The thing about this is that they have found Suarez guilty on a "balance of probability" as they call it. They haven't found him guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". Strikes me as odd as I thought you were innocent until proven guilty but this doesn't seem to suggest that? Surely if it is not 100% certain that he is guilty then they can't charge him? I'm not a Lawyer so no idea if this is common practice but to me that saying means nothing if you can be found guilty on a probability...
Civil cases are based on the balance of probabilities. Its only criminal law where it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. If you're 95% sure someone is guilty then in criminal law you'd have to find them innocent but in civil you can find them "on the balance of probabilities" guilty. After reviewing the evidence there was enough proof for a 3 man commission to decide that Suarez was probably guilty... and in all probability he is.
Having read the FA report and the majority of the posts here, it is cleat to me that there are enough inconsistancies and assumptions used by the FA for either/or Suarez and Liverpool to reject the finding and take further action. The next BIG question will be what type of action that will be. Why return to a process (ie an appeal) when the judging body has condoned actions from the complainant, already made judgement on the character of the defendant and placed it's own considerations at the heart of the "judgement"? In those circumstancems. - and they do appear to exist in the decision - it would not be equitable for the defendant to place themselves in the bounds of a flawed system. The question then becomes should can Suarez go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport or is there another option via the UK legal system? Are the FA guilty of failing in their duty of care to non-English speaking players by not issuing those players with advice as to what is and is not acceptable in the use of language? The FA. Charge. Is that Suarez used racist terms WHEN TRANSLATED into English but there is no prescribed list of those terms issued by the FA. Evra himself has changed his story as to his interpretation of the words used and admitted using a phrase (without sanction) which when interpreated would be unacceptable according to this ruling. Is the FA statement that they do not believe that Suarez is a racist sufficient given that they must have been aware of the likely media response - which according to the above posts has been realised? Whilst the decision is based upon the balance of probabilities there do appear to be flaws and i nconsistanacies as to how that balance was reached. Therefore any successful appeal would have to challenge the very process that was used to reach it. Do you seriously believe that the FA. Would accept an argument based upon the contention that their own system was flawed? I said at the start of this whole affair that it would get very messy indeed. Just how messy we will discover in the next 2 weeks.
Foredeckdave you've made me break my self imposed ban! As a good a manager I get my staff when inducted to sign that they've read & understood the terms & conditions of employment and description of job: which includes all the rules relating to bullying, sexism ,racism etc. if they didn't read it but signed?: their tough luck if they break it. Now! Do you think this FA: who quite obviously have a set of rules& obligations: make sure people have read & understood them? No me either. And this leads to another point that has disturbed me: who IS the employer (& has said obligations) is it LFC or the FA? If its LFC then the FA aren't held to employer obligations? Does someone on here know an equivalent situation in the real world?
Dirtyfrank, This is not a question of the legal relationship/employment obligations between Liverpool and Suarez. The FA are the holders of Suarez's registration to play in the UK according to THEIR regulations. To that degree they put themselves in the same position as the UK government when they grant a work permit to non-EU nationals and other qualifying immigrants. In the Suarez case, whilst FA rules exist, their interpretation is only made more clear by 'case law' and only have effect in the UK. This 'case law' is made in the light of supposed UK cultural norms - some of which are not even agreed with by the UK population. Therefore, my argument was that if the FA are going to adopt regulations that are not directly in accord with UK law then they do have a responsibility to advise players from other countries of that fact. There is no way that Suarez or Evra for that matter could go to a lawyer and seek clarification on the use of a foreign language and the interpretation of the meaning that may be applied by the FA prior to signing their contracts. Hence the point you made is totally meaningless.
ForDeckDave My point about a code of conduct is this. If the FA hands that list of rules & requirements to each player or insists that clubs do (& can prove it) then they have allowed access to said rules the same as I have as an employer and my code covers not only specifics relating to my workplace but covers equitable employment legislation/ harassment etc If you are telling me there is a legal requirement to provide codes of conduct in a foreign employees own language fair enough that I did not know! If the FA had stuck to JUST the objective view of the specific rule about reference to colour & given only the 4 game ban; as long as they could prove Suarez had access to the rules I think they would have stood on solid ground. If not then issue is cloudy Where I agree Suarez has a case is when they went further than the rule itself suggested and seemed to then contradict their original "objective" stance to justify extending punishment. As for inequitable treatment between employees. My direct experience suggests that although the FA could be sanctioned for not treating Suarez the same as other employees as long as they could prove the way HE was treated was the Right way his punishment could still stand. As I have stated numerous times on this thread I believe once they went past the "objective" & 4 game ban they weakened this position.
By moving away from the 'objectivity' test and then compounding the situation by accepting one sides statements of intent whilst rejecting the other's leaves this decision wide open to challenge. Evra has admitted that he started the cycle of verbal abuse. Not only has the FA sanctioned that abuse by recording it but taking no action they have also sanctioned Evra's use of threatening behaviour in the goalmouth which led to Kuyt's intervention. Now Suarez has accepted that he responded but only Evra has been allowed to claim the 'heat' of the situation. Evra has been allowed to change the very nature of his claim (ie the term bigger) without any damage to his credibility whereas Suarez is believed to be less credible solely because of his changes. There are just a few of the essential flaws in the process used to reach this decision. It will make a wonderful case study for law students but the implications in real life are far more concerning.
