Well I tried to educate you considering you can't be bothered to read the report yourself - typical of most of the media outlets in this country.
You are clearly of the opinion that Suarez lied to the panel and Evra told the truth. However, there is no direct, independent evidence to support either side's claims. Evra was given opportunities to alter his story to make it 'more convincing', yet when they pressed Suarez to change his evidence, any changes were evidence of 'unreliability'. Evra demonstrated that from the coin toss onwards, he was wound up and aggressive, accusing the Ref of cheating him at the coin toss. His excuse that he was wound up five minutes after a foul (a coming together of knees if you've bothered to look at the video of the challenge) and in 'shock' is pretty unbelievable. But the panel accepted in their assessment that he was calm and controlled?!? I'm not convinced of the reliability of Evra's evidence in this investigation, and the FA had previous evidence of Evra giving unreliable, untrue testimony, but chose to ignore this precedent, presumably because this was not convenient in supporting the prosecution case.
I can't think of a reason why the FA would want to support Evra and engineer a guilty verdict for Suarez. If they wanted to do that they wouldn't have asked an independent panel to judge the case, they would have done it themselves. Unless the independent panel was paid by the FA to come to a predetermined conclusion? If so the pay off must have been huge as QC's make a lot of money but why would the FA waste a load of money on that? There are a lot of theories that could be put forward in defence of Suarez, there are also the facts that led to him being found guilty.
What facts are you talking about? And yes, the FA did have a good reason for making an example of Luis Suarez because shortly before the incident, Sepp Blatter made some remarkable comments about how players should just shake hands at the end of the game. The FA and the media were obviously against that idea (however they made such a big deal about Suarez not shaking Evra's hand on Saturday so the FA just look hypocritical). The FA wanted to show FIFA and the rest of the world that we as a nation do not tolerate racism. I believe if this whole incident had occured before Blatter made those remarks, then this situation would not have been this big.
The FA have a 99.5% success rate in bringing cases to a 'positive' conclusion (i.e. a guilty finding and a ban) - even in the worst, most corrupt dictatorships across the globe they don't have that success rate. And since you talk about facts, perhaps you can define the word 'fact', as opposed to 'opinion' or 'theory'...
no one famous, you mean the 'independent panel' appointed by the fa, where the evidence is provided by the fa, given the terms of their hearing by the fa. where the objective given by the fa is not to decide innocence or guilt, but to find ways in which the accused may be guilty. and in which the fa chose which evidence can be used, and which can't. and in which the fa provided crucial evidence to the prosecution's team, and the adjudicating panel, but deliberately tried to withhold that evidence from the defence. yep, really bloody independent. there have been loads of lawyers stating that the fa's system is deeply flawed, including one from the irish fa. and can you provide a list of these 'facts' that led to suarez being found guilty. the only fact i've seen in the entire report (which you have obviously NOT read btw) is that suarez used the word negro once, in spanish. a claim the not native spanish speaking linguist said may or may not be racist, being believed. but which many liguistic experts, more pertinently, native spanish speaking linguistic experts, and even more pertinently, linguist experts native speaking the rio-platenese dialect suarez speaks, all stating it can not have any racist connotations, and that what evra claims was correct, was not even correct spanish, and would never be said by a native speaker, all being ignored. and i can think of a very good reason for the FA to support evra, they wanted to get back at blatter for some of his comments about racism, and an extreme hardline stance on racism was the perfect way.
"If they wanted to do that they wouldn't have asked an independent panel to judge the case," This sentence alone shows you have no idea how the whole process works. Getting back to how the system could be improved - it may be time, if you look at the recent cases involving Suarez, Evra, Tevez and with the ever increasing influx of foreign players, to have a list of experts to call on who are specifically qualified in other cultures and languages, who could not only act as advisors but actually join the panel and hold a vote (or whatever it would be called). Maybe a representative from the FA of the home country of the player involved. The Suarez/Evra case is quite unique and should therefore have had uniques measures in place to deal with it so that the verdict and how it was reached were crystal clear for both sides to see.
You must be ready to WOW us with the FACTS you claim to have seen. Please enlighten us - give us the FACTS as stated in the report...
They discussed it with the experts then chose to ignore the expert opinion. This has been pointed out many times now, but just like the FA, people choose to ignore any evidence that doesn't support their pre-determined conclusion.
The fact is the independent panel judged Suarez to be a liar and that he racially abused Evra. Fact (as Rafa might say). It can't always be everybody else's fault.
What was the reason for their predetermined conclusion? Were they trying to derail Liverpool's title challenge? Are the people at the FA anti-Uruguayan? Anti-Liverpool? Anti-Dalglish? Anti-racism?
This person is a bigot, clearly shown on another thread (amazingly on the LFC board) which makes any contribution to a Liverpool related debate suspect in the very least. Ironic really since he seems to have spent an inordinate amount of time spent in the board of a people he clearly despises arguing about bigotry. He doth protest too much springs to mind.
This has also been discussed to death. I'm no mind reader, and unlike some won't presume to know what others are thinking, but my opinion is that because racism is a sensitive issue they wanted to be seen to be making a strong stance against it. Suarez was just "collateral damage" in their eyes. The FA is not a court, justice is not their main priority, you only have to look at their stance on the Rooney ban to see that.
