Clearing Luis's name: time for the club and the fans to speak up

[TheResonator]

David Adams seems like a good red, and a good lad.

[VladimirIlyich]

Some very good points. As we all know (and even the fa know) the commission's findings is full of holes. You dont have to be a lawyer to see this.

 

If is clear, as you say, that the report isnt a word by word account of what went on at the hearing. This is probably what the King refers to when he says about stuff not being in the report?

 

We have been stitched up. One would like to think on another day with a different brief, we would have won but, Im not so sure. What I do know is if the commission had of had to judge on anything other than 'balance' which they then went on to say had to be supported by robust evidence but then ignored that, the case would have been thrown out.

 

I dont believe anything would have changed.

Theyve just given Kompany a 4 game ban for daring to tackle and win the ball from somebody :eek:

 

And these jokers pretend to be cleaner than FIFA. Pot,kettle.

[Guest TK-421]

Pot, kettle, all colours and creeds.

[VladimirIlyich]

Pot, kettle, all colours and creeds.

 

But not Black.

[Redexile]

Be slightly wary of this. There is a big difference between having grounds for an appeal (money for lawyers!) and firstly ,the appeal being successful ,and secondly the collateral damage from that appeal being worthwhile.

 

My view is that there is a lot of arse covering going on at the Club over this, with the detail of the case an embarrassment to some Club officials.But this is a case we should never have lost.

 

On the day, Evra made a complaint which could have resulted in a criminal charge. Our Club Solicitors were not retained for this job, why? All comment /interviews should have been shut down by a solicitor on the day. They were not. Were our solicitors involved, but didn’t do their job? Or was Ayre at fault for not involving them immediately? When were FSG consulted? What direction have they given? At what point did McCormick take responsibility for this?

 

Gordon Taylor offered PFA conciliation before this reached the FA. We turned that down. Who turned it down? And why? Was it our solicitors? Was it Ayre?

 

Kenny and Comolli have had a direct involvement in evidence that has been submitted, and post verdict comment, why? This is a Club not football matter. Were our Solicitors consulted? Was this Ayre authorised? Was this FSG authorised?

 

Why was an apology for unintended offence not offered early on? Who was consulted regarding its usefulness?

 

Why was McCormick, a sports/football lawyer specialist retained for a case with a criminal dimension? Would a criminal lawyer have advised, “say nothing, challenge them to a criminal hearing which we can win”?

 

Who was driving the defence? Was it Luis, McCormick or Ayre? Who made the crucial strategic decision for us to offer any evidence at all ( on the grounds that it might prejudice a criminal trial)? Who made the fatal decision to go for the affectionate/unintended defence, rather than the more straight forwards, and credible, unintended offence defence? Who decided not to challenge the make up of the FA Committee?

 

Why was Luis defence presented in a way that the Tribunal found unbelievable? How can a man who Evra and the FA say is not racist, then be convicted of making what amounts to racist comments? Why were statements by Luis, and Comolli submitted which condemned us allowed to be offered by our team in our defence ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

McCormick has been reported as being critical of the Clubs strategy. Is that justified, or is it an excuse for his own failings?

 

Did we not appeal because we had no confidence in our own team to win? Did we feel that replacing them would have been a humiliation and asked questions about our own judgement in appointing them in the first place? Did we fear that by doing so shortcomings at the Club might be revealed by a scorned lawyer? Did McCormick feel that our failure to handle the post verdict PR disaster as a Club mean that neither he , nor anyone else, stood a chance at the appeal whatever the merits of our case?

 

In addition to all of these questions I offer one more which is probably the most important – who was in charge?

 

I believe that they had already found against Luis before they even interviewed him based on their interaction with Evra and the fact that they couldn't be seen to fail in making a stand against racism. I also think that the MUFC witnesses had been coached and we , believing that Luis was innocent felt, no need to coach him ( perhaps our mistake?) I would also like to know why we did not use any of our S. American players as witnesses here with regards to linguistic nuances?

I think that Evra ,based on his previous appearance with the Chelsea issue, knew what to say and how to say it and what not to say.

I have to question the "Independancy" of this panel and how they only found Luis statements to be questionable when Evra's statements also changed.

