The FA publish written reasons for Suarez's ban

[redmann]

I have attempted to do an analysis of the possible course of action and any grounds of appeal. The findings of the FA are riddled with inconsistencies. a proper hatchet job has been done, considering Luis face a possible further ban for any repetition, it is imperative that his name and the good name of LFC is cleared.

 

 

In accordance with the rules LS is only able to appeal against the severity of the sentence issued against him, with the hope of attempting a reduction. An appeal also leads to the possibility of an increase in the ban if it is found to be without merit and frivolous. LS is unable to appeal against the findings of the FA COM. For LS / LFC to succeed in an appeal against the findings then an appeal to the FA in accordance with FA RULE K: ARBITRATION must be made. This rule states:

 

Rule K1(a) shall not operate to provide an appeal against the decision of a Regulatory Commission or an Appeal Board under the Rules and shall operate only as the forum and procedure for a challenge to the validity of such decision under English law on the grounds of ultra vires (including error of law), irrationality or procedural unfairness, with the Tribunal exercising a supervisory jurisdiction.

 

This is a civil case and therefore test applied by FA COM was balance of probability. FA COM has accepted that the more serious the nature the case then the greater the burden of evidence required. FA COM (PARA 80) accepts that this case is very serious therefore there is a greater burden of evidence needed to find against LS. Video, audio and oral evidence was used aswell as written testimonies of witnesses.

 

FA COM found LS to have used insulting language with reference to PE skin colour on seven occasions. No audio evidence demonstrated that LS was at fault. If there was any then FA COM would have detailed it in their determination. FA COM has stated that no witnesses heard any of the alleged insults. FA COM has stated that no video evidence shows him saying any of the alleged insults. FA COM found LS credibility to be in question and has found PE to be more credible witness. They also found that players motions on video evidence supports PE claims on Balance of Probabilities. This to the FA COM satisfies the ‘greater burden of evidence’ test for finding against LS.

 

In order for any appeal to be successful LS / LFC have to demonstrate that the FA COM decision was irrational or an error of law has occurred. In order to succeed therefore LS / LFC have to show that the FA COM was irrational in finding PE evidence to be CREDIBLE, that PE’s evidence is littered with inconsistencies.

 

PE’S CREDIBILITY:

 

1. COIN TOSS INCIDENT

 

In PARA 329 PE asserts that the ref has wrongly called the toss of the coin “Mr Evra knew that he had won it”. This assertion is advanced by him calling Ryan Giggs over, remonstrating that an incorrect toss had been called. No determination was made by FA COM about this or any reference to his credibility about this incident. If ref is telling truth then PE is either lying, calling into question his credibility and has made an implied accusation that the REF has cheated, his behaviour is improper in accordance with rule E3. If the FA COM accepts that PE has told the truth then the REF has clearly cheated and action against the ref must be taken. It is irrational for the FA COM not to make a determination about this or PE’s credibility.

 

This is critical as PE’s credibility is called into question prior to the game kicking off and the occurrence of the alleged incident. PE also states “when such a coin was

used, he always called yellow given that the alternative, blue, is a Manchester City colour”(para 329) Once again PE has made an incorrect assertion, given that Manchester United regularly play in blue, and did indeed on the match in question. Not to mention that the colour blue is the colour of PE national team, France. The FA COM erred in making no finding as to this inconsistency in PE’s evidence.

 

2. PE’S USE OF THE WORD N****R

 

PE states in PARA 130 that “he told the referee that Mr Suarez had called him a nigger”. This is later substantiated when PE comes with AF to the REF after the game and is included in the refs report. The words written in the report are N****r and are not refuted by PE. PE, evident by his team-mates testimonies reiterates that this was the word used by LS.

 

The FA COM are irrational in finding that “nothing turns on the fact that Mr Evra may have thought that the word "negro" as used by Mr Suarez in the match translated as "nigger".” PE’s thoughts on the use of the word are the nucleus to the credibility of his testimony. The FA COM has stated that PE is fluent in Spanish; also they have stated that it was he who instigated the conversation in Spanish with LS. The FA COM have relied upon PE detailed testimony as to what he later said in Spanish and to what LS replied to him; again in Spanish. In fact the whole conversation took place in Spanish. It is irrational for the FA COM to find that PE was not aware of the meaning or use of the word ‘negro’ and to find PE use of an Italian definition in a Spanish conversation as credible. The FA COM have erred in accepting PE claim especially given the abhorrence to the word n****r and its pejorative use in British Society and culture.

 

If PE is mistaken in his use of the meaning and understanding of Spanish words, then his credibility with regards to his testimony is also crucial. The accuracy and his understanding of what he said and what was said to him was incorrectly addressed by the FA COM. The FA COM is irrational in finding PE testimony to be credible given the above rational conclusion.

 

3. CANAL + INTERVIEW

 

The FA COM is irrational in finding PE phrase ten times as a figure of speech and not to be taken literally, in relation to his interview on French TV. In making this finding they have accepted PE and DC opinion as to the meaning of the phrase. As with the Hernandez incident where part of his testimony was discounted on the grounds that he is not an expert, then the FA COM should have applied the same criteria in assessing the meaning of the phrase ten times and accepting DC’s opinion. The whole charge is dependent on the meaning of words that were said.

 

Nevertheless PE has stated that he always gives interviews to French TV and that he did not wish to discuss racial slurs he faced having earlier informed the interviewer off recorrd as to his anger. The FA COM were irrational in not attributing sufficient weight to PE ‘ten times’ claim in this interview, especially as Libel laws come in to play, to dismiss the use of the phrase ‘ten times’ as not being literal is irrational, especially given PE claim that he did not wish to discuss this, the question remains why did he then do so on record?

