White, English, Oh I din't hear about it.

Hidden away article, So is 4 matches the standard ban now?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...nal-racism-storm-Youngster-faces-axe-ban.html

 

If you read the comments on the fail underneath the article most people seem to be defending him of "just making a mistake."

Funny no one said that about that Suarez foreigner. Bloody racist foreigners.

 

The length of the Suarez ban was based upon his multiple use of an offensive word. Not one iota of independent evidence of this multiple use was ever presented to the FA kangaroo court at any time. The FA has a 99.85 % guilty verdict rate for the charges brought by it, prosecuted by its own FA appointed counsel, and judged and juried by its own 'independently' appointed panel. The terms of reference, evidence standards and rigour of verdict are also arbitrarily determined.

In short, it's ****ing bent.

 

And the first few times Evra told the story Suarez only said negrito once. (Per referee and man u coach)

It didn't become multiple offences until after the match when Evra was trying to make a bigger stir.



... by the way... don't be confused. Suarez was clearly in wrong... not saying otherwise...

 

Suarez has deserved bans, but the length of both has been completely inconsistent with the standard practice. If Liverpool hired the Bosman lawyer he would have a field day with the FA's decisions.

 

Suarez and Terry got four games too. Luis got double for repeat offending.

 

Terry was found not guilty by a court of law, only for the ****ing FA to decide they knew better and tried to prove how soooo not racist they are...

The Suarez thing was just hilarious

This lad? Nobody knows what happened, so who can judge?

 

The FA are institutionally racist xenophobic and corrupt

 

I really, really don't want to go down this road again, but the Suarez decision was clear posturing by the FA.
The same FA who had previously appealed against Rooney's ban - for an obvious, unambiguous offence that everyone could see- because that ban could affect the fortunes of the national team.
Whatever the professed reasoning behind their decisions, the process is obviously flawed when self-interest is a factor in them.

 

I'm not bothered about the racial ban as the games were done by the FA's rules (four games for a racial act and double if more than once) but I didn't agree with the guilty verdict purely based on a lack of evidence. However, like you I don't want to get into it.

What annoyed my was the biting ban. Now, don't get me wrong, I think he deserved banning and I did say at the time that ten games would be fair but it wouldn't be in line with anything else. How the hell is biting worse than punching, kicking or headbutting someone? Its crazy to think that Suarez could have punched Ivanovic instead and got just a three game suspension as the referee would have seen it and sent him off there and then.

 

Well punching isn't 'alien' - biting is ....... apparently.

 

Hmmm, scratching seems ok, too.

 

I hear Robbie Fowler was made to apologise for commenting on air that Torres and [the other lad] were acting like a pair of girls!

 

Typical Daily Fail they are reporting on an Arsenal player hardly anyone has heard of yet still manage to get a reference and picture of Suarez in the article just so their readers are reminded what a "nasty little foreigner" he is.

I would love to see some statistics to see if how many days the Daily Fail has managed without mentioning Suarez in a negative way since he signed for us.

 

Can't really compare the two, different standards of evidence. You could be legitimately guilty in an FA court and not so in law.