Liverpool admit Suarez incident has been damaging

• zocoss

  1 Jan 12, 11:46

   

  Unreliable and inconsistent! Suarez blasted as FA release details of race row evidence

   

  

  Blasted: Liverpool's Luis Suarez gave 'unreliable' and 'inconsistent' evidence to the FA

   

   

   

  Luis Suarez used the Spanish words 'negro' or 'negros' seven times in a sustained verbal assault on Patrice Evra, according to the Football Association's disciplinary commission that heard the case.

  The FA, who published the commission's 115-page judgement on Saturday night, cast doubt on the version of events given by Liverpool striker Suarez, undermining the club's campaign to back the Uruguayan, who has been banned for eight matches for racial abuse. 

  And Liverpool's chances of successfully appealing appear to have diminished after the full written reasons for the ban were released last night. The FA report says Suarez's evidence was 'unreliable in matters of critical importance' and 'inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence, especially the video footage'.

  The FA rejected Suarez's assertion that he had used the word 'negro' - Spanish for black and commonly used both with and without racist overtones in South America - in a friendly manner as 'incredible' and doubled what would ordinarily have been a four-match ban because he used the word seven times.

   

  

  Total support: Liverpool have continued to back their star man

   

   

  By contrast, the FA found that Evra was 'a credible witness' and that he gave evidence 'in a calm and composed way' and was 'for the most part consistent'.

  Evra, for his part, admitted using obscene language at the start of his clash with Suarez.

  The FA Disciplinary Commission, composed of Paul Goulding QC, Brian Jones, the chairman of Sheffield and Hallamshire FA, and former player and manager Denis Smith, decided that the likeliest version of events was that Evra initially spoke to Suarez aggressively, using foul and abusive language to ask why he had fouled him, and that Suarez responded by saying, in Spanish: 'Because you are black.'

   
  

  

  Controversial: Suarez has been involved in several high profile incidents since joining Liverpool a year ago

   

   

  Evra then responded, in Spanish: 'Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you!' to which Suarez replied: 'I don't speak to blacks.'
  

  Continuing in Spanish, Evra said: 'Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you.'

  Suarez responded: 'Dale, negro, negro, negro.' Having consulted linguistic experts, the commission decided that this had the colloquial meaning: 'Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie.'

  The commission also decided that Suarez used the word 'negro' twice more in separate conversations around the incident in the 63rd minute of the Liverpool- Manchester United game on October 15.

  Suraez's defence was that he used the word 'negro' only once and that it was when Evra is alleged to have said to him: 'Don't touch me, South American.' Suarez said he had replied: 'Por que, negro,' or 'Why, black?'

  He argued that his use of the word 'negro' did not equate to the racially offensive English meaning but was meant affectionately, as he claimed is often the case in Uruguay.

  He also insisted that he used the word in a conciliatory manner. The commission accepted that the meaning was more nuanced in Spanish and the FA commissioned a report by two experts on the use of Spanish in Uruguay, to adjudicate on that claim.

   

  

  Trouble: Suarez has had another game bolted on to his suspension for this gesture to Fulham fans

   

   

  They accepted that Suarez did not use the word in a way that could reasonably be translated as 'nigger' but they rejected Suarez's assertion that there was no abuse or insult intended.

  The FA, who brought the case against Suarez, also stated in the argument that they did not contend that Suarez had acted out of 'deep-seated racial prejudice' but that it was likely that Suarez was 'seeking to provoke Mr Evra to cause him to be sent off, thereby gaining a competitive advantage in the game' and added that such behaviour was to be 'deplored'.

  Evidence presented on Suarez's side to show that he was not racist included the fact that he was made captain of the Dutch side Ajax, a multi-racial team, and it was revealed that he has a black grandfather.

   
  

  

  Flashpoint: The ugly exchange was sparked by a foul

   

   

  Suarez also accepted that he should not have used the Spanish word 'negro' and vowed that he would not do so again on a football pitch in England.

  However, the crucial point in opting for an eight-match ban was that they believed Evra's account, that Suarez had used the words 'negro' or 'negros' seven times, which aggravated the offence. The commission stated: 'The first aggravating factor was the number of times Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros".

  'We have found that Mr Suarez used [them] seven times in his exchanges with Mr Evra.

  'Whilst we recognised that the exchanges occurred over only a two-minute spell in the second half of the match, there were multiple uses of the insulting words by Mr Suarez.

  'The second aggravating factor was what Mr Suarez said when using the insulting words.

  'He did not simply use the word "negro" to address Mr Evra. He did that, but he also said that he had kicked Mr Evra because he was black and that he did not talk to blacks.

   

   

  SUAREZ VERDICT

  'Even if Mr Suarez said these things in the heat of the moment without really meaning them, nevertheless this was more than just calling Mr Evra "negro".

  According to the Spanish language experts, the uses would have been regarded as racially offensive in Uruguay.'

  The FA commission also took account of the fact that Suarez had pinched Evra in the confrontation and that he had directed the words at him and intended for them to be heard.

  But they also accepted that Evra had provoked the confrontation. Liverpool said in a statement:'The player, the club and our legal advisors will now take the necessary amount of time to read, digest and properly consider the contents of the judgement and will make no further comment at present.'

  Liverpool have until January 13 to respond, meaning Suarez can play in their next three games, including their Carling Cup semi-final first leg trip to Manchester City on January 11.

• zocoss

  1 Jan 12, 11:58

   

  The commission's 115-page judgement

   

  http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx

• zocoss

  1 Jan 12, 16:38

  Suarez race row revealed

   

   

  

  WAR OF WORDS ... Luis Suarez and Patrice Evra clash at Anfield

   

   

   

  LUIS SUAREZ'S explosive race row with Patrice Evra was tonight fully revealed by the FA.

  Liverpool star Suarez was slapped with an eight-match ban for racially abusing the Manchester United defender.

  Suarez called Evra a 'negro' seven times in the stormy Premier League clash at Anfield in October.

  The report by an independent commission says when Evra asked Suarez why he had been kicked, the striker replied in Spanish: "Porque tu eres negro," which translates as "because you are black."

  Evra said he would punch Suarez if he repeated the comment to which Suarez said: "No hablo con los negros" — "I don't speak to blacks."