 

4. PE’S BEHAVIOUR

 

PE’s own evidence states that he has used threatening behaviour against LS. PARA 92: "Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you". PARA 94: "Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you".

 

This is in breach of rule E3 relating to general behaviour which states:

 

“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.”

 

The FA COM has failed to make a finding or take action against PE, in doing so have failed to uphold the FA’s own rules.

 

5. NO SUPPORTING TESTIMONY

 

The finding of the alleged ‘five times use of negro’ by the FA COM is irrational. The incident is alleged to have occurred in the goal mouth during a corner to be taken. On the balance of probabilities there is a greater chance for any alleged use of the word ‘negro’ to have been heard by PE team mates. The finding of the FA COM that De Gea would not have heard anything as he was concentrating on the match is irrational. As a goalkeeper his senses would be alert to visual and audio stimuli, especially calls of ‘keeper’.

 

6. PE’S HISTORY IN RACIAL ALLEGATIONS

 

Given the serious nature of the charge against LS and that the corroborating evidence was inconclusive and therefore the FA COM were in the main reliant upon PE credibility as their main burden of evidence; the FA COM, in the interests of justice should have considered previous FA COM findings on PE behaviour and credibility in previous racial allegations with reference to the Chelsea FC grounds man.

 

PE experience of previous FA COM hearings would account for his calmness and demeanour in front of this FA COM. FA COM erred in not addressing this when relying upon PE demeanour and conduct in this hearing.

[mypost]

this report explains fuck all' date=' if suarez said to this cunt i dont talk to blacks then that is racist,if the fa have said he didnt say anything racist but theyr relying on the testimony of evra then suarez is racist, how the fuck can you ban someone for something that isnt racist i dont know fuck the fa fuck evra this is a big steaming pile of turd that these cunts dont know what the fuck they are talking about someone seriously needs to get a hold of this shit and show these fuckers up for what they are, CORRUPT BASTARDS.[/quote']

 

Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.

 

I can't see us accepting this rubbish. We don't cave in to demands and threats from anyone. It will be appealed. If it takes weeks or months, we will do whatever is necessary to defend Suarez.

[zico]

Fair enough, but the fact it translates into "black," doesn't make it any less damning, and I believe John Terry is also guilty of using racial language, for calling Anton Ferdinand a "fucking black cunt."

 

Suarez isn't racist though, but he definitely fucked up here.

 

Are you for real - you see no difference, in two different languages, because it translates into the same in English?

[Horus]

Are you for real - you see no difference, in two different languages, because it translates into the same in English?

 

When you make reference to someones colour, then you are using racial language. It really is that simple. Add that to the fact, that the linguistic experts have all dismissed the fact that Suarez was using the phrase in any kind of conciliatory manner, then what other conclusion is there to be reached?

 

I've laid out my opinions in this thread respectfully. I don't write things to wind people up. You can either agree or disagree, but I'll always explain myself.

 

So maybe you could explain to me what the difference is?

 

He wasn't using a slang term from some 3rd world village here.

 

I've also said that he isn't racist, but he did use racial language, so for that he needs to be punished.

[GUS]

One man's word against another. Jeremy Kyle Show - Lie Detector Tests - Simple!

[POOOS]

Sorry if this has been posted (couldn't see it, like). Good article that sums it up:

 

COMMENT: Is it acceptable to smear Liverpool FC striker Luis Suarez’s reputation on the hunch of three men? - Liverpool FC - Sport News - Daily Post North Wales

[zico]

I have attempted to do an analysis of the possible course of action and any grounds of appeal. The findings of the FA are riddled with inconsistencies. a proper hatchet job has been done, considering Luis face a possible further ban for any repetition, it is imperative that his name and the good name of LFC is cleared.

 

 

In accordance with the rules LS is only able to appeal against the severity of the sentence issued against him, with the hope of attempting a reduction. An appeal also leads to the possibility of an increase in the ban if it is found to be without merit and frivolous. LS is unable to appeal against the findings of the FA COM. For LS / LFC to succeed in an appeal against the findings then an appeal to the FA in accordance with FA RULE K: ARBITRATION must be made. This rule states:

 

Rule K1(a) shall not operate to provide an appeal against the decision of a Regulatory Commission or an Appeal Board under the Rules and shall operate only as the forum and procedure for a challenge to the validity of such decision under English law on the grounds of ultra vires (including error of law), irrationality or procedural unfairness, with the Tribunal exercising a supervisory jurisdiction.

 

This is a civil case and therefore test applied by FA COM was balance of probability. FA COM has accepted that the more serious the nature the case then the greater the burden of evidence required. FA COM (PARA 80) accepts that this case is very serious therefore there is a greater burden of evidence needed to find against LS. Video, audio and oral evidence was used aswell as written testimonies of witnesses.

 

FA COM found LS to have used insulting language with reference to PE skin colour on seven occasions. No audio evidence demonstrated that LS was at fault. If there was any then FA COM would have detailed it in their determination. FA COM has stated that no witnesses heard any of the alleged insults. FA COM has stated that no video evidence shows him saying any of the alleged insults. FA COM found LS credibility to be in question and has found PE to be more credible witness. They also found that players motions on video evidence supports PE claims on Balance of Probabilities. This to the FA COM satisfies the ‘greater burden of evidence’ test for finding against LS.

