here are a few things written today "Luis Suarez: Panel criticises Liverpool striker's reaction Comments (470) Luis Suarez did not appreciate "the seriousness" of biting Branislav Ivanovic when he argued against a long ban, says a Football Association panel. The Liverpool striker accepted a three-game violent conduct ban, but claimed the incident did not deserve more. However when he was banned for 10 games he decided not to appeal. The FA's written reasons for the ban stated it should send out a "strong message that such deplorable behaviours do not have a place in football". http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22311782 Luis Suarez: David Cameron criticises 'appalling' bite Prime Minister David Cameron says Liverpool striker Luis Suarez set "the most appalling example" by biting Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic. Suarez has since been banned for 10 games by a Football Association panel. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22304322 "Liverpool's Luis Suarez will serve a 10-match ban after deciding not to appeal against his punishment for biting Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic. The Anfield club received the written reasons for the length of their star striker's suspension on Thursday evening and had until noon on Friday to contest the independent panel's ruling. The Uruguay international will miss the remaining four games of this season and, if he is still at the club, the next six domestic games of next term, meaning he would have to wait until the end of September to return. The Football Association said in a statement: "Liverpool forward Luis Suarez has not appealed the suspension issued to him by an independent regulatory commission this week. "A three-person independent regulatory commission upheld the FA's claim that a suspension of three matches was clearly insufficient and the player will now serve a further seven first-team matches in addition to the standard three. "I hope all the people I have offended will grant me forgiveness and I repeat my personal apology to Branislav." Luis Suarez "The suspension begins with immediate effect and applies to Liverpool FC's next 10 domestic first-team fixtures. "The FA intends to publicise the independent regulatory commission's written reasons in due course." Manager Brendan Rodgers had spoken emotively in defence of his player at a press conference on Thursday, accusing the FA panel of bias and of "throwing (Suarez) to the garbage". But despite a remarkable display of support from his manager, Suarez is understood to have heeded legal advice to accept his fate. A follow-up statement from Suarez, released on his Facebook page, pointed to a perceived inconsistency between his punishment and those in "past cases where players have actually been seriously injured". But the Uruguay international struck a contrite tone overall, saying: "I hope all the people I have offended will grant me forgiveness and I repeat my personal apology to Branislav. "I know all the things happening to me in England will help me improve my conduct on the field. "I decided to accept the ban because, whilst 10 games is clearly greater than bans given in past cases where players have actually been seriously injured, I acknowledge that my actions were not acceptable. I do not want to give the wrong impression to people by making an appeal." Suarez, who was banned for eight games last season for racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra, will not be seen again in the Premier League until the end of September. His statement went on: "I really want to learn from what has happened in the last two-and-a-half years. Many things have been said and written about me, I just tried to do my best on the field." Liverpool's managing director Ian Ayre said: "We are all disappointed at the severity of the punishment and in particular the differing standards that have been applied across various previous incidents. "Luis is an important member of our team and nothing has changed in that regard. We are committed to helping him improve his conduct and he will be given our full support. "We look forward to him returning to the team next season when he is available for selection." http://www1.skysports.com/football/...rpool-striker-Luis-Suarez-accepts-10-game-ban ........................... I think no matter what else is said or unsaid it is pretty clear to me that the standard of journalism in this country is quite low when i have to say that sky have been the most balanced site dealing with this case. I have no issue with this ban and lets be clear the sequence of events occurring this week have been speedy, and conducted professionally. The FA dealt with the case and the player apologised immediately, and after holding his tongue personally until today when the case is now dealt with is fine by me too. In the meantime we have seen all sorts of stories, "cartoons" out right lies and frankly completely biased reporting through the British media. I have to say the BBCs version of the story shows something at the heart of that organisation while the sky one is what i'd expect. It gives all the quote and facts, is thorough and leaves it up the the reader to make their mind up. Suarez deserves his ban, he is "contrite" but clearly feels harshly treated. thats fair enough think next time. I have to say the panels reasoning behind the ban length was a little troubling in respect of judging events not on suzrez past but whats gone on this season. that suggest to me that had someone not tripped a ref OR had suarez bit someone on day one his ban would have been shorter potentially. thats how i read it. I personally would have been happy to hear he got his ban based on prior offences but we all have opinions. My opinion right now is to delete BBC from my bookmarks and go with sky in the future.
BBC has gone downhill very quickly over the last few years both in terms of the journalism and the technology of their website (the number of times the score is wrong on their live feed is a joke).
Anyway, let's not derail mito's thread any further. I have a soft spot for the BBC stemming from my childhood. I still think they make more than enough quality stuff to justify their existence, generally. However, I do think that their sports reporting is way below the standard it should be, but then I tend to think that of almost all sports journalism.
