I find it quite funny how there is so much uproar about Suarez's personality on the pitch, yet people like Beckham, Giggs, Rooney cheat on their wives and are seen as role models. Football's a funny ol' game.
Tbh I'd say the smart money is on no one actually reading it, as I doubt anyone other than donga actually wants to go back over every last detail of a case that is long passed. Ultimately I think Suarez is right (and probably donga too based on a skim of some of his essay) - a charge by the FA is always trial by media. As soon as the media get involved, like they have done for Cantona, Rio, Barton, Rooney etc in the past, the FA tears up the rulebook and tries to preserve the image of the game by appearing to be 'strong'. Utd recognised this, Liverpool didn't. Suarez and Liverpool should have made high profile public statements apologising profusely to anyone who would listen. Apologise to Evra, Utd, the FA, any black players and fans, the entire black race, Mary Whitehouse and the Pope. Fine, point out that the comment was not intended as a racist slur and that it is a 'term of endearment' in Uruguay or whatever, but apologise anyway. Tho' that does rely on Suarez actually being willing to swallow his inflated ego and actually apologise - based on past history that's probably not something Liverpool would ever had been able to manage. Can't remember his name, but I'm sure some other player was accused of racist abuse, and I think the language used was more offensive than Suarez. He apologised like mad and requested his fine be donated to an anti racism charity and got a suspended ban. Liverpool's approach to the case would probably have been fine if it was a criminal case (much like Chelsea did with Terry), but for the FA it was completely the wrong approach. He's right about the handshake too - Evra played him like a fiddle in front of the entire world and Suarez fell for it like an absolute sap. Again, too proud to want to risk losing face, he ends up looking like a total knob.
The concept of footballers as role models is insane however you look at it. How can anyone expect young lads, often with the bare minimum of education, getting paid stupid amounts of money to play a game, being coddled to **** by their clubs and idolised by millions to behave like anything other than entitled, self obsessed tools? Particularly when most of them don't even get any sort of serious punishment when they are caught acting like tools. Beckham, Giggs, Rooney and Suarez are still all multimillionaires and none of their careers suffered more than a small hiccup from their actions, so why would they ever stop to care?
Was sort of the theme of the thread. Pardon me for actually having some facts and knowledge to back up my assertions. I'll act like an FA panel next time.
Absolutely. Can't think of a worse parenting tip than telling your kids to live like a footballer. Role models my arse.
I think the fact Suarez hasn't apologised speaks volumes. Why apologise when you've done nothing wrong, had he done so, it would have been an admission of guilt. He apologised, quite rightly, for every bite but to apologise for something he didn't do would damage him/the racism cause even further. Whether we like it or not, footballers are role models. A lack of education, too much money too soon or whatever, is no excuse for acting badly - most of them manage it, those who don't lack morals, nothing more or less! Suarez misdemeanours have all taken place in the heat of the moment on a football field, lumping him in with those who do actually have inflated egos or a sense of they can do what they like where they like, is wrong.
I totally disagree with the strategy that you suggest Suarez should have adopted. It does not fit the cultural machismo that Suarez grew up in. It may be pragmatic but there has to be a place for truth and honour (whatever honour actually is). The true problem here lies directly with the lawyers who failed both the player and the club. What does surprise me is that FSG appear to have let the whole affair go by in a very British quasi-legal fashion which is strange considering their own litigious culture.
I posted a quote yesterday from 2012 - they were furious with the legal choice and thought that 'no expense should be spared' in getting the very best legal team.
He lied to FIFA's disciplinary panel about the last bite; He appealled his 4 month ban and only issued an apology when Barca made their interest known, so it was completely contrived. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-Giorgio-Chiellini-at-the-2014-World-Cup.html The man's a total liar
He's appeal was after joining Barca. The decision to allow him to train was certainly passed AFTER he joined them.
Read the article I posted - dated 1st July. He appealled way before he joined Barca, it was the ultimate hearing at CAS that happened after he joined in mid August, but the initial appeal was posted way before he signed
Fair enough, I was just going by the decision. Didn't he submit a failed appeal first? The second appeal was the one that allowed him to train? Thought this might have had something to do with Barca pulling the strings by then
FIFA rejected his appeal, so he took it (with Barca) to the Court of Arbitration for sport - CAS. The Barca factor might have played a part in the eventual ruling...... My point was only that he didn't hold his hands up for the bite, he did quite the reverse. Only when told to smooth the waters for a move to Barca i.e. self interest, did he apologise. So the premise that he's somehow a fair individual who'll admit when in the wrong is complete baloney.
That's probably what I was thinking of I never gave that much of a s**t since I'd been convinced Luis would leave since the previous summer. My only concern was the effect his ban would have on the transfer fee. Suarez never holds his hands up to things. He was forced to do so with Ivanovic by Liverpool
Why are we getting embroiled in a pointless discussion about biting and appeals? The thread is supposed to be discussing Suarez's comments about the Evra affair and how his legal defence was handled.
Irrefutably, and so, provably is/was Evra. The point is though that Suarez was charged and therefore, even under a quasi-civil law set-up that the FA said the panel was, was entitled to the assumption of innocence. This wasn't simply arbitrating between to contesting parties - Suarez was accused and Evra was a witness. On that basis (and don't forget, that is what the FA themselves had set themselves a s a standard in the preamble of their findings) point to me where the evidence was to justify the finding that Suarez said the 'n' word any times more than he himself said he did, and thus the further four game ban that the FA levied.