 

In order for any appeal to be successful LS / LFC have to demonstrate that the FA COM decision was irrational or an error of law has occurred. In order to succeed therefore LS / LFC have to show that the FA COM was irrational in finding PE evidence to be CREDIBLE, that PE’s evidence is littered with inconsistencies.

 

PE’S CREDIBILITY:

 

1. COIN TOSS INCIDENT

 

In PARA 329 PE asserts that the ref has wrongly called the toss of the coin “Mr Evra knew that he had won it”. This assertion is advanced by him calling Ryan Giggs over, remonstrating that an incorrect toss had been called. No determination was made by FA COM about this or any reference to his credibility about this incident. If ref is telling truth then PE is either lying, calling into question his credibility and has made an implied accusation that the REF has cheated, his behaviour is improper in accordance with rule E3. If the FA COM accepts that PE has told the truth then the REF has clearly cheated and action against the ref must be taken. It is irrational for the FA COM not to make a determination about this or PE’s credibility.

 

This is critical as PE’s credibility is called into question prior to the game kicking off and the occurrence of the alleged incident. PE also states “when such a coin was

used, he always called yellow given that the alternative, blue, is a Manchester City colour”(para 329) Once again PE has made an incorrect assertion, given that Manchester United regularly play in blue, and did indeed on the match in question. Not to mention that the colour blue is the colour of PE national team, France. The FA COM erred in making no finding as to this inconsistency in PE’s evidence.

 

2. PE’S USE OF THE WORD N****R

 

PE states in PARA 130 that “he told the referee that Mr Suarez had called him a nigger”. This is later substantiated when PE comes with AF to the REF after the game and is included in the refs report. The words written in the report are N****r and are not refuted by PE. PE, evident by his team-mates testimonies reiterates that this was the word used by LS.

 

The FA COM are irrational in finding that “nothing turns on the fact that Mr Evra may have thought that the word "negro" as used by Mr Suarez in the match translated as "nigger".” PE’s thoughts on the use of the word are the nucleus to the credibility of his testimony. The FA COM has stated that PE is fluent in Spanish; also they have stated that it was he who instigated the conversation in Spanish with LS. The FA COM have relied upon PE detailed testimony as to what he later said in Spanish and to what LS replied to him; again in Spanish. In fact the whole conversation took place in Spanish. It is irrational for the FA COM to find that PE was not aware of the meaning or use of the word ‘negro’ and to find PE use of an Italian definition in a Spanish conversation as credible. The FA COM have erred in accepting PE claim especially given the abhorrence to the word n****r and its pejorative use in British Society and culture.

 

If PE is mistaken in his use of the meaning and understanding of Spanish words, then his credibility with regards to his testimony is also crucial. The accuracy and his understanding of what he said and what was said to him was incorrectly addressed by the FA COM. The FA COM is irrational in finding PE testimony to be credible given the above rational conclusion.

 

3. CANAL + INTERVIEW

 

The FA COM is irrational in finding PE phrase ten times as a figure of speech and not to be taken literally, in relation to his interview on French TV. In making this finding they have accepted PE and DC opinion as to the meaning of the phrase. As with the Hernandez incident where part of his testimony was discounted on the grounds that he is not an expert, then the FA COM should have applied the same criteria in assessing the meaning of the phrase ten times and accepting DC’s opinion. The whole charge is dependent on the meaning of words that were said.

 

Nevertheless PE has stated that he always gives interviews to French TV and that he did not wish to discuss racial slurs he faced having earlier informed the interviewer off recorrd as to his anger. The FA COM were irrational in not attributing sufficient weight to PE ‘ten times’ claim in this interview, especially as Libel laws come in to play, to dismiss the use of the phrase ‘ten times’ as not being literal is irrational, especially given PE claim that he did not wish to discuss this, the question remains why did he then do so on record?

 

4. PE’S BEHAVIOUR

 

PE’s own evidence states that he has used threatening behaviour against LS. PARA 92: "Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you". PARA 94: "Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you".

 

This is in breach of rule E3 relating to general behaviour which states:

 

“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.”

 

The FA COM has failed to make a finding or take action against PE, in doing so have failed to uphold the FA’s own rules.

 

5. NO SUPPORTING TESTIMONY

 

The finding of the alleged ‘five times use of negro’ by the FA COM is irrational. The incident is alleged to have occurred in the goal mouth during a corner to be taken. On the balance of probabilities there is a greater chance for any alleged use of the word ‘negro’ to have been heard by PE team mates. The finding of the FA COM that De Gea would not have heard anything as he was concentrating on the match is irrational. As a goalkeeper his senses would be alert to visual and audio stimuli, especially calls of ‘keeper’.

 

6. PE’S HISTORY IN RACIAL ALLEGATIONS

 

Given the serious nature of the charge against LS and that the corroborating evidence was inconclusive and therefore the FA COM were in the main reliant upon PE credibility as their main burden of evidence; the FA COM, in the interests of justice should have considered previous FA COM findings on PE behaviour and credibility in previous racial allegations with reference to the Chelsea FC grounds man.

 

PE experience of previous FA COM hearings would account for his calmness and demeanour in front of this FA COM. FA COM erred in not addressing this when relying upon PE demeanour and conduct in this hearing.

 

I really do hope they take this all the way.... As to mending relations the scum can fuck off, refuse to speak to them for a few years...