  Linguistic experts were used by the FA to assess how abusive Suarez's language was.

  The FA says Suarez has pledged not to use the word "negro" on a football pitch in England in the future.

  The full 115-page report into the incident also claimed Suarez gave unreliable and inconsistent evidence to the commission.

  It stated: "Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and clear way.

  "It was, for the most part, consistent, although both he and Mr Suarez were understandably unable to remember every detail of the exchanges between them.

  "Mr Suarez's evidence was unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance. It was, in part, inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence, especially the video footage.

  "For example, Mr Suarez said that he pinched Mr Evra's skin in an attempt to defuse the situation.

  "He also said that his use of the word 'negro' to address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence.

  "To describe his own behaviour in that way was unsustainable and simply incredible given that the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument.

  "That this was put forward by Mr Suarez was surprising and seriously undermined the reliability of his evidence on other matters.

  "There were also inconsistencies between his accounts given at different times as to what happened."

  Liverpool now have 14 days to decide whether to appeal against Suarez's ban and £40,000 fine.

• I-like-flings(m)

  1 Jan 12, 19:19

  someone should just give him a knife in his back... that's how we say hi to ppl nowadays...

• gunner77

  1 Jan 12, 19:50

  And liverfool fc has been supporting a racist bastard all these while.

  So much for a club with great history.

  Always playing victims.

   

   

   

  Take that liverfool and suarez.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUgIl2raJbA

• zocoss

  2 Jan 12, 10:33

  Forget your appeal, Luis, just say sorry to Evra and take the ban

  

  Flashpoint: Luis Suarez and Patrice Evra clash at Anfield

   

   

   

   

  Luis Suarez is coming under increasing pressure to apologise to Patrice Evra as Liverpool were urged to shelve any thoughts of appealing against his eight-game ban.

  This follows the release of the Football Association’s report which found the Anfield striker guilty of racially abusing the Manchester United defender seven times in two minutes.

  The FA delivered the written verdict on New Year’s Eve and the withering contents of the 115-page document exposed the full details of Suarez’s clash with Evra at Anfield on October 15.

  

  According to its findings,  Suarez — who admitted using the word ‘negro’ — gave ‘unreliable’ evidence and had ‘damaged the image of English football around the world’.

  The row between the pair exploded in the second half of the 1-1 draw when Evra asked Suarez why he had kicked him. Suarez replied ‘Porque tu eres negro’ (because you are black).

  The independent three-man Commission, which was led by Paul Goulding QC, illustrated why the case against Suarez was considered proven and why they gave him such a long suspension, plus a £40,000 fine.

  The Commission, which also took into account expert evidence that the word ‘negro’ in Uruguay is often used in a friendly way — it can be offensive depending on the context — described Suarez’s version of events as ‘implausible’ and ‘simply incredible’.

  While the Commission established that Suarez was not a racist, many will be looking to him to act with contrition and back up his words of November 7 last year when he claimed he or Evra would have to express regret, depending on what the Commission found.

  ‘Now we have to see how the matter is decided,’ he said while away on international duty with Uruguay.

  ‘Then — the United player as much as me — we are going to have things clear. And wherever the fault lies, we are going to have to say sorry.’
  

  

  Support: Suarez has received the full backing from Liverpool over the incident

   

   

  The Commission reported that because Suarez used the word ‘negro’ so often, the length of ban they administered was necessary to preserve the image of the English game and act as a deterrent. If he was found guilty of two  similar offences in the future, Suarez could face a life ban.

  Suarez breached the FA rule E3 which prevents reference to any player’s skin colour. In his defence he said: ‘I would refer to Glen Johnson as ‘negro’ in the same way I might refer to Dirk Kuyt as ‘Blondie’ (because of his blond hair) or to Andy Carroll as  ‘Grandote’ (Big Man).’

  The commission’s report revealed how previously unseen video evidence — including 12 clips of the altercation — were analysed. Evra is described as being an ‘impressive witness’ who gave his evidence in a ‘calm,  composed and clear way’.

   

  

  Banned: Suarez faces missing eight games if he fails to appeal or his ban is upheld

   

   

  Liverpool have made no  comment since issuing a brief statement on Saturday saying they would ‘consider the contents’ of the report, and they have 12 days left to lodge an appeal.

  If they decided not to appeal and Suarez served his suspension immediately, he would next be available for a  trip to Old Trafford on February 11.

  Should Liverpool appeal, however, Suarez would be able to play in the first leg of the Carling Cup semi-final at Manchester City on January 11.
  

  The risk is that the length of ban could be increased, and the  evidence in the report suggests an appeal would be futile.

  Piara Powar, executive director of Football Against Racism in Europe, said: ‘Luis Suarez and Liverpool have the right to appeal, but we would call on the club to think again about their public campaign to dispute the charges.

  As a club with a good international standing the vehemence of their campaign is unquestionably causing them reputational harm.’
  

   

• zocoss

  2 Jan 12, 10:34

   

  Suarez could face court charge

  

  FLASHPOINT ... Suarez clashes with Evra

   

   

   

   

  LUIS SUAREZ could follow John Terry into the courts to face a racism charge.

  Police are studying the FA's 115-page report on why they banned the Liverpool striker for eight games for his blast at Manchester United's Patrice Evra.

  Chelsea and England skipper Terry has been charged with allegedly directing racial abuse at QPR's Anton Ferdinand during a fiery clash in October. He is due in court on February 1.

  Now prominent anti-racism campaigner, Luther Blissett, reckons the Kop's Uruguayan star could soon suffer the same fate.

  Liverpool have until January 13 to decide whether to appeal against the FA's historic ban and £40,000 fine.

  But they risk seeing Suarez's ban increased if disciplinary chiefs believe the Reds do not present a strong enough case for appeal.

  Former Watford and AC Milan star Blissett, an ambassador for Show Racism the Red Card, said: "You have to look at supporters who have been found guilty of this sort of thing and people have gone to jail for it.

  "You could anticipate the same sort of thing happening to him.

  "You look at his profile and people label sportsmen in the public eye as a role model, then it is doubly important they do something about it.

  "He should be treated like everyone else. It doesn't matter how much money you have, the law is the law."