I would also question their views that Luis' was in a more agressive mode at the time of the incident when anybody with half a brain can clearly see Evra was wound up right from the start of the game.

I could go on and on but it won't change anything. To me it was a clear stitch up

[xerxes]

To me it was a clear stitch up

There is much in what yousay in your post in full.

 

I guess it all depends on your start point.If it is that there was nothing we could do, then the logical thing to do is just accept it.

 

All of us in our business/working lives go through the same process when something goes wrong. What could I have done differently? What could the company have done differently? What was beyond our control?

 

I share your views on the outcome and some of the inputs. We may differ in that I think there is much we could have done to influence the result ourselves.

 

FSG/Ayre ARE still finding their feet,we will learn, despite this setback, overall the club is still pointing in the right direction.

[FanchesterCity]

As an outsider, I think it's a bit misleading to describe the whole affair as a 'stitch up'.

 

I would say this:

 

Despite the panel's view (rightly) that it wasn't a criminal case, therefore the level of proof required need only fall in the realms of 'in probability' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt', and (rightly) that since the accusation was a grave one, it required a significant level of probability, they settled a little too easily for 'reasonable probability'.

 

By that, and forgive the fact I'm going to say something most won't like, I think there was a fair chance that Suarez overstepped the mark and used racist language, and deliberately so. Not because he IS racist, but simply because it's a means to an end to provoke another player. Rightly or wrongly, you can call someone a 'cheating b'stard' but you can't refer to their race in an insult (that's another debate entirely).

 

I don't think it was a stitch up, I simply think the panel were influenced by the potential impact of their verdict, and mindful of the public's scrutiny and view towards racist remarks - thus felt afraid to say what I would have said:

 

Did Suarez use a racist remark? yes

Did he do so knowing full well it would be perceived as racist? reasonably likely

Is there enough factual evidence to support that? no

Is there enough circumstantial evidence to support that? No, only enough to suggest it was reasonably likely.

 

Verdict - Not Proven (used in Scotland). Neither categorically innocent, nor guilty.

 

 

Not a stitch up, but subject to bias, yes.

[dave u]

If they'd found Suarez guilty based on his own admission of using the word 'negro' once, that would have been completely different. Yes, we'd still be pissed off and would be crying about the FA having it in for us etc but we wouldn't be feeling the sheer level of anger and frustration we are feeling now.

 

That's because he's been found guilty of things that he denies, and that most of us believe to be completely false allegations. There is no proof to back up Evra's claims, and most of the video evidence supports Suarez's version despite what the FA have tried to say.

 

I'm in the middle of an article highlighting all the inconsistencies in Evra's testimony and the FA's report. I'm trying to keep it as short as possible but there's just no way. It's going to be long because there's that much in it that needs shooting down.

[xerxes]

If they'd found Suarez guilty based on his own admission of using the word 'negro' once, that would have been completely different. Yes, we'd still be pissed off and would be crying about the FA having it in for us etc but we wouldn't be feeling the sheer level of anger and frustration we are feeling now.

 

I agree.

 

Somehow the perception is that he was found guilty of what he was not found guilty of.

[VladimirIlyich]

Mr Farchester,the point that Evra has been called Negro every day in training by his South American teammates seems to indicate heavily that this was indeed a 'stitch-up.'

 

Yours Truly.

[aws]

If they'd found Suarez guilty based on his own admission of using the word 'negro' once, that would have been completely different. Yes, we'd still be pissed off and would be crying about the FA having it in for us etc but we wouldn't be feeling the sheer level of anger and frustration we are feeling now.

 

That's because he's been found guilty of things that he denies, and that most of us believe to be completely false allegations. There is no proof to back up Evra's claims, and most of the video evidence supports Suarez's version despite what the FA have tried to say.

 

I'm in the middle of an article highlighting all the inconsistencies in Evra's testimony and the FA's report. I'm trying to keep it as short as possible but there's just no way. It's going to be long because there's that much in it that needs shooting down.

 

At least 116 pages or you're under-selling us.

[snez1]

Little blog i wrote about Suarez. Mentioned the site quoted in the first page and gave a link if anyones interested.

 

Snez's Blog

[FanchesterCity]

Mr Farchester,the point that Evra has been called Negro every day in training by his South American teammates seems to indicate heavily that this was indeed a 'stitch-up.'