 

Can't believe the pressure being put on the club for taking the ban and dropping the case... I will be hugely disappointed and lose belief in our Yank owners if we do... Anyone with a brain who reads that report can see that he has been stitched up, and we cannot let a man's reputation be ruined without a proper fight. I would not judge him if he decides to leave if we do!

 

Another thing, aren't there any journalists out there who are willing to fight our corner? All I see are these brain dead articles where they take the Evra/Utd/FA words for the truth without asking any questions whatsoever....

[xerxes]

I think it's very important to understand than in everyday use in Latin America the use of the word negro on its own has no racist intent, a point that needs to be made to those who have no understanding of that culture.

 

 

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."

 

I have little doubt that this is an incident which has been allowed to blow way out of proportion, but in truth, the semantics argument is a little thin.

 

I don't believe that, and don't expect that, Suarez should be addressing the Captain of Man U "affectionately" in the heat of battle.If you read the report one of the things that counted against Suarez was him suggesting that he had no problem with Evra, that there was no feud, and that he was addressing him affectionately- but at the same time that Evra was fabricating serious allegations about him for no reason.

 

We should be concentrating instead as to why an immediate apology for "Unintended" offence was not offered, an apology which has still not been made, which may well have prevented this from escalating as ridiculously as it has, and which continues to alllow anti-racists, and enemies of the Club, to have a field day at our expense.

Edited January 2, 2012 by xerxes

[caracaracara]

I have attempted to do an analysis of the possible course of action and any grounds of appeal. The findings of the FA are riddled with inconsistencies. a proper hatchet job has been done, considering Luis face a possible further ban for any repetition, it is imperative that his name and the good name of LFC is cleared.

 

 

In accordance with the rules LS is only able to appeal against the severity of the sentence issued against him, with the hope of attempting a reduction. An appeal also leads to the possibility of an increase in the ban if it is found to be without merit and frivolous. LS is unable to appeal against the findings of the FA COM. For LS / LFC to succeed in an appeal against the findings then an appeal to the FA in accordance with FA RULE K: ARBITRATION must be made. This rule states:

 

Rule K1(a) shall not operate to provide an appeal against the decision of a Regulatory Commission or an Appeal Board under the Rules and shall operate only as the forum and procedure for a challenge to the validity of such decision under English law on the grounds of ultra vires (including error of law), irrationality or procedural unfairness, with the Tribunal exercising a supervisory jurisdiction.

 

This is a civil case and therefore test applied by FA COM was balance of probability. FA COM has accepted that the more serious the nature the case then the greater the burden of evidence required. FA COM (PARA 80) accepts that this case is very serious therefore there is a greater burden of evidence needed to find against LS. Video, audio and oral evidence was used aswell as written testimonies of witnesses.

 

FA COM found LS to have used insulting language with reference to PE skin colour on seven occasions. No audio evidence demonstrated that LS was at fault. If there was any then FA COM would have detailed it in their determination. FA COM has stated that no witnesses heard any of the alleged insults. FA COM has stated that no video evidence shows him saying any of the alleged insults. FA COM found LS credibility to be in question and has found PE to be more credible witness. They also found that players motions on video evidence supports PE claims on Balance of Probabilities. This to the FA COM satisfies the ‘greater burden of evidence’ test for finding against LS.

 

In order for any appeal to be successful LS / LFC have to demonstrate that the FA COM decision was irrational or an error of law has occurred. In order to succeed therefore LS / LFC have to show that the FA COM was irrational in finding PE evidence to be CREDIBLE, that PE’s evidence is littered with inconsistencies.

 

PE’S CREDIBILITY:

 

1. COIN TOSS INCIDENT

 

In PARA 329 PE asserts that the ref has wrongly called the toss of the coin “Mr Evra knew that he had won it”. This assertion is advanced by him calling Ryan Giggs over, remonstrating that an incorrect toss had been called. No determination was made by FA COM about this or any reference to his credibility about this incident. If ref is telling truth then PE is either lying, calling into question his credibility and has made an implied accusation that the REF has cheated, his behaviour is improper in accordance with rule E3. If the FA COM accepts that PE has told the truth then the REF has clearly cheated and action against the ref must be taken. It is irrational for the FA COM not to make a determination about this or PE’s credibility.

 

This is critical as PE’s credibility is called into question prior to the game kicking off and the occurrence of the alleged incident. PE also states “when such a coin was

used, he always called yellow given that the alternative, blue, is a Manchester City colour”(para 329) Once again PE has made an incorrect assertion, given that Manchester United regularly play in blue, and did indeed on the match in question. Not to mention that the colour blue is the colour of PE national team, France. The FA COM erred in making no finding as to this inconsistency in PE’s evidence.

 

2. PE’S USE OF THE WORD N****R

 

PE states in PARA 130 that “he told the referee that Mr Suarez had called him a nigger”. This is later substantiated when PE comes with AF to the REF after the game and is included in the refs report. The words written in the report are N****r and are not refuted by PE. PE, evident by his team-mates testimonies reiterates that this was the word used by LS.

 

The FA COM are irrational in finding that “nothing turns on the fact that Mr Evra may have thought that the word "negro" as used by Mr Suarez in the match translated as "nigger".” PE’s thoughts on the use of the word are the nucleus to the credibility of his testimony. The FA COM has stated that PE is fluent in Spanish; also they have stated that it was he who instigated the conversation in Spanish with LS. The FA COM have relied upon PE detailed testimony as to what he later said in Spanish and to what LS replied to him; again in Spanish. In fact the whole conversation took place in Spanish. It is irrational for the FA COM to find that PE was not aware of the meaning or use of the word ‘negro’ and to find PE use of an Italian definition in a Spanish conversation as credible. The FA COM have erred in accepting PE claim especially given the abhorrence to the word n****r and its pejorative use in British Society and culture.