  The FA's report does not appear to leave Liverpool with much wriggle room after the commission found Suarez used "negro" and "negros" in an offensive way SEVEN times towards Evra.

  And another leading campaigner against racism in football has slammed Liverpool's refusal to accept Suarez did anything wrong.

  Piara Powar, executive director of Football Against Racism in Europe, criticised players and boss Kenny Dalglish for wearing T-shirts in support of him.

  Powar said: "We would call on the club to think again about their public campaign to dispute the charges and contest the principles in the case.

  "As a club with a good international standing, their campaign is unquestionably causing them reputational harm.

  "Racial abuse between players has been an unspoken taboo for too long, an area that has been unsatisfactorily dealt with by English football."

• zocoss

  2 Jan 12, 12:24

  Suarez Lucky To Get Only Eight Matches...

  That's the consensus of opinion from non-Liverpool fans after the FA released details of their decision in the Suarez case. And then there's Chelsea and Man United talk...

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  Haven't Got Time To Read 115-Page Suarez Report? No Worries...
  I'd just like to provide some highlights after reading the FA report (all glorius 115 pages, I'm sure F365 would prefer to read it on their own but here goes...). I don't want to comment on any of these, I'll leave it up to the readers of F365 to interperate these findings in whichever way that suits them. I understand that some of the content is senstitive, but I hope that F365 publishes this as we can't keep self-censoring ourselves and pretend that all is okay, we need transparency and to actually know what happened. Also need to emphasise that this is just a few point I have picked up, the report itself goes into much more depth and breadth.
  
  - Suarez admits to calling Evra 'negro' repeatedly, the report establishes the number at seven times. Not the word 'negrito' (which has been bandied about as fact). The panel actually even questioned Javier Hernandez due to the fact that he called his friend 'negrito' and Hernandez admitted that it can be used as a friendly term in very specific circumstances, even though it was not the actual term used.
  
  - When Evra asked Suarez why he was kicked, the reply was, "because you're black" ("Porque tu eres negro''). This is consistent from Evra and Dirk Kuyt's testimony. Then Evra asked him to repeat what he said and threatened to punch him, Suarez responded with, "I don't speak to blacks." Evra threatened to hit him again and Suarez replied with, "Ok, blackie, blackie, blackie" ("Dale, negro negro negro"). Suarez defence of cultural context was not accepted by the panel due to the context of the situation and 'was unfriendly and was used as part of Mr Suarez's attempt to wind up Mr Evra'.
  
  - At some point in this confrontation, Suarez also claimed that the reason he pinched Evra to 'defuse the situation'. The panel decided that pinching someone's skin while calling them 'blackie' was probably not an intention to diffuse the situation. This was accepted by Liverpool's representative who "accepted in his closing submissions that the pinching could not reasonably be described as an attempt to defuse the situation."
  
  - Suarez apparently had told Comolli and Dalglish that he told Evra, "because you're black". Dalglish told Marriner, Comolli told Dowd. But these three versions are not consistent so two of them are not telling the truth. Suarez revised his version after Comolli's testimony. This is probably why he has been described as 'inconsistent' andd 'unreliable'. Comolli apparently even spelt out the exact phrase for Dowd to write down, but Comolli disputes Dowd and Marriner's testimony and what Dowd wrote down. Whichever version is the truth, we are sure that Dalglish and Comolli were aware that Suarez called Evra a 'negro'.
  
  - Suarez claimed that Evra called him a 'South American' (not the term derogatory term 'sudaca' which was mentioned in many press reports), the panel could not find any corroborating evidence. Evra was bemused when this allegation was put to him and asked, "What's the point?". He didn't see calling someone a 'South American' as an insult and therefore denies that he would've said that.
  
  - There were also media reports that Evra asked Marriner "Is it because I'm black?" when receiving a yellow card. This is not true.
  
  - There was additional TV footage supplied that was not aired, this was also used as evidence to corroborate different versions of the incidents.
  
  All things weighed up, I actually think that an eight-match ban is a light one. Also, this makes Liverpool's response to the initial statement really embarrassing, I cannot know for sure, but I highly doubt that Liverpool's legal department gave the green light on that statement before it was released. Also have to mention that the FA acted in a really thorough manner, I was one of those who was frustated at the slow pace of this investigation, but they have done it in the right manner.
  
  On more personal note, I always used to laugh at paranoid Liverpool fans in the mailbox and various internet forums as a lunatic fringe that every club has, and that the club and the majority of supporters were level-headed individuals. But this incident has really changed my perception, it seems as if the whole club has bought into this victim mentality and the calm and sane minds at the club are actually in the minority. I really hope that Chelsea use this as an example and learn from it, although judging from AVB's comments on the matter so far, that is looking unlikely.
  Joey, Cape Town

   

   

   

  Backing The FA
  The FA should be congratulated on organising a fair hearing for Luis Suarez over the insulting and abusive words he used against Patrice Evra.
  
  The independent panel should also be thanked for reaching a clear verdict backed up with logical and rationale evidence for the eight-match ban and £40,000 fine.
  
  I hope Liverpool FC decide not to appeal, but I do not hold my breath, because having read the 100-page report they could not have come to any other decision.
  
  Putting this issue to one side, I think attention should now turn to the FA instigating proceedings against:
  
  * Brighton manager Gus Poyet for accusing the defender of being a "cry baby".
  
  * Liverpool FC for publicly stating that should the panel find there is no case to answer that Evra should be subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
  
  * Liverpool FC for allowing players to wear the t-shirts at the away game before the Wigan game.
  
  Whilst the Manchester United defender's version of events was found to be credible and Suarez totally unreliable, it is now time for those openly and publicly questioned Evra to be charged with bringing the game into dispute.
  
  In my view the comments and behaviour tried to influence the opinion of the panel. The behaviour in each situation could only been seen as aggravating what was a very sensitive case. Lessons must be learned and further punishments must be meted out if charges are found to be proven.
  Tony Laforce, Hackney, London (Arsenal supporter)

• zocoss

  3 Jan 12, 11:44

  Luis Suárez race case: what report said about key figures

  Kenny Dalglish, Dirk Kuyt, Damien Comolli and Luis Suárez’s legal representative Peter McCormick were all criticised in Football Association report.