 

Yours Truly.

 

You have read the report right?

 

There are loads of issues with it, but this isn't one of them.

 

The report states pretty clearly that the word CAN be interpreted quite a number of ways and that use of the word alone doesn't mean anything either way. What they had to take a view on was precisely HOW he used it and what his probable intent was in doing so.

 

They took (on THIS point) a reasonable view that using the negro term in the midst of a fairly heated exchange was not likely to be 'friendly banter' and certainly not reconciliatory, as Suarez was badly advised to claim.

 

If anything, trying to claim the reconciliatory use only made it look worse. He'd had been better to say "yes, I was just winding him up and just used the word in passing because I thought little of it in my native tongue'.

 

The 'stitch up' claims are just too far fetched to be credible, and even using the term would land LFC in court (and lose).

 

What IS reasonable is to say there are a number of issues in the judgment that are debatable, but a disproportionate and significant majority were found in favour of Evra.

 

This means, that once the first view of Evra's testimony vs Suarez's was judged largely in favour of Evra, then all subsequent judgments were effectively obliged to do the same.

 

This is the path I would go down with any potential appeal.

 

 

You simply can't say "it's a stitch up" - you'd be laughed out of any court in the land. Especially because what you're THEN saying is... the FA 'stitched' him up, thus making them corrupt, AND the independent panel were either incompetent, or 'in on it'. So that's a claim against two bodies. It's a hard sell even to those on your side.

 

A much better sell is that the FA's judgment was clouded, thanks to the nature of the accusation, and a need to be 'seen' to do something, and the panel's subsequent view on the PIVOTAL issue - Evra's testimony APPEARING to be more credible became the foundation of the entire judgment.

 

Once they've made this assumption, they would naturally give more weight to Evra's interpretations and explanations than Suarez's.

 

In most of the subsequent issues, on an incident by incident basis, they came to reasonable conclusions, BUT you might expect in a number of 50/50 incidents, some would swing to Suarez, some to Evra. They didn't.

 

Think of it like 10 50/50 tackles in a game. You can't fault the ref much on any single one, but if all 10 went in favour of one team, you'd be wondering how that could be!

 

I hope this comes across correctly.

 

You can't win a case with screams of 'stitch up', and you're unlikely to win one claiming that an independent panel are stupid enough to only see one point of view.

You're better off showing that the conclusions they came to were fundamentally flawed thanks to underlying and pivotal assumption that one testimony was more credible than the other, and THAT was not of enough weight to be sure of Suarez's guilt (which by their own admission required considerable weight due to the gravity of the accusation).

Edited January 13, 2012 by FanchesterCity

[Whelan]

You certainly can't complain to the FA about a 'stich up' by the FA! Which is all we could do.

 

But whatever argument is used, it is fair to say that 'probability' does not warrant universal acceptance by media and (non lfc) fans, and claims of racism if you disagree with them!

[FanchesterCity]

You certainly can't complain to the FA about a 'stich up' by the FA! Which is all we could do.

 

But whatever argument is used, it is fair to say that 'probability' does not warrant universal acceptance by media and (non lfc) fans, and claims of racism if you disagree with them!

 

Sadly, and evidently it does!

 

In any civil (not crown) court, you'll be found guilty on probability. You'll be named in the papers and you'll lose your job because of it. Once that verdict is given, nobody (other than seriously affected parties) cares how it was arrived it, you're convicted.

 

In a civil case, or something like the FA panel, the judgment is balanced on the balance of probability.

In a Crown case, it's usually 'beyond reasonable doubt' (which is much stiffer test)

 

Not saying I agree... just saying!

[Trumo]

FanchesterCity,

 

You make some good points above, and your general posting has made good reading. I'm not going to go into how or what the club or Suarez could appeal, or anything about stitch ups.

 

What I will say is that Evra was given the opportunity to review video evidence on numerous occasions alongside the FA, and thus had sufficient opportunity and time to give the Commission a clear picture of his version of events. Suarez had no such opportunity, and prior to the hearing had to make do with watching a repeat of the Sky match coverage to help him recall events that day. The footage Suarez watched clearly didn't show the goalmouth incidents in the same level of detail as the footage Evra was shown prior to the hearing, and Suarez was only shown this particular footage at the hearing itself. The questioning he faced was evidently informed by what Evra had said about the events they were viewing.