 

If PE is mistaken in his use of the meaning and understanding of Spanish words, then his credibility with regards to his testimony is also crucial. The accuracy and his understanding of what he said and what was said to him was incorrectly addressed by the FA COM. The FA COM is irrational in finding PE testimony to be credible given the above rational conclusion.

 

3. CANAL + INTERVIEW

 

The FA COM is irrational in finding PE phrase ten times as a figure of speech and not to be taken literally, in relation to his interview on French TV. In making this finding they have accepted PE and DC opinion as to the meaning of the phrase. As with the Hernandez incident where part of his testimony was discounted on the grounds that he is not an expert, then the FA COM should have applied the same criteria in assessing the meaning of the phrase ten times and accepting DC’s opinion. The whole charge is dependent on the meaning of words that were said.

 

Nevertheless PE has stated that he always gives interviews to French TV and that he did not wish to discuss racial slurs he faced having earlier informed the interviewer off recorrd as to his anger. The FA COM were irrational in not attributing sufficient weight to PE ‘ten times’ claim in this interview, especially as Libel laws come in to play, to dismiss the use of the phrase ‘ten times’ as not being literal is irrational, especially given PE claim that he did not wish to discuss this, the question remains why did he then do so on record?

 

4. PE’S BEHAVIOUR

 

PE’s own evidence states that he has used threatening behaviour against LS. PARA 92: "Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you". PARA 94: "Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you".

 

This is in breach of rule E3 relating to general behaviour which states:

 

“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.”

 

The FA COM has failed to make a finding or take action against PE, in doing so have failed to uphold the FA’s own rules.

 

5. NO SUPPORTING TESTIMONY

 

The finding of the alleged ‘five times use of negro’ by the FA COM is irrational. The incident is alleged to have occurred in the goal mouth during a corner to be taken. On the balance of probabilities there is a greater chance for any alleged use of the word ‘negro’ to have been heard by PE team mates. The finding of the FA COM that De Gea would not have heard anything as he was concentrating on the match is irrational. As a goalkeeper his senses would be alert to visual and audio stimuli, especially calls of ‘keeper’.

 

6. PE’S HISTORY IN RACIAL ALLEGATIONS

 

Given the serious nature of the charge against LS and that the corroborating evidence was inconclusive and therefore the FA COM were in the main reliant upon PE credibility as their main burden of evidence; the FA COM, in the interests of justice should have considered previous FA COM findings on PE behaviour and credibility in previous racial allegations with reference to the Chelsea FC grounds man.

 

PE experience of previous FA COM hearings would account for his calmness and demeanour in front of this FA COM. FA COM erred in not addressing this when relying upon PE demeanour and conduct in this hearing.

 

Excellent analysis, they have aslo not taken into account the following:

 

1 Evra was acting irrational from the kick off, probably due to his issue with losing the toss. I was in the upper so closely watching Evra and he was gobbing off / dying in from the off. This shows 'state of mind' and has a direct impact on his potential exaggerated behaviour thereafter to any incident i.e. his badge kissing, crowd incitement moment. The FA had already concluded in a previous unrelated hearing that his evidence was 'unreliable and exaggerated.' Why do they now believe him without any third party evidence? Particularly considering 'state of mind.'

 

2 Not only has he had previous experiences of a similar conduct hearing. He also went through something similar from the French FA after the mutiny at the last world cup, where he was the team captain. I dictinctly remember him gobbing off at the manager on the training pitch and having to be pulled away.

 

I know he was banned from playing for the national team. The captain of the national team banned for his part in the refusal to play a game for his country.

 

3 Suarez had to use an interpretor. He is exposed to all the starchness of English process. He is the accused and being tried on the 'balance of probability' by an 'impartial' panel who couldn't fail to be influenced by the recent press surrounding racisim in the game , Blatter, etc.

 

Being found guilty would have a major effect on his standing, career and potential future earnigns for his family. No wonder he didn't appear as composed as Evra, who had very little to lose given Suarez had admitted saying something, so highly unlikely that he could have been subsequently sued for defamation, even if the panel had decided to accept Luis only said it once.

[Jack the Sipper]

I have attempted to do an analysis of the possible course of action and any grounds of appeal. The findings of the FA are riddled with inconsistencies. a proper hatchet job has been done, considering Luis face a possible further ban for any repetition, it is imperative that his name and the good name of LFC is cleared.

 

 

In accordance with the rules LS is only able to appeal against the severity of the sentence issued against him, with the hope of attempting a reduction. An appeal also leads to the possibility of an increase in the ban if it is found to be without merit and frivolous. LS is unable to appeal against the findings of the FA COM. For LS / LFC to succeed in an appeal against the findings then an appeal to the FA in accordance with FA RULE K: ARBITRATION must be made. This rule states:

 

Rule K1(a) shall not operate to provide an appeal against the decision of a Regulatory Commission or an Appeal Board under the Rules and shall operate only as the forum and procedure for a challenge to the validity of such decision under English law on the grounds of ultra vires (including error of law), irrationality or procedural unfairness, with the Tribunal exercising a supervisory jurisdiction.

 

This is a civil case and therefore test applied by FA COM was balance of probability. FA COM has accepted that the more serious the nature the case then the greater the burden of evidence required. FA COM (PARA 80) accepts that this case is very serious therefore there is a greater burden of evidence needed to find against LS. Video, audio and oral evidence was used aswell as written testimonies of witnesses.