  

  Criticised: Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish Photo: PA

  11:45PM GMT 01 Jan 2012

   

   

   

  Luis Suárez
  Although the commission said he was “respectful” in his demeanour, they were damning about his evidence, branding it “inconsistent”, “unreliable” and – in his claim that he had attempted to behave in a “conciliatory” manner towards Evra – “simply incredible”. They also suggested he revised elements of his account in light of expert testimony on the usage of the term “negro” in Uruguay.

  Patrice Evra
  The commission found Evra to be “impressive”, “composed” and “clear” in his delivery of evidence and that he had a “balanced” attitude. Although he was criticised for having sparked the flare-up with his use of an offensive term, the Frenchman was ultimately vindicated.

  Andre Marriner
  The referee for the game was praised for his evidence, which was described as “plausible and credible”. He was also saluted for his on-field handling of a potentially explosive situation.

  Dirk Kuyt
  The Liverpool striker claimed that Evra had told Marriner he was being booked because he was black, an allegation rejected out of hand by the commission, who said the claim made “no sense”. The inconsistencies in his account of his conversation with Suárez after the game over what had been said weakened the Uruguayan’s case, according to the commission.

  Kenny Dalglish
  The commission labelled elements of what the Liverpool manager told Marriner in his room immediately after the final whistle “surprising”, as it contradicted various elements of Suárez’s own testimony. In his evidence, Phil Dowd, the fourth official at Anfield that day, said Dalglish had remarked “hasn’t he done this before?” in relation to Evra’s allegations, although this was not remarked upon in the report.

  Damien Comolli
  Another witness whose account of what Suárez had said to Evra “surprised” the commission. They drew attention to “discrepancies” in what Comolli reported to the referee about what Suárez had claimed to say to Evra in the immediate aftermath of the game and the striker’s evidence. They pointed out these discrepancies had “not been satisfactorily explained”.

   

  Peter McCormick
  Suárez’s legal representative was highly criticised. His suggestion that Evra made up his claim that Suárez said “I don’t speak with blacks” to gain revenge on the Uruguayan for failing to explain why he had fouled him earlier in the game was deemed “unrealistic”. He also said that Suárez’s claim that pinching Evra’s arm was an attempt to “defuse” the situation was due to “bad drafting” of the striker’s statement, a point that was also rejected out of hand by the commission.

• Bus&Soccer l0v3r (VO3x 1)

  4 Jan 12, 09:20

  they accepted the ban
  
  
  they dun wan appeal
  
  
  that man city match no suarez
  
  no win

• zocoss

  4 Jan 12, 09:52

  Liverpool will not appeal against Luis Suárez's eight-game ban

  • Anfield club accuses FA of damaging player's reputation
  • Uruguayan denies racially abusing Patrice Evra

   

  

  Liverpool's Luis Suárez was found guilty by the FA of racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra. Photograph: Lindsey Parnaby/EPA

   

   

   

  Liverpool will not appeal against Luis Suárez's eight-match ban for calling Patrice Evra "negro", a decision that was followed by a remarkable and inflammatory statement from the Anfield club accusing the Manchester United defender of effectively making up his story and the Football Association of putting together a "highly subjective" case in favour of the Frenchman.

  Rejecting the findings of the independent commission and questioning in forcible terms why Evra was "deemed to be credible", Liverpool made it clear they believe Suárez has become the highest-profile player to be banned for race-related insults because of "an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated".

  Their manager, Kenny Dalglish, later reiterated that he did not regret the club's T-shirt gesture in support of Suárez, describing it as a "fabulous gesture", and the player also released his own statement in which he admitted using the word "negro" but made it clear that he did not accept the commission's decision that, said aggressively, it was unacceptable. "In my country negro is a word we use commonly, a word which doesn't show any lack of respect and is even less so a form of racist abuse," the Uruguayan said. "Based on this, everything which has been said so far is totally false."

  Suárez's ban rules him out for at least a month when, by a quirk of the fixture list, one of his first matches back will be the trip to Old Trafford on 11 February, but the damage that has been caused to Liverpool's relationship with the FA may take far longer to heal.

  "In its determination to prove its conclusions to the public through a clearly subjective 115-page document, the FA panel has damaged the reputation of one the Premier League's best players, deciding he should be punished and banned for perhaps a quarter of a season," Liverpool's statement said. "This case has also provided a template in which a club's rival can bring about a significant ban for a top player without anything beyond an accusation."

  The FA, Liverpool said, had decided "to dismiss completely the testimony that countered their overall suppositions". After initially stating they would vigorously fight the verdict, they had decided not to appeal so "the Premier League, the Football Association and the club can continue the progress that has been made [tackling racism in sport] and not risk a perception, at least by some, that would diminish our commitment on these issues".

  Liverpool's case, quite simply, is that Evra made up the accusations out of spite; and Suárez's statement made it even clearer that there will never be any form of public apology. "Never – I repeat, never – have I had any racial problem with a team-mate or individual who was of a different race or colour to mine. Never. I am very upset by all the things which have been said during the last few weeks about me, all of them being very far from the truth. But above all, I'm very upset at feeling so powerless whilst being accused of something I did not, nor would not, ever do.

  "I will carry out the suspension with the resignation of someone who hasn't done anything wrong and who feels extremely upset by the events. I do feel sorry for the fans and for my team-mates, whom I will not be able to help during the next month. It will be a very difficult time for me. The only thing I wish for at the moment is being able to run out again at Anfield and to do what I like most, which is playing football."

  Suárez will continue to be paid in full and there will be no internal disciplinary action. "We stand alongside Luis Suárez as this football club has always done for people we respect and appreciate for their efforts," Dalglish said. "I think it is very dangerous and unfortunate that you [the public] don't actually know the whole content of what went on at the hearing. I'm not prepared, and I can't say it, but it is really unfortunate you never got to hear it." The manager said Suárez had been punished in a case of "wrong place, wrong time".

• zocoss

  4 Jan 12, 09:58

  Toxic spill is now washing up on American shores

   

   

  

  Yawning gap: Liverpool owner John Henry must act over misguided support for Luis Suarez

   

   

   

  There are larger issues at stake, apparently. Important points to be made. So Liverpool deigned to do the world a favour and will not appeal Luis Suarez’s eight-match ban. How decent of them. Maybe they’ll make a T-shirt telling us all about it; or a hat. Not a white, pointy one, obviously.

