuttal that could appear to be shifty.

 

In other words we have been honest and have been shafted as a result.

 

That may not happen next time, judging by our statement we will come out all guns blazing.

 

I also believe that there are discussions going on now between the club and the FA to defuse the situation. It would be strange if that isn't happening. It might be that there is an "understanding" reached and we appeal, the ban is reduced and more play is made of the mitigating circumstances and the cultural misunderstandings. There is a clear message given that Suarez was not intentionally racist and in return we accept the decision and move on.

 

It was interesting to hear the journos in Sunday Supplement today - all of them agreed with the FA and urged the club to accept the findings but there was a conciliatory attitude from them all, saying what a great player Suarez is and their would be no long term damage to the player or the club. Briefed maybe?

[xerxes]

Yes and I've read it three times now.etc

 

Taking what you say in reverse order.

 

If the Club wins an Appeal against the verdict I will happily post I was wrong and you were right. I expect the same in return.

 

I make no apologies for wanting LFC to win back the moral high ground.

 

All judgements are based upon balancing evidence. The key admissions were made by Suarez himself, Comolli and were seen on video.

 

The issue is not whether or not Comolli should have been in the dressing room, it is the testimony he gave.

 

The key summary in their report found that Evra had reported his concerns to the ref during and after. Now you can believe it, or not believe it, it makes no difference to the body of the complaint.

 

You argue that the Suarez did nothing wrong, and the Club did nothing wrong. But we lost.

 

You memorably declared that you were not a lawyer earlier on, it was a wise career choice.

 

I am livid that we have ballsed up this case so badly. Properly handled, it should not even have made it to charge.

[Barzini]

Just had Sky News on in the background and the guy was waffling on about the case saying that allegations were made in the report that Suarez wouldn't speak to blacks etc, but while he's saying this, they've got a title on the screen of "Suarez Report" and bullet points under it including "Wouldn't speak to blacks".

 

So unless you're listening closely, allegations all of a sudden become fact. How many neutrals aren't going to bother to read the report but take their opinions from these twats?

 

We're getting a kicking from all angles here.

[Red-Ed]

Point 329 is quality:

 

The first of these was the coin toss. Mr Evra was seen to dispute the outcome of the coin

toss with the referee. Mr Marriner explained that he used a FIFA coin which is blue on one

side and yellow on the other. He asked Mr Evra, as the visiting captain, to call the colour.

Mr Marriner tossed the coin, it came down yellow, and he awarded it to Steven Gerrard

who elected to stay in their current ends. Manchester United had kick off. Mr Evra

remonstrated that he had called correctly but, Mr Marriner said, he had not. Mr Evra then

spoke to Ryan Giggs about it, and Mr Marriner walked over to Mr Evra to assure him that

he (Mr Marriner) had got it right. Mr Evra's evidence was that when such a coin was

used, he always called yellow given that the alternative, blue, is a Manchester City colour,

which he would never call. The toss came down yellow and so Mr Evra knew that he had

won it. He particularly wanted to change ends at the start, he explained to the referee that

he had called yellow, and why he had done so. Mr Evra was angry but the referee did not

change his mind.

[MLB]

I bet it was also a manc journalist who broke the report online as well.