 

FA COM found LS to have used insulting language with reference to PE skin colour on seven occasions. No audio evidence demonstrated that LS was at fault. If there was any then FA COM would have detailed it in their determination. FA COM has stated that no witnesses heard any of the alleged insults. FA COM has stated that no video evidence shows him saying any of the alleged insults. FA COM found LS credibility to be in question and has found PE to be more credible witness. They also found that players motions on video evidence supports PE claims on Balance of Probabilities. This to the FA COM satisfies the ‘greater burden of evidence’ test for finding against LS.

 

In order for any appeal to be successful LS / LFC have to demonstrate that the FA COM decision was irrational or an error of law has occurred. In order to succeed therefore LS / LFC have to show that the FA COM was irrational in finding PE evidence to be CREDIBLE, that PE’s evidence is littered with inconsistencies.

 

PE’S CREDIBILITY:

 

1. COIN TOSS INCIDENT

 

In PARA 329 PE asserts that the ref has wrongly called the toss of the coin “Mr Evra knew that he had won it”. This assertion is advanced by him calling Ryan Giggs over, remonstrating that an incorrect toss had been called. No determination was made by FA COM about this or any reference to his credibility about this incident. If ref is telling truth then PE is either lying, calling into question his credibility and has made an implied accusation that the REF has cheated, his behaviour is improper in accordance with rule E3. If the FA COM accepts that PE has told the truth then the REF has clearly cheated and action against the ref must be taken. It is irrational for the FA COM not to make a determination about this or PE’s credibility.

 

This is critical as PE’s credibility is called into question prior to the game kicking off and the occurrence of the alleged incident. PE also states “when such a coin was

used, he always called yellow given that the alternative, blue, is a Manchester City colour”(para 329) Once again PE has made an incorrect assertion, given that Manchester United regularly play in blue, and did indeed on the match in question. Not to mention that the colour blue is the colour of PE national team, France. The FA COM erred in making no finding as to this inconsistency in PE’s evidence.

 

2. PE’S USE OF THE WORD N****R

 

PE states in PARA 130 that “he told the referee that Mr Suarez had called him a nigger”. This is later substantiated when PE comes with AF to the REF after the game and is included in the refs report. The words written in the report are N****r and are not refuted by PE. PE, evident by his team-mates testimonies reiterates that this was the word used by LS.

 

The FA COM are irrational in finding that “nothing turns on the fact that Mr Evra may have thought that the word "negro" as used by Mr Suarez in the match translated as "nigger".” PE’s thoughts on the use of the word are the nucleus to the credibility of his testimony. The FA COM has stated that PE is fluent in Spanish; also they have stated that it was he who instigated the conversation in Spanish with LS. The FA COM have relied upon PE detailed testimony as to what he later said in Spanish and to what LS replied to him; again in Spanish. In fact the whole conversation took place in Spanish. It is irrational for the FA COM to find that PE was not aware of the meaning or use of the word ‘negro’ and to find PE use of an Italian definition in a Spanish conversation as credible. The FA COM have erred in accepting PE claim especially given the abhorrence to the word n****r and its pejorative use in British Society and culture.

 

If PE is mistaken in his use of the meaning and understanding of Spanish words, then his credibility with regards to his testimony is also crucial. The accuracy and his understanding of what he said and what was said to him was incorrectly addressed by the FA COM. The FA COM is irrational in finding PE testimony to be credible given the above rational conclusion.

 

3. CANAL + INTERVIEW

 

The FA COM is irrational in finding PE phrase ten times as a figure of speech and not to be taken literally, in relation to his interview on French TV. In making this finding they have accepted PE and DC opinion as to the meaning of the phrase. As with the Hernandez incident where part of his testimony was discounted on the grounds that he is not an expert, then the FA COM should have applied the same criteria in assessing the meaning of the phrase ten times and accepting DC’s opinion. The whole charge is dependent on the meaning of words that were said.

 

Nevertheless PE has stated that he always gives interviews to French TV and that he did not wish to discuss racial slurs he faced having earlier informed the interviewer off recorrd as to his anger. The FA COM were irrational in not attributing sufficient weight to PE ‘ten times’ claim in this interview, especially as Libel laws come in to play, to dismiss the use of the phrase ‘ten times’ as not being literal is irrational, especially given PE claim that he did not wish to discuss this, the question remains why did he then do so on record?

 

4. PE’S BEHAVIOUR

 

PE’s own evidence states that he has used threatening behaviour against LS. PARA 92: "Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you". PARA 94: "Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you".

 

This is in breach of rule E3 relating to general behaviour which states:

 

“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.”

 

The FA COM has failed to make a finding or take action against PE, in doing so have failed to uphold the FA’s own rules.

 

5. NO SUPPORTING TESTIMONY

 

The finding of the alleged ‘five times use of negro’ by the FA COM is irrational. The incident is alleged to have occurred in the goal mouth during a corner to be taken. On the balance of probabilities there is a greater chance for any alleged use of the word ‘negro’ to have been heard by PE team mates. The finding of the FA COM that De Gea would not have heard anything as he was concentrating on the match is irrational. As a goalkeeper his senses would be alert to visual and audio stimuli, especially calls of ‘keeper’.