  Want to see a magic trick? Open an American newspaper and watch your country disappear. Oh, it’s an old joke, but a true one. I once picked up a copy of USA Today containing a first person article by Tony Blair. At the  bottom, readers were helpfully informed: ‘Tony Blair is the British Prime Minister.’ And wasn’t he just, bless him.

  So, until Tuesday, it was almost possible that John Henry, Tom Werner and the rest of the Fenway Sports Group were unaware of the damage being done to the image of their club by the fall-out from the Suarez affair. And then the statement dropped. There, in the details of the most misjudged public utterance since Tony Hayward, of British Petroleum, as good as told the oil-clogged inhabitants of America’s south to give him a break, was a bizarre digression on the subject of race relations in American sport.

  It had little relevance to the matter in hand and offered no insight beyond the obvious; but was clearly present at the request of the owners.

  Damage limitation, just in case some of the toxic spill from Suarez washed up on New England’s shores.

  And, like most of Liverpool’s  pronouncements since that fateful day in October, it served only to make matters worse.

  Liverpool will not appeal and Suarez missed his first game at Manchester City on Tuesday night. Yet, by issuing a strongly worded statement shortly before the game, Liverpool believed they had gone out with a bang and a final assault on the credibility of the Football Association, the process, Manchester United and their accuser, Patrice Evra. Yet look down and observe the bullet hole in the foot.

  Up to now, the strongest criticism that could be aimed at Fenway is that they allowed senior football executives at Anfield too much freedom to handle what was plainly an international affair with widening ramifications.

  From here, however, Liverpool’s  owners are culpable. What were they thinking? This has been a PR disaster, a legal disaster and a sporting disaster considering an eight-match ban may have been avoided with greater  contrition from the start.

  And Fenway knew all along. Their fingerprints were across yesterday’s pronouncement, which succeeded in slandering just about everybody involved in the procedure bar the player who referred to Evra’s skin colour seven times.

  If Fenway remain oblivious to the harm here, they need telling, and quickly. Letting the football men run the football club is an admirable stance, but there comes a time when an issue lies beyond the manager’s call.  Whoever was left to mastermind Liverpool’s stance over Suarez has been proven horribly inept in this arena.

  It is surely no coincidence that Liverpool recently dispensed with Paul Tyrrell, their widely respected head of communications. In his absence, the club’s actions have drawn universal condemnation on a par with Carlos Tevez’s walk-out at Manchester City.

   

  

  What's the score? A fan gets a pointed message across at the Etihad Stadium

   

   

  More harmfully, the blinkered protestations of some supporters are increasingly perceived as the position of Liverpool’s senior executive. Tuesday’s statement, despite its late grab for the moral high ground, did nothing to dispel that damning perception.

  The production of a 115-page report which metaphorically took Liverpool’s case out at the knee was the only possible response to the aggressive campaign mounted by the club following Suarez’s eight-game ban.

  Any impartial reading of the exhaustive detail therein would note its  thoroughness. Picking at its weaknesses is an easy game when there is so much information to inspect.

  Had the FA released a one- paragraph judgment and punishment, the lawyers — the qualified and those self-deluding amateurs — would have had nothing with which to work.

  The more detailed the findings, the more chance there is of unearthing an arguable point. It is not an edifying spectacle, though, this use of technicalities to cloud such a serious issue.

  Raking over familiar ground will merely alienate Liverpool further from all but their most myopic devotees.

   

   

  

  Flashpoint: Luis Suarez and Patrice Evra clash at Anfield

   

   

  Where is Henry in all this? Where has he been, where is he now? The longer he procrastinated the more firmly his club became aligned with the most extreme cases of denial emanating from Merseyside. And now this.

  For a man supposedly so aware of racial issues in sport and beyond, Henry has not emerged well. Many days ago he should have ended the unholy mess with a transatlantic telephone call that ordered his club to accept the verdict, issue an apology and try to retrieve a shard of respectability from the wreckage.

  If he thought such interference would have undermined his  manager, he could have made it the player’s decision, announcing that Suarez has asked the club not to appeal. It would have been a small step but at least it would have placed him on the road to rehabilitation.

  Instead, Suarez put out a statement on Tuesday night, which included the remarkable assertion: ‘I will carry out the suspension with the resignation of someone who hasn’t done anything wrong.’

  So if he was found innocent, he would have been innocent; but if guilty, he is innocent, still. At the outset Suarez said the verdict would decide which of the parties had to apologise. Apparently, like much of the evidence, that stance has since changed.

   

   

  

  Flat out: Suarez claims he will serve his ban 'with the resignation of someone who hasn¿t done anything wrong

   

   

  At the very least, Henry has been poorly counselled. One cannot imagine such a sore being allowed to fester and grow at the Boston Red Sox, his Major League Baseball franchise.

  Henry did not switch sports and continents, he did not buy Liverpool to consolidate its popularity among Liverpudlians. A euphoric Kop singing You’ll Never Walk Alone is only half the story. Henry’s eye was on the bigger picture, the wider world, where Liverpool’s history and traditions had enduring appeal.

  It is this reputation, and his own, that is being surrendered, line by ghosted line, over Suarez.

   

  A grave matter
  

  The reason the Suarez decision carried such impact was that it was plainly not taken lightly. The Football Association should be commended for this, because the reaction to the police charge laid against John Terry shows few have the patience to wait for a verdict any more.

  Terry’s first court hearing is scheduled for February 1, yet there have been repeated calls for him to pre-empt this by standing down as England captain, insinuations that his defence is flawed, while The Guardian placed him in a jokey list of those who had ‘ruined 2011’ and failed their ‘diversity awareness test’ along with John Galliano (found guilty of racism), Suarez (found guilty of racism) and the outspoken #tramlady (arrested, awaiting trial, video available on YouTube, see for yourself).

• zocoss

  6 Jan 12, 00:56

  Reds slammed over Suarez case

  Kick It Out chairman Lord Ouseley has branded Liverpool as "hypocritical" over their handling of Luis Suarez's eight-match ban.