 

When trying to recall past events it is inevitable that some detail will be lost, and that some things may be viewed in a different light. The Commission themselves alluded to this as a mitigating factor. They also pointed out inconsistencies in both Suarez's and Evra's statements and testimonies. They chose to focus on inconsistencies with Suarez's account, and basically ignored those provided by Evra's account.

 

The point is, Evra had a much greater opportunity to make his story tally from initial allegation to testimony, and access to multiple viewings of key footage to state his case, yet still brought up inconsistencies. That these were significant rather than minor is something the Commission chose to overlook, for reasons I can't fathom.

 

Regardless of the fact that Liverpool's legal reps didn't ask for more time to redress this imbalance, the point still stands that Evra's own account of events STILL veered wildly, yet were taken to be more probably true. Mainly because he proved a more 'reliable' witness during questioning. When the cards have been stacked in your favour, it's difficult to fuck things up. Evra managed it, Liverpool's reps touched on it in their closing statements, yet the Commission rejected it.

 

The Commission made a point of saying that the FA would like to close the case before the New Year. We have since learned that Lord Ouseley threatened to resign from the FA Council if the matter wasn't adequately addressed - that is, case proven. It was after this threat the FA chose to charge Suarez. Lord Ouseley made no mention of his position on the board of the ManU Foundation because the FA's own documentation on the matter doesn't mention it, and neither do any news stories where Ouseley gave his opinions on Liverpool's and Suarez's stance.

[VladimirIlyich]

You have read the report right?

 

There are loads of issues with it, but this isn't one of them.

 

The report states pretty clearly that the word CAN be interpreted quite a number of ways and that use of the word alone doesn't mean anything either way. What they had to take a view on was precisely HOW he used it and what his probable intent was in doing so.

 

They took (on THIS point) a reasonable view that using the negro term in the midst of a fairly heated exchange was not likely to be 'friendly banter' and certainly not reconciliatory, as Suarez was badly advised to claim.

 

If anything, trying to claim the reconciliatory use only made it look worse. He'd had been better to say "yes, I was just winding him up and just used the word in passing because I thought little of it in my native tongue'.

 

The 'stitch up' claims are just too far fetched to be credible, and even using the term would land LFC in court (and lose).

 

What IS reasonable is to say there are a number of issues in the judgment that are debatable, but a disproportionate and significant majority were found in favour of Evra.

 

This means, that once the first view of Evra's testimony vs Suarez's was judged largely in favour of Evra, then all subsequent judgments were effectively obliged to do the same.

 

This is the path I would go down with any potential appeal.

 

 

You simply can't say "it's a stitch up" - you'd be laughed out of any court in the land. Especially because what you're THEN saying is... the FA 'stitched' him up, thus making them corrupt, AND the independent panel were either incompetent, or 'in on it'. So that's a claim against two bodies. It's a hard sell even to those on your side.

 

A much better sell is that the FA's judgment was clouded, thanks to the nature of the accusation, and a need to be 'seen' to do something, and the panel's subsequent view on the PIVOTAL issue - Evra's testimony APPEARING to be more credible became the foundation of the entire judgment.

 

Once they've made this assumption, they would naturally give more weight to Evra's interpretations and explanations than Suarez's.

 

In most of the subsequent issues, on an incident by incident basis, they came to reasonable conclusions, BUT you might expect in a number of 50/50 incidents, some would swing to Suarez, some to Evra. They didn't.

 

Think of it like 10 50/50 tackles in a game. You can't fault the ref much on any single one, but if all 10 went in favour of one team, you'd be wondering how that could be!

 

I hope this comes across correctly.

 

You can't win a case with screams of 'stitch up', and you're unlikely to win one claiming that an independent panel are stupid enough to only see one point of view.

You're better off showing that the conclusions they came to were fundamentally flawed thanks to underlying and pivotal assumption that one testimony was more credible than the other, and THAT was not of enough weight to be sure of Suarez's guilt (which by their own admission required considerable weight due to the gravity of the accusation).