 

6. PE’S HISTORY IN RACIAL ALLEGATIONS

 

Given the serious nature of the charge against LS and that the corroborating evidence was inconclusive and therefore the FA COM were in the main reliant upon PE credibility as their main burden of evidence; the FA COM, in the interests of justice should have considered previous FA COM findings on PE behaviour and credibility in previous racial allegations with reference to the Chelsea FC grounds man.

 

PE experience of previous FA COM hearings would account for his calmness and demeanour in front of this FA COM. FA COM erred in not addressing this when relying upon PE demeanour and conduct in this hearing.

 

Point 4 dosen't reflect on Evra's credibility as a witness, and point 6 couldn't be used in any appeal because the LFC legal people (in their infinite wisdom) decided that prior character shouldn't factor into the original verdict.

 

There are other instances though where his credibility can be seen to be questionable:

 

-Evra's claim to have told the ref during the match about the abuse - something the ref dosen't corroborate.

 

-Evra only referring to one instance of racial abuse after the match, when he then went on to state several instances.

 

-Evra admitting not to have realised Suarez 'pinched' him during the confrontation (ironically the panel used this ommission in his testimony in Evra's favour).

 

-Evra claiming that he understood the term of abuse he levelled at Suarez in Spanish was something other than its literal translation ('fucking hell' as opposed to 'your sisters pussy') - yet he also claims to have took what he claims Suarez said to him in retaliation literally (either he understands Spanish linguistic nuances or he dosen't).

 

-Evra's claim that Kuyt told him 'stand up you prick' which was disputed by Kuyt.

 

-Evra's claim that he told someone 'he called me black'. Disputed by Kuyt who says Evra said 'you're only booking me because I'm black'.

 

There's other inconsistencies too, some of which I've already postd about. The panel's reluctance analyse these inconsistencies is a disgrace really, particularly given how keen they were to highlight any inconsistencies in Suarez's version of events.

 

On a related note, what's particularly notable when looking at the panel's 'analysis' is where they look at motivations of both players for their claims: one the one hand, while acknowledging Suarez's previous good character regards race relations, they still conclude that, just because he hasn't hurled abuse before it dosen't mean he wouldn't now. On the other hand, they ask why Evra would want to smear a player that Evra (!) claims he admires and has had no previous issues with, and conclude that there is no reason, and thus he wouldn't have invented his claims. That they could conclude that Suarez could, out of character, start racially abusing Evra in the way Evra claims, but that Evra couldn't have made up the claim because Evra claims to have admired Suarez and also has no prior record lying in testimony is just taking the fucking piss. It also highlights how incompetent our legal team were in not insisting Evra's previous record for being an unreliable witness be taken into account.

[piscinin]

We should be concentrating instead as to why an immediate apology for "Unintended" offence was not offered, an apology which has still not been made, which may well have prevented this from escalating as ridiculously as it has, and which continues to alllow anti-racists, and enemies of the Club, to have a field day at our expense.

 

There's no question we fucked this up but you have to remember the timeline. When Kenny and Comoli were first involved they were defending Luis from having called Evra "a Nigger 5 times". They rightfully defended him of that made up charge. It's only when the goalposts were shifted to "reference to skin colour" that their defence started incriminating Suarez.

 

There's no way they could have just apologized at the outset. It was and still is a blatant lie.

[Dicko]

Can somebody sum this up for me?

 

Manchester Utd Hired Paul Greavey.

Liverpool hired the person who advised Michael Duberry to perjure himself in the Bowyer/Woodgate trial.

[redmann]

Evra's previous record could come into play if the 'interest of justice' card is played. The judgement relied upon Evra's credibility as a witness as the main reason for finding against Suarez.

 

I agree that our legal team were incompetent.

 

What are your thoughts re the Evra transcript, could that be a possible appeal on procedural grounds. Given that virtually no time was given to analyse the written transcript.

[Antynwa]

There's no question we fucked this up but you have to remember the timeline. When Kenny and Comoli were first involved they were defending Luis from having called Evra "a Nigger 5 times". They rightfully defended him of that made up charge. It's only when the goalposts were shifted to "reference to skin colour" that their defence started incriminating Suarez.

 

There's no way they could have just apologized at the outset. It was and still is a blatant lie.

 

Didn't Suarez say Por Que Negro, because your black?

 

The whole situation stinks, and I'm getting rather fed up of it, as I mentioned before I think we need to accept the ban, but pursue this in the courts and seek damages.

 

Everyone has handled this badly, and the return game at Old Trafford is going to get nasty

[caracaracara]

I'm not saying you're 100% wrong, but the defence has gone from "Suarez used the friendly Negrito/a" to "Suarez only called him a negro once."

 

Now, I think Evra has lied in this whole exchange, but the minute Suarez admitted to calling him a negro, then all bets are off.

 

Whether someone calls another player a negro once, or 8 times, becomes a little irrelevant. Either racist language is used, or it isn't.

 

Do you think there should be a sliding scale for use of negro?

 

If Evra comes out tomorrow and says that after really thinking about it, he remembered that Suarez actually only said it once, after all, then does that make it's usage any less appropriate?

 

Suarez isn't a racist, of that there is no doubt. But, he is guilty of using racial language. 8 games is over zealous, but us (the FA) moaning about Sepp Blatter just before this case was heard, always dictated that a harsh punishment was on the cards.

 

But the punishment is proportionate to believing Evra that he said it seven times. So even if we accept your logic that 'all bets are off' once Suarez admits using a word that offends in this country, they then accept Evra's word without any third party confirmation. Purely based on posture / body language over a two minute period.