  

  Suarez: Criticised

   

   

   

   

  The Reds have decided not to appeal against the Football Association suspension and £40,000 fine imposed on the Uruguay forward by an independent commission for racially abusing Patrice Evra in Liverpool's Premier League match against Manchester United at Anfield on October 15.

  Ouseley described Liverpool players wearing T-shirts in support of Suarez as "dreadful" and said the club need to take a hard look at themselves.

  Suarez's apology stated: "I admitted to the commission that I said a word in Spanish once and only once. I told the panel members

  that I will not use it again on a football pitch in England. I never, ever used this word in a derogatory way and if it offends anyhone then I want to apologise for that."

  Suarez did not mention Evra by name in his apology, and previously said in a statement on Tuesday he would carry out the suspension "with the resignation of someone who hasn't done anything wrong" claiming the word 'negro' is a commonly-used word which does not show any lack of respect in his country.

  Lord Ouseley, who was chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality from 1993 to 2000, wrote in the Guardian: "Liverpool FC need to take a hard look at themselves and how they have responded to the complaint and the investigations into the allegations of abuse in the Patrice Evra/Luis Suarez case.

  "Throughout the entirety of the proceedings, over the past three months, all we have heard are denials and denigration of Evra. Since the publication of the 115-page report of the findings of the FA's independent commission, Liverpool's vitriol has increased.

  "Suarez's attempt at a belated apology is nothing short of lamentable. I cannot believe that a club of Liverpool's stature, and with how it has previously led on matters of social injustice and inequality, can allow its integrity and credibility to be debased by such crass and ill-considered responses."

  Ouseley added: "Liverpool have been particularly hypocritical. You can't on the one hand wear a Kick It Out T-shirt in a week of campaigning against racism when this is also happening on the pitch: it's the height of hypocrisy.

  "Liverpool players wore a T-shirt saying: 'We support Luis Suarez', seemingly whatever the outcome. This was a dreadful knee-jerk reaction because it stirs things up."

• zocoss

  6 Jan 12, 01:10

  Powar urges FA to charge Liverpool

  January 5, 2012

  By ESPNsoccernet staff
  

  The head of European football's anti-racism group has urged the Football Association to charge Liverpool with bringing the game into disrepute over their response to Luis Suarez's eight-match ban.

   

  

  GettyImagesLiverpool stars in Luis Suarez t-shirts

   

  Piara Powar, executive director of European football's anti-discrimination body FARE, said Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish's comments had been ''undignified'' and that their reaction had damaged the club's brand across the world.

  He said: ''This is a lack of respect for the governing body by Liverpool and the FA should charge Liverpool FC and Kenny Dalglish.

  ''I think the FA should come back now and be very clear that Liverpool could be construed to have brought the game into disrepute by the way in which they have consistently undermined the judgment and by Kenny Dalglish's comments.

  ''Liverpool have been too keen to support their man and in doing so have whipped up a sense of paranoia amongst their fans. This is not the Liverpool FC that we have applauded in the past for their support for a whole range of issues.

  ''The responses from Kenny Dalglish have been undignified; the way in which they have dealt with the whole matter has been unprofessional. For the club to so aggressively militate against what looks to most people a considered judgment from the FA leads to a potential for anarchy.''

  Powar said reaction from his colleagues in other parts of the world made him believe the affair was damaging Liverpool.

  He added: ''They have damaged their brand, no question. There is no question that Liverpool do have a global appeal, but I have emails from colleagues in Africa asking me what the hell is going on.

  ''I think people will be watching this and I believe there is no question that their plans for global expansion will have been damaged by this. That's not to say they cannot come back from this but it has done them a lot of damage and they have not conducted themselves in a very palatable way.''

  Powar's call comes after Lord Ouseley, the chairman on British football's anti-racism group Kick It Out, called Liverpool ''hypocritical'' and Suarez's apology ''lamentable''.

  Ouseley also described Liverpool players wearing T-shirts in support of Suarez as ''dreadful''.

• charleslee

  6 Jan 12, 01:42

  The Curious Case of Luis Suarez . . . . . . .

  It seems as though Liverpool and Luis Suarez have finally closed the door on an unsavoury episode in their history and that of the English FA.  Not without slamming it shut, mind, and taking the hinges as they went.  With great reluctance, and no little chutzpah, both parties have conceded defeat but heavily indicated that they feel a huge injustice has been done.

  While this case isn't quite the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four and it's unlikely Daniel Day Lewis will be claiming he is an innocent man in Rioplatense Spanish anytime soon, there are flaws in the decision which would render them a reasonable chance of success on appeal.  Although it's no longer of huge significance, this is a saga which is likely to rumble on and I thought it might be useful to examine the areas where the FA regulatory commission has erred so at least we have a flavour of from where Liverpool and Suarez's grievances emanate.

  Since New Year's Eve, when a 115 page tome landed in our inboxes, many opinions have been expressed as to whether the FA Regulatory Commission has got it right or wrong. Most have jumped to the conclusion that since the report is well written, very long, detailed and presented in nicely worded legalese, that it must be correct.

  The truth, like with many tribunal decisions and, indeed most likely the case itself, lies somewhere in-between. There is much to be admired in the manner in which the commission dissected very complex linguistic issues as well as the nuances of what was said and not said.  They have reported the facts in great detail and the result is that many of us are in a position to draw our conclusions.

  That said, the report's findings are somewhat flawed and, in particular, the sanction meted out is completely out of line with the evidence and even the commission's own conclusions.

  I should say, at this point, I am a Liverpool fan but also the solicitor for the PFAI, the League of Ireland's players' union. Although my allegiances are naturally with Luis Suarez, I'd like to think that I would take a similar view if a League of Ireland player asked me to represent them in similar circumstances. Indeed, I have defended an Irish player, Jason McGuinness, where allegations of insulting behaviour with racial overtones were made. He received a five match ban.

  The Suarez case is unique in its complexity but in the end it comes down to some fairly basic questions.

  1. What is the burden of proof?

  2. Did Suarez use the word "negro" and, if so, how often?

  3. If he did use this word, what should the punishment be?

  The first question has been the subject of much debate and many commentators seem to believe that the "balance of probabilities" burden is too low. The implication is that the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" should apply.

