The FA publish written reasons for Suarez's ban

[Beantown Red]

If I was Suarez I would accept the ban. What is the alternative? The FA are unlikely to reduce the ban if he appealed. The people who think he is a racist are unlikely to change their minds even if a different ruling came out. The more this whole thing goes on his name and the club is going to be trashed in the media nonstop.

[piscinin]

Can't - they only rule on if the association in question has properly enforced their regulations - nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of the case itself.

 

Bummer. A case this flawed though must have some technicalities in it that we can fuck them up on. Only 1 copy of the minutes, different interpretation of rules between cases or something. Lawyers get paid the big $ for that sort of thing.

 

When you consider for example, that the whole transcript of Evra's original interview was kept from us until it magically appeared on the day of the hearing (an oversight, right!), you have to think they've fucked up somewhere.

 

Quite why our legal bod didn't cry mis-trial the minute that happened is bizarre to say the least, but hey ho. Outgunned.

[Guest LFD]

If I was Suarez I would accept the ban.

 

and be labelled a racist for the rest of his career?

 

I'd want my name cleared personally.

[TheHowieLama]

Bummer. A case this flawed though must have some technicalities in it that we can fuck them up on. Only 1 copy of the minutes, different interpretation of rules between cases or something. Lawyers get paid the big $ for that sort of thing.

 

When you consider for example, that the whole transcript of Evra's original interview was kept from us until it magically appeared on the day of the hearing (an oversight, right!), you have to think they've fucked up somewhere.

 

Quite why our legal bod didn't cry mis-trial the minute that happened is bizarre to say the least, but hey ho. Outgunned.

 

Well we will need Derpses to come in and give us the legal eagle stuff but I don't think it was a trail setting - (not sure there was discovery, cross examination etc.)

[Guest LFD]

Broughton would sort this shit out!

[Block109'er]

He should have fucking bitten the cunt.

 

Would only have gotten a 7 match ban for that!

[TheHowieLama]

I forgot to mention adjudication - apparently that is an important phrase and needs to be said ALOT.

[J-V]

He should have fucking bitten the cunt.

 

Would only have gotten a 7 match ban for that!

 

He would have caught shithouse aids off the cunt though.

[gumps]

One thing that annoys me is the selective, hypocritical stance on Linguistic nuances.

 

1 "he said it 10 times" Oh that's just a French figure of speech!

 

2 "your sister's cunt/pussy" Oh that can be translated down to "fucking hell!"

 

Yet Luis' arguments for language context seem to have been sidelined.

 

If the panel are willing to accept Evras version, when is he going to be charged with insulting language (your sister's cunt) and threatening behaviour (I'm going to punch you)?

 

Also, what a fragile shit Evra is if the whole of his argument was that he was "upset" he was about a foul 5 minutes before! If he's that easily wound up I hope future opponents exploit this by kicking him!

[BatChainPuller]

It's easy to say that looking back through the lens of a quasi-legal process. But he's a ref not a stenographer, he provided his official report.

And you can poke all the holes in it you want, it doesn't change the fact Suarez was convicted by his and our own inconsistencies. They refused to believe his testimony because of two key items.

 

1. The "Drafting error", we made a claim that was clearly not true and said "oh, we put that in the wrong place of the report".

2. The fact his witnesses said different things to him.

 

Because of those two reasons they decided to take everything Evra said at face value. Everything else is a side-show and it all comes down to the fact we didn't get our shit together. 4 bullets point would have made NO difference.

 

In fact the bullet points are best left out of it, because even there Comoli's testimony conflicts with that of both officials and I wouldn't trust us to be able to argue that point without shooting ourselves in the foot again.

 

Problem is that much play is made in the report of Comolli not making careful notes about such an important matter at the time, but Marriners notes are highly questionable (if Comolli is indeed a Spanish speaker it is barely credible that he would have dictated 'Tues negro' to Dowd) and Dowd's notes were destroyed. This is the pattern throughout - any inconsistencies in Suarez' defence are treated as highly significant and undermining his credibility. By contrast all of Evra and the FA's inconsistencies are either ignored or glossed over. All of the 'balance of probabilities' are unfailingly tilted in Eva/FA's favour.