 

Of course Evra being called Negro regularly by teammates wasnt in the report,this is just part of the defence case that wasnt in the 'selective' document, as Hernandez was going to reveal but he was withdrawn by the Utd solicitor before he could give evidence.

 

You seem to think that everything was in the document but it wasnt as things like this reinforce the incompetence of the decision.

[xerxes]

Of course Evra being called Negro regularly by teammates wasnt in the report,this is just part of the defence case that wasnt in the 'selective' document, as Hernandez was going to reveal but he was withdrawn by the Utd solicitor before he could give evidence.

 

You seem to think that everything was in the document but it wasnt as things like this reinforce the incompetence of the decision.

 

A few points here Vlad.

 

The FA report at 115 pages was considerably more comprehensive than it could, or perhaps should, have been. Evidence for, and against, is presented. It is the job of the Tribunal to weigh that evidence. On paper, on its own, the context, and credibility of that evidence, one way or another, may not be apparent. That points will contradict each other is the nature of any adversarial hearing.

 

We simply do not know what is not in the document, and why, if anything. Any Tribunal is free to decide what is, or is not, relevant,that is their job, in this case we cannot accuse them of holding back.

 

It is hardly surprising that Man U might choose not to make a statement which might degrade their case (if true) – we would have been wise to follow suit.

 

Written statements (if true) that Man U players call Evra “Negro” as Luis was reported to do to Johnson (if true) would have helped no-one.

 

Rather than looking for what is not in the report , we might better question why what IS in it was so poorly presented.

[stringvest]

Ian Ayre being interviewed re Suarez incident on Radio 5 shortly

[VladimirIlyich]

A few points here Vlad.

 

The FA report at 115 pages was considerably more comprehensive than it could, or perhaps should, have been. Evidence for, and against, is presented. It is the job of the Tribunal to weigh that evidence. On paper, on its own, the context, and credibility of that evidence, one way or another, may not be apparent. That points will contradict each other is the nature of any adversarial hearing.

 

We simply do not know what is not in the document, and why, if anything. Any Tribunal is free to decide what is, or is not, relevant,that is their job, in this case we cannot accuse them of holding back.

 

It is hardly surprising that Man U might choose not to make a statement which might degrade their case (if true) – we would have been wise to follow suit.

 

Written statements (if true) that Man U players call Evra “Negro” as Luis was reported to do to Johnson (if true) would have helped no-one.

 

Rather than looking for what is not in the report , we might better question why what IS in it was so poorly presented.

 

If after so many pages you havent figured that out then you are never going to find it.

 

Anyway,I'm out as this is just going round in circles.

[ngogswilly]

Ian Ayre being interviewed re Suarez incident on Radio 5 shortly

 

I wouldn't expect him to come out all guns blazing nor would I want him to.

 

But I'll be pissed off if he doesn't at least make a decent effort at explaining why the club took the stance it did.

 

i.e. Highlight the fucking problems with the fucking report for once for fucks sake and stop leaving Kenny to fight this all by himself

[dave u]

Little blog i wrote about Suarez. Mentioned the site quoted in the first page and gave a link if anyones interested.

 

Snez's Blog

 

Good article that Snez.

 

You have read the report right?

 

There are loads of issues with it, but this isn't one of them.

 

It is, because Evra initially claimed he thought 'negro' meant 'n***er'. If his team-mates call him it then thats clearly a lie.

 

I mean, it's a lie anyway as there's no way he actually believed that. That's why he says to Giggs and the ref 'he called me black'. Then changed it to 'n***er' when he got back to the dressing room, and then changed it to 'negro' four days later when he met the FA.

[RedRazor]

This triggered something in my memory (may be mis-firing synapses due to fraility in my twilight years) but did LS make a statement very early on in the process to the effect that he only called Evra something that his teamates called him? If so, does this suggest that United payers were referring to Evra with the same word during the match? The other thing that I find a little odd is that none of his teamates who made a statement appear to have offered any significant support or been particularly outraged.

[Naz17]

From the .tv forums they've put together this work-in-progress document. It succintly puts the major points that have all been made regarding inconsistencies in the report together:

 

https://rapidshare.com/files/898421403/Crowdsourcing.pdf

[MLB]

Really looking forward to reading Dave's piece on this. Hopefully it's published online as well as in the fanzine.