  I don't believe this is correct and instead a hybrid that is often used in tribunals where professional conduct is the subject of review is more appropriate.  It is usually expressed as "highly probable" and it appears that the commission have rather clumsily agreed to this level by stating that this was a serious allegation and the more serious the charge, the greater the burden. It is a great pity that they didn't express this in clearer terms but I think it is fair to say that the test of high probability is what was applied and if so, I believe this was correct.

  However, it's one thing to select the right burden of proof and it's quite another to apply it. This is where the commission made its first mistake.  It's patently clear, and admitted by Suarez, that the word "negro" was used at least once. Whether it was used again is a matter of great debate and certainly could not be described as highly probable.

  Quite simply, the only evidence that there was more than one use of the word comes from Evra himself and without independent corroboration, in addition to the inevitable linguistic confusion which is central to the whole case, it simply cannot even be described as probable, much less highly probable.

  While the commission quite rightly point out inaccuracies in Suarez's evidence, they do not justify their quantum leap from this to believing everything Evra says without a scintilla of independent evidence.

  Now, this is not to say Suarez is innocent.  He's not, he deserves a ban for the inappropriate use of the word "negro" that he has admitted but this needs to be proportionate to what can be legitimately proven and not the educated conjecture of the commission.

  The range of sanctions available is effectively from two matches upwards. It is clear that he is in breach of regulations and must serve at least a two match ban.  Since there is a racial element, the entry point of four matches seems apposite.  However, the commission have erred by increasing it largely due to the extremely dubious finding that he said the offending word seven times.

  However, even if you accept that reasoning, it is very difficult to understand how considering the guidelines recommend a doubling of the sanction for a first offence and trebling for second. The effective quadrupling of the two match standard ban suggests that the Suarez findings were even worse than a standard second offence.  This makes no sense whatsoever unless you reach the obvious conclusion that the commission were seeking to make an example of Suarez rather than employing the usual rules of natural justice.

  An interesting example of how the commission glossed over certain inconsistencies while focussing on others is the manner in which it examines the motive for Suarez saying what Evra alleges he said. While agreeing that his upbringing, parentage and friends would militate against such behaviour, they can find no reason why he would engage in such behaviour and instead simply dismiss it as being out of character with no reason provided as to why he should suddenly remove himself from his normal characteristics.

  This decision was driven by desire to believe either one party or the other, in the entirety.  This was the fatal mistake that the commission made because there was no need. It is perfectly feasible for any tribunal to decide that part of the charge was proven and the balance was not.  And quite simply, this is what they should have done.

  So what could Suarez have done had he decided to take his medicine? In my humble opinion, Suarez should have appealed.  He should have admitted, on the one occasion which he accepts using the word, that he was wrong to do so. He could have argued that he did not use it on other occasions and such instances remain unproven in accordance with the burden of proof, but that he regretted the use of the word at all.  He could have apologized for this and agree to assist the anti-racism campaigns.  He could then have legitimately argued that the ban is excessive and should be reduced to the entry point of four matches.

  In my opinion, if he had adopted such an approach, he would have succeeded in reducing the ban, maybe not to four matches but certainly to no more than six.

  However, as we now know, he chose the worst of both worlds.  He chose take the ban on the chin and still proclaim his innocence.  He might well argue that he can't expect justice from a body he considered biased from the outset but it's difficult to expect public sympathy when you don't exhaust all of the procedures.  In a nutshell, football considerations intervened and, with Suarez initially unwilling to show any contrition at the time, Liverpool no doubt felt the chances of reducing the ban were slim.  His subsequent apology (of sorts) does beg the question as to why this wasn't possible earlier.

  Of course, we will, most likely, never know what went on behind the scenes in this fiasco but it appears as though Liverpool and Suarez are the losers.  It didn't have to be that way.

   

  Stuart Gilhooly is the solicitor for the Professional Footballers Association of Ireland and was also recently named Journalist of Year at the Irish Magazine Awards.

  http://www.pfai.ie/news/283-stuarts-inquiry

  He can be followed on twitter @PFAISolicitor

• zocoss

  6 Jan 12, 11:21

  Liverpool plea to United for truce on Suarez to calm the storm ahead of February clash
  

   

  

   

  

  

   

  

  In training: Luis Suarez on Thursday

   

   

   

  Liverpool will seek peace talks with Manchester United to defuse the furore surrounding Luis Suarez ahead of their trip to Old Trafford on February 11.

  The match will be the first meeting between English football's fiercest rivals since Suarez was found guilty of racially abusing United's Patrice Evra at Anfield on October 15.

  United supporters have already started chanting inflammatory songs about the incident - most notably at Craven Cottage last month - and the potential for tension between fans is huge. 

  But Liverpool are aware of the sensitivities and plan to discuss strategies with the United hierarchy to ensure the game passes off as calmly as possible.

  That does not mean, though, that Liverpool will leave out Suarez - who has publicly apologised for any offence caused but has not said sorry to Evra - for the game.
  

   

  The striker will have served an eight-match ban by then and is set to return in the Barclays Premier League against Tottenham at Anfield on February 6.

  The trip to Old Trafford will be his first away match. Suarez is sure to receive a hot reception in Manchester but Liverpool do not believe the Uruguayan will be hounded out of the league over his misdemeanour.

  Some observers had suggested Suarez, 24, would find it difficult to cope with the controversy, but Liverpool are confident he has the fortitude to carry on. Dalglish described Suarez last month as a 'strong character'.

  Liverpool also want talks with the FA about the affair, when they will call for a clampdown on obscene chants at players.

  Suarez will continue to train with Liverpool for now, but could be given leave - his involvement in last summer's Copa America means he has played for almost a year non-stop.

   

  

  Row: Suarez was found guilty of making racism comments to Patrice Evra

   

   

   

  Meanwhile, sportswear giant adidas will not sever their ties with Suarez despite him being found guilty by a three-man independent commission.

  But Liverpool continue to be criticised for their handling of the case and Lord Ouseley, chairman of the Kick It Out campaign, said: 'I cannot believe a club of Liverpool's stature can allow its integrity to be debased by such crass and ill‑considered responses.'