 

IMO the report is riddled with internal inconsistencies and any decent legal team should be able to tear it to shreds. The central point made early in the report :

The FA accepts that the Charge against Mr Suarez is serious, as do we. It is for this reason that we have reminded ourselves that a greater burden of evidence is required to prove the Charge against Mr Suarez.

 

The 'evidence' is flimsy at best and I don't think it even approaches the standard they set for themselves.

 

I agree that it's going to be very difficult to put this right after the event - ie after the incompetent preparation and defence. Evra was clearly far better prepared and briefed.

 

As Dave and others have pointed out it stretches credibility that Evra and the FA are satisfied Suarez isn't racist despite what he is alleged to have said. They clearly didn't fancy their chances of trying to substantiate that and picked the battle they thought they could win.

[TheHowieLama]

He should have fucking bitten the cunt.

 

 

Wonder what it would taste like - certainly not a creamy milk chocolate. Maybe like that extra dark - extra bitter baking chocolate that every kid makes the mistake of eating - once.

[Teflon Don]

He should have fucking bitten the cunt.

 

Would only have gotten a 7 match ban for that!

 

A straightforward red card for a 'violent conduct' punch/elbow or even a leg-breaking foul would only have been 3. Speaking of which, have the FA announced whether they're going to look into the Cabaye and Coloccini incidents from Friday night? I'm not holding my breath, like....

[ngogswilly]

Even if we do back down on this we simply have to do something big to get it out into the public arena that evras version of events is not what happened. The media are doing their utmost to spin it that way. Failure to at least point out the huge flaws in the FAs argument would be insane considering what it means for Luis. Even if we tactically retreat on this that doesn't mean the bullshit being spewed in the public domain should go unchallenged.

[piscinin]

Problem is that much play is made in the report of Comolli not making careful notes about such an important matter at the time, but Marriners notes are highly questionable (if Comolli is indeed a Spanish speaker it is barely credible that he would have dictated 'Tues negro' to Dowd) and Dowd's notes were destroyed. This is the pattern throughout - any inconsistencies in Suarez' defence are treated as highly significant and undermining his credibility. By contrast all of Evra and the FA's inconsistencies are either ignored or glossed over. All of the 'balance of probabilities' are unfailingly tilted in Eva/FA's favour.

 

IMO the report is riddled with internal inconsistencies and any decent legal team should be able to tear it to shreds. The central point made early in the report :

 

 

The 'evidence' is flimsy at best and I don't think it even approaches the standard they set for themselves.

 

I agree that it's going to be very difficult to put this right after the event - ie after the incompetent preparation and defence. Evra was clearly far better prepared and briefed.

 

As Dave and others have pointed out it stretches credibility that Evra and the FA are satisfied Suarez isn't racist despite what he is alleged to have said. They clearly didn't fancy their chances of trying to substantiate that and picked the battle they thought they could win.

 

I agree mate. But this was played out as a zero-sum game.

 

The difficulty now though is how do you get the case into a venue that will use proper guidelines. It doesn't appear that you can.

Edited January 1, 2012 by piscinin

[Kopite]

Liverpool FC: How the Luis Suarez Racism Report Fails to Resolve the Matter | Bleacher Report

 

Liverpool FC: How the Luis Suarez Racism Report Fails to Resolve the Matter

By Antony Herbert (Analyst) on January 1, 2012 328 reads 1

 

Now that the details of Luis Suarez's racism charge have come to light, the sporting world can finally dissect the outcome.

 

And the fallout of the lengthy 115-page document does not read for pretty reading. Various references to the comments made by the Uruguayan international to Manchester United's Patrice Evra point to the inability for them to be construed as friendly banter.

 

Yet what seems most shocking from the report is the constant doubt that still surrounds the whole event.

 

It is even as if the F.A are not able to make up their own minds about the argument between the two players, despite being perfectly happy to make an example of Suarez in punishing the Liverpool forward with an eight-match ban and £40,000 fine.

 

As the BBC reports, the commissioner for the report concluded that "this case is not about whether Suarez is in fact a racist," whilst adding that "there are some indications that he is not."