 

The outcome would have been completely different if they accepted Luis version where he said it once (in a different context). Taking into account mitigation then a wrap on the knuckles / suspended sentance would have ensured. And no worldwide condemnation of Suarez.

 

As I understand it but happy to be corrected.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

When you make reference to someones colour, then you are using racial language. It really is that simple. Add that to the fact, that the linguistic experts have all dismissed the fact that Suarez was using the phrase in any kind of conciliatory manner, then what other conclusion is there to be reached?

 

I've laid out my opinions in this thread respectfully. I don't write things to wind people up. You can either agree or disagree, but I'll always explain myself.

 

So maybe you could explain to me what the difference is?

 

He wasn't using a slang term from some 3rd world village here.

 

I've also said that he isn't racist, but he did use racial language, so for that he needs to be punished.

 

Are you fucking joking?

 

That is the biggest load of bullshit I've heard in my life.

 

It's not racist to observe somebody's skin colour in English culture, though PC fuckers sometimes get bent up about it. I'd love to see somebody reprimand me for referring to somebody's skin colour. Eitherway, its DEFINITELY not racist to observe a persons skin colour in South American culture.

 

So how the fuck can you come to the conclusion that by referring to somebodys colour, Luis has used racial language?

 

Part of me thinks you don't deserve my vitriolic reaction, the other part of me thinks its necessary in the face of such bollocks.

 

Edit: He isn't a racist, but he did use racial language? I keep hearing this rubbish being spouted. Please tell me what the distinction is? Also, what the fuck is "racial language"? Surely you mean "racist language". And guess what, when somebody uses "racist language" they are racist!!! Theres no distinction!

Edited January 2, 2012 by FrenchEyeGlass

[piscinin]

Didn't Suarez say Por Que Negro, because your black?

 

You understand that there is a difference between saying, "That black guy over there", and, "That Nigger!", right?

[Antynwa]

You understand that there is a difference between saying, "That black guy over there", and, "That Nigger!", right?

 

I know but it's not the point.

 

It's still a fucking stupid thing to say.

[xerxes]

There's no question we fucked this up but you have to remember the timeline. When Kenny and Comoli were first involved they were defending Luis from having called Evra "a Nigger 5 times". They rightfully defended him of that made up charge. It's only when the goalposts were shifted to "reference to skin colour" that their defence started incriminating Suarez.

 

There's no way they could have just apologized at the outset. It was and still is a blatant lie.

 

Piscinin, that is fair comment, at the outset.

 

There is a crucial point in the disciplinary process ( and fair play to the FA for posting everything on line) when the evidence is received post complaint and then they decide whther there is enough to charge.It is at that point that I feel that an apology and all of our arguments should have been more successfully deployed.

[piscinin]

I know but it's not the point.

 

It way my ENTIRE point.

[Brownie]

 

I know but it's not the point.

 

It's still a fucking stupid thing to say.

 

It is the point though Ant, and you've totally missed it.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

I know but it's not the point.

 

It's still a fucking stupid thing to say.

 

You, and many other people, really need to understand that intricacies of the Spanish language and the South American dialect.

 

He said 'Porque Negro'. This can mean a number of things:

 

• Because you are Black
  
• Why? Because you are Black
  
• Why, Black?
  

 

None of these are more common than the other. They all make perfect sense and the use of porque would be typical for each case.

 

Considering that the conversation allegedly went like this;

 

"Don't touch me you South American"

"*something* Black"

 

Which of the three uses of porque would make most conversational sense?

 

Quite obviously the third.

[Horus]

But the punishment is proportionate to believing Evra that he said it seven times. So even if we accept your logic that 'all bets are off' once Suarez admits using a word that offends in this country, they then accept Evra's word without any third party confirmation. Purely based on posture / body language over a two minute period.

 

The outcome would have been completely different if they accepted Luis version where he said it once (in a different context). Taking into account mitigation then a wrap on the knuckles / suspended sentance would have ensured. And no worldwide condemnation of Suarez.

 

As I understand it but happy to be corrected.

 

Here are the facts about what I've stated.

 

1) Suarez admitted using racial language.

 

2) Evra lied.

 

3) 8 matches is harsh, but is due to the F.A. recently attacking Sepp Blatter for not taking racism seriously.

 

4) Suarez deserves a punishment.

 

He certainly deserves more than a wrap on the knuckles, as far as I'm concerned, and maybe 3 games would have been fair, but I just don't believe that if you use racial language once, you get a wrap on the knuckles, but if you use it 7 times, then you get 8 games.

 

There should be an action and a consequence, not an action and a repeated action consequence.

 

I'm not saying I'm right here, it's just how I understand it.

[me1]

Check all the no mark lazy sports journalists jumping on the selfrighteous bandwagon.

James Lawton in particular has got himself so far up the FA's and Gill's arse.

And any association telling the club to apologise should also give reasons as to why the twat Evra doesn't need to.

And not one word about the England Captain.

[piscinin]

Piscinin, that is fair comment, at the outset.

 

There is a crucial point in the disciplinary process ( and fair play to the FA for posting everything on line) when the evidence is received post complaint and then they decide whther there is enough to charge.It is at that point that I feel that an apology and all of our arguments should have been more successfully deployed.

 

Agree, I would have deployed a dirty bomb personally, but on the bright side, the club can't now fail to see they are seriously under-powered in all aspects of footballing governance and in all key governance venues and need to address that.

 

Kenny's one-liners in press conferences are not going to be enough to turn around the institutional bias. It needs structural support.