  Former England defender Sol Campbell added: 'Suarez has apologised but he hasn't gone far enough. He hasn't apologised to Evra and that is unacceptable.'

   

   

  

  Growing anger: A Manchester City supporter holds up an anti-racism banner during Tuesday's match against Liverpool at the Etihad Stadiu

   

• zocoss

  6 Jan 12, 19:33

  Fergie cool on Liverpool peace talks

  By ESPNsoccernet staff

  

  GettyImagesLuis Suarez and Patrice Evra exchange words

   

   

   

   

  Liverpool are keen to hold board-level talks with Manchester United in an attempt to restore good relations following the Luis Suarez affair but Sir Alex Ferguson has questioned the need for peace talks to take place ahead of the duo's Premier League encounter at Old Trafford on February 11.

   

   

  The match between the two arch-rivals has become a focal point as it is likely to be Suarez's first away from Anfield following the end of his eight-match suspension for racially abusing Red Devils' defender Patrice Evra.

  Despite their rivalry on the pitch the two north-west clubs have enjoyed cordial relations off it in recent years, but those have been strained during the three-month investigation and subsequent punishment of Suarez.

  The Uruguayan was found guilty of making racist comments by an independent disciplinary commission, yet even in accepting the punishment earlier this week, Liverpool - and Suarez - have avoided any suggestion of an apology to Evra.

  United have said nothing on the entire matter, other than questioning the need for Liverpool's statements in support of the Suarez prior to the disciplinary hearing.

  Privately they have been irritated by Liverpool's controversial stance throughout the proceedings and Ferguson has cooled talk of discussions between the two clubs, reports of which emerged from the Liverpool camp on Friday morning.

  "It is nice of them to do it through the press," said Ferguson. "You would have thought they would come to Manchester United first. I do not see why there is any need for it. But I have nothing to say about it."

• gunner77

  6 Jan 12, 19:37

  No chance

  No mercy

  Fuck suarez, Fuck liverpool.

   

• I-like-flings(m)

  8 Jan 12, 23:12

  no balls to say sorry then nothing to talk about....

• zocoss

  15 Jan 12, 19:32

  Liverpool admit Suarez incident has been damaging, as Dalglish insists club will never tolerate racism
  

   

   

  

  Out of contention: Luis Suarez watches from the stands

   

   

   

   

  Liverpool have admitted for the first time that the club's handling of the Luis Suarez racism case has left them with an image problem.

  'The perception of how we are or have been over the past few weeks is not how we want it,' Ian Ayre, the club's managing director, told the BBC.

  'It has been a difficult time for everyone at the club. The key for us is that this club want to fight racism and discrimination.'

  Liverpool aggressively defended their striker as he sought to clear his name of accusations that he racially abused Manchester United's Patrice Evra.

  Before the verdict, the Anfield club also took swipes at the Football Association and sent out their players to warm up for a match wearing T-shirts bearing Suarez's picture.

  A disciplinary hearing concluded that Suarez had 'used insulting words which included a reference to Mr Evra's colour'.

  As a result, Suarez was banned for eight matches and fined £40,000, punishments Liverpool decided not to appeal.

  'It has been a difficult period but we will get through it,' said Ayre, who also admitted that Suarez is likely to be abused by opposition.crowds when he returns to action next month.

  'It will be tough, we shouldn't kid ourselves that opposing fans are going to give him the best of times. We made a decision, Luis made a decision, not to appeal and the reason we did that was to move on.

  'The best way he can come back is to get on the pitch and score some goals, and that's what everyone will expect of him.'
  

  Liverpool's problems did not end with Suarez.

  Last week there was also an incident in their FA Cup victory at home to Oldham when visiting defender Tom Adeyemi alleged that he had been racially abused by a fan.

  
   

  

  Kick it out: Liverpool boss Kenny Dalglish insists the club will not tolerate racism

   

   

  A 20-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence and later released on bail pending further inquiries. Stoke fans at yesterday's 0-0 draw at Anfield aimed chants of 'racist bastards' at the home support but the Liverpool supporters did not respond and there was no negative behaviour on their part.

  Liverpool's manager, Kenny Dalglish, insisted yesterday that the club 'will not tolerate' racism and discrimination.

  Of the Adeyemi case, he wrote in his programme notes: 'Whatever the outcome of that investigation, we are deeply sorry for what happened.

  'We do not want and will not tolerate racism or discrimination anywhere near football, and certainly not anywhere near this football club. The club is blessed with a worldwide fan base, made up of different nationalities and diverse cultures, all of whom come together as part of the Liverpool family.

  'The club will continue its proud record of fighting all forms of discrimination.

  'Past, present or future, it has no place at Anfield, in our club or in the game.

  'We will give any help we can to Tom, Oldham Athletic and the police to ensure this incident is dealt with properly.'

  
  

  

  Abused: Oldham's Tom Adeyemi reacts after being insulted by fans against Liverpool

   

   

  Liverpool's captain, Steven Gerrard, echoed the sentiments of his manager, adding in his programme notes: 'Such incidents have no place in society, in football or at LFC.

  'As a football club we have always supported anti-racism initiatives and our fans are well-known for their sporting nature and good humour.

  'Any other type of behaviour will not be tolerated.' 

   

• racist pool

  16 Jan 12, 14:07

  the scum liverpool! disgrace to football!!!and their fans are proud of it!!how they support racist suarez by wearing t shirts wth thist racist cunt name,is soooo disgusting!!!!

• fudgester

  16 Jan 12, 14:20

  They are not helping their own cause by wearing those T-shirts with Suarez's face.

  I suppose their message was 'hate the sin, love the sinner', but it sure didn't come across as that.

  They would have done themselves a huge favour by wearing shirts that say 'Stomp Out Racism Now'.

• Dalforce 1941

  16 Jan 12, 14:24

   

  The Racial Question Is
  A Class Question

  by Mao Zedong

  “Racial discrimination”, he said, “is found in Africa, in Asia, and in other parts of the world. The racial question is in essence a class question. Our unity is not one of race; it is the unity of comrades and friends. We should strengthen our unity and wage a common struggle against imperialism. colonialism, and the running dogs, to attain complete and thorough national independence and liberation.”

  http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_06.htm