 

So hang on, does this mean that a player has been accused of something derogatory, when at the same time there is a general opinion given that he is not capable of such behaviour?

 

We also have the use of many half-hearted attempts at validation for the punishment. Firstly, it is noted that neither player was "unable to remember every detail" of the incident, further adding that Evra's evidence was only "for the most part consistent."

 

If Suarez was not consistent with his story, then this is fair enough, but only providing that the other party can be.

To sum it perfectly, a comment is made that Suarez has been "found guilty on the balance of probability," something which is a step down from being charged "beyond all reasonable doubt."

Now I would never claim to be a lawyer or someone who has an in-depth knowledge of how legal proceedings work, but we are all aware of the term "innocent until proven guilty."

Therefore, unless there is an overwhelming and confident backing for a guilty verdict, there should have been no charge at all. Surely, the accusations should have been thrown out, considering in usual legal cases this would be the outcome.

 

It seems surprising that Evra's character has remained intact when it has emerged that the incident began after the United player made insulting remarks about Luis Suarez's sister.

 

In the end, with all of the maybes included, the punishment handed to Suarez now only appears as an example-setting punishment that does not care entirely for the factual elements.

 

You would expect that the appeal being lodged by Liverpool will focus on the uncertainty surrounding the incident. You can't help but think that until there is a definitive and confirming verdict made, we still cannot assess if Suarez is the disgrace to English football that many have labelled him to be.

 

so they charged him because he probably said it not because they have evidence that he did??

[Block109'er]

2 "your sister's cunt/pussy" Oh that can be translated down to "fucking hell!"

 

If this doesn't bring into question the credibility of Evra to translate from Spanish (and the rest of his evidence also in Spanish) then I don't know what does.

[ngogswilly]

That bleacher report article is the type of thing that the club should be highlighting. So much of that report can be torn apart its ridiculous.

[Kopite]

That bleacher report article is the type of thing that the club should be highlighting. So much of that report can be torn apart its ridiculous.

 

I see the Mancs have already been on spouting their lies.

[zico]

I'm just going to say it now' date=' anyone who has read that and still comes to the conclusion that Luis Suarez is guilty, is a complete cunt.[/quote']

 

Damn right - Goddamn witchhunt

[Barzini]

It's the Mascherano/Respect thing all over again, we're being made an example of and if earlier reports are true that the document has been written in such a way that an appeal cannot succeed, we might have to accept the punishment but come out and put our side of the argument again and reiterate our support of Suarez.

[zico]

This case is like the OJ Simpson case only in reverse - biggest looser is the fight against racism....

 

Every black or mixed race player with an axe to grind can now throw the book at any player and expect a verdict - ridicilous

[goatboy59]

I'm glad that a few people like Pat Nevin and John Barnes - players who had to put up with such shit in the 80's for different reasons on the same issue - have spoken with calm authority on the verdict without wetting their knickers like everybody else.

 

Almost everyone on the other side of the ahem 'debate' I never had any time for anyway, and feel no need to start now.

 

Sums up this country in so many ways. Saner voices drowned out by screech.

[JB2]

One thing a lot of people are missing here is a criminal case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil case is proved on balance of probability which of course is a much lower standard. In this case all the commission would need to prove is that Evra's version is more likely to have happened than Suarez.

 

If we did give inconsistent evidence, it certainly would moved the balance of probabilities in Evra's favour.

[TheHowieLama]

I think it is even less than that - there is no need to prove anything - they just decide on whether or not to take action.

[jsjazz]

One thing a lot of people are missing here is a criminal case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil case is proved on balance of probability which of course is a much lower standard. In this case all the commission would need to prove is that Evra's version is more likely to have happened than Suarez.

 

If we did give inconsistent evidence, it certainly would moved the balance of probabilities in Evra's favour.

 

Hang on, what about the inconsistencies in Evra's evidence?

 

I'm sorry, this was selective picking of evidence, diparage all evidence in Suarez' favour, accept unquestioningly all in Evra's favour. I've read it again, and on the balance of probabilities, Evra is talking bullshit. How can de Geia not have heard anything from 3 yards away?