BBC's football coverage changed for the worst the day they moved from London to the place in the link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/jobs/north/
Lol yeah, back on topic. Its the lack of actual sports under their control. The BBC is primarily a visual media format but they've lost sport after sport which means all the quality front men have gone too. All they are left with is their highlights programmes & a website both of which they have had to sensationalise to compete with a very packed market of newspaper online sites and fan created forums. Just reporting the news, sports or otherwise just doesn't attract people's attention in an age where twitter lets you know what's going on by the second. I mean 15 years ago you would have heard the report (of the report) on the BBC news first, then read the opinions in the papers the next day. Now the only market the BBC can afford is the opinion market which means they no longer need journalists they need "expert opinions" Interestingly the BBC still does educational and informative better than anyone. Want a documentary, exposé or wildlife programme the BBC is still the very best. I mean I started watching some historical Volcano thing on 5 tonight and switched off when they tried to make it like a disaster movie....but I guarantee you, wait until Attenborough dies; he'll be replaced with the same "lets jazz nature up for the kids" bullshit that they've done with everything else.....
Agree 100% There is no one in the world that can snatch hold of your attention and keep it even if he is talking about grass His work is unmatched, he is irreplaceable.
You're right about Dave -a giant amongst men. Sadly, I also agree that when he's gone that natural world documentaries will slide inexorably downhill. The trend to try and make a thriller out of everything is really tedious. Oops, sorry again mito.
MITO replace your BBC Sport favourite wit the Euronews one At least their articles put in some balance, this one about Cameron's comments with some balance from Rodgers thrown in unlike the BBCs appalling efforts to make Suarez look like a monster. http://www.euronews.com/sport/1937200-suarez-set-appalling-example-says-british-prime-minister/ I agree with Brendan that the comments by these high profile people have had an effect on the length of the ban and the vilification of Suarez. Also when you go into the Euronews Sport you don't see 20 Man United are great articles and another 20 Luis Suarez is a monster articles. no doubt someone will see this post as some slate on Man United or some defence of Suarez
THE ONLY THING YOU CAN LICK... no noble was wrong... no vaginal licking for you round here. anyway, i have used eurosport for their summer transfer page which is better than sky's endless tv crap.
I don't get why people are surprised that Cameron got involved and are wondering why. It is a perfect distraction, jump on the bandwagon to draw attention away from himself and draw away criticism from himself by helping ostracize a figure that is probably more unliked than he. It's perfect ****ing politics. Another excuse for him to squirm out of PMQ again. Who mentioned anything about the economy last week? More important things at hand: Suarez bit someone. BIT!
I agree. its an easy question to answer and take up 30 seconds to a minute of interview time that could be spent askign WTF is he doing. Mind you.... we have to admit to things whilst grumbling about him... he did deliver on hillsborough once the petitions forced debate AND sorry but if you compare our economy and debt and unemployment to the rest of europe we are actually doing well. 7.whatever% unemployment v 14% and 80% debt to gdp compared to 120% is frankly not bad in this time. its like the US so while the guy ought not to stick an oar in its merely political expediency. a good week for him then.. wouldn't we all do it? did you know according to NHS information 5% of all cases of bites in the Uk are caused by humans? fights, hand bites, ear bites etc.... 80% are dogs and 15 % cats. if 6000 dog bits are reported you can easily do the math and come up with a figure of 375 human bites a year! OR 376 now you include suarez... of course all the ones that occured on new years are just as much Suarez's fault and the ones that WILL occur this weekend. don't blame the drink, drugs or thuggery on the street. lets blame the foreigner. Its STILL suarez's own fault and he deserves his ban. but if we hear lazy hacks blaming some drunken yobs bitten off ear on suarez on monday you just know its racist journalism
Don't forget that this is the **** who said of the Hillsborough families that they were like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.
All I'll say on this is that part of the FA's reasoning was they took Ashley Barnes' 6 game suspension into consideration when he "tripped" the ref a month or so ago. They said that the Suarez incident was "significantly more serious" than the Suarez bite, and also by banning Barnes for 6 matches are confirming they think that tripping up a ref (not kicking, pushing, but tripping) is actually worse than racism (which is only a 4 game ban judging by the fact that's what Terry got). This is very odd and I'm surprised Clarke Carlisle and that other bloe from the Black Lawyers association os whereever he was from, didn't pipe up when this happened. So also what they are saying that Barnes' trip is "significantly worse" than a 2 footed career ending tackle which will normally only brings a 3 game ban. I don't disagree that biting someone is worse than tripping someone, but the fact they think tripping someone is worse than endangering their career is (twice as bad infact) is what I find very strange by the FA. Basing Suarez's ban on the Barnes incident makes sense, but only when the punishment for Barnes is actually fitting of the crime. 4 games for racism, 6 for tripping someone, 10 for biting. I think most people would prefer to be tripped than bitten and bitten than racially abused but the punishments don't match that.