I am afraid people are not seeing the wood for the trees. Both cases had inconsistencies. there is not 100% clarity on the motivation for saying some words (whether conciliation or racist attitude...) Why don't we just look at what Suarez has admitted saying and doing and ask ourselves whether as men involved in a fight or confrontation we in a similar position would have thought these were nice/conciliatory words? The facts are he said the words negro 7 times in a 2 minute confrontational period . Evra said it was 10 times but the commssion could only establish 7. We can dispute or appeal the length or severity of the punishment. But the guilt of the defendant is not in doubt. Also let's also accept that in the report Suarez has admitted that he will not ever repeat his actions and words again in a football pitch. Ignorance of the rules or the law is no defense so we can assume that Suarez has admitted that he did wrong on this occasion.
Well lets see they didn't brand him as racist, just using racially abusive language. So he can't sue for defamation. They could argue the hearing was irrational or procedural unfair but the ban would probably take place during that period and there's no evidence of that actually happening. Its much harder to argue against the balance of probabilities than it is beyond all reasonable doubt. They could try going to the high court, but the high court has no authority over the FA and has admitted as much. CAS is for arbitration, both sides need to agree to go there and along with the European court of human rights its unlikely the case would even be accepted by them. Im pretty sure they can't appeal the decision to the FA either, just the length of the ban and seems the report indicated they were considering a longer ban, that's not necessarily the best idea. Unless you have some new and concrete proof an appeal is likely to be deemed frivolous. Plenty of options, but the FA is well covered and no options is likely to result in a magical overturning of the result.
I think that the best thing that Liverpool could do now is what another poster here suggested, get Suarez to issue an apology stating that he was unsure of words used and didn't mean to offend in a racial way etc. The longer this drags on the more damage is made to the reputation of the club outside of their own fans of course.
"The facts are he said the words negro 7 times in a 2 minute confrontational period . Evra said it was 10 times but the commssion could only establish 7.! Will people stop saying this! That ****wit Lawton was at uit again in the Independent saying the same thing. It is not a FACT that Suarez said negro seven times - the bent, united-sponsored commission said that they thought Evra's account was more probable, therefore the assumption is, in their judgement, that Suarez did say it more than once. There is no physical, unrefutable evidence of witnesses or video that Suarez said negro any more than the once he 'confessed' to. And he certainly NEVER used the word '******' at all, despite Evra's first accusations that he changed when shown the video evidence and what he is supposed to have said to his teammates and the referee. The commission did not 'establish' that Suarez said anything of sort seve, five, ten or sixty three times. they accepted evra's frequently changed testimony that he had.
the commission claimed that suarez' statement was contradicted by kuyt so they believed kuyt - they then say that they did not believe kuyt when he said he was certain he heard evra saying to the referee that he was booking him because he was black - seems they have selected bits from statements that suit them and dismissed others as unimportant - they can't say they believe the part of kuyts statement about what suarez told him (in dutch) and then didmiss kuyts evidence that he was certain that evra accused the referee of a racist act
Suarez's story not only changed repeatedly with every new piece of evidence it was downright contradicted by Evra's, his own, the refs, video footage, Kuyt's and Comolli's evidence. Suarez was "unreliable", "inconsistent", "unsustainable" and "simply incredible" whereas Evra was described as being "credible" and "for the most part consistent". And yet here you are trying to paint Suarez as a poor little saint and Evra a lying scumbag. Incredible. Heres a good read for you. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...l-where-line-of-decency-is-drawn-6283931.html
james lawton article Not when you have been found, irrefutably, to have said, without the interruption of any other word, "black, black, black..." We do not yet know whether Liverpool will go ahead with an appeal after their initially emphatic reaction to the verdict – and risk further punishment of the player, surely a certainty given the ruling that two further offences of this nature could lead to Suarez's permanent banning from English football. What we should be able to believe is that all of English football, or at least those parts of it which shared Dalglish's confusion about the difference between right and wrong, are now utterly clear about what is unacceptable. Not the least disturbing aspect of the Suarez affair – and the one that now hangs over the future of Chelsea and England captain John Terry – has been the volume and the nature of much of the reaction. Much of it, you had to conclude, was fuelled by thinking implicit in Dalglish's question. Could someone explain to adult professionals quite how they conform to the rules of the society in which they find themselves? How pathetic that would sound on the lips of the parent of an errant child, one oblivious to the feelings of anyone but itself and armed with the belief that nothing mattered in life but an individual's own instincts on how to behave. the evidence is now irrefutable - dalglish was asking the question in the context of what evra admitted to saying to suarez and the fa failing to charge him
Suarez whilst being a good footballer, is a persistant diver, who also bites people on a football pitch when he becomes angry. He has also been shown to be a cheat whilst representing his country. Yet now after being given a ban for using racist language, LFC fans will still try to paint him as a saint. Sorry LFC fans i can`t think of any other player in the EPL who is more deserving of a ban like this.
Suarez behaviour deserved a full-season ban. Trying to get an opponent sent off using racism is disgusting
This is exactly what he was referring to you dipsh*t! the panel have ludicrously "filled in the blanks" with fantasy in the absence of proof. Accepting for a moment that we believe Suarez said all they "guess" he did they somehow pluck the motive of trying to get Evra sent off WOW that's crystal ball/tarot reading presumption at its best. Depending on the specific moment why not just a yellow card or as Suarez deviously knows how easily to manipulate Evra why didn't the panel magically deduce that although not a racist intent Suarez real motive was to make Evras head explode: there's as much supporting evidence for That declaration as there is for the one they spring forth!
Heres a good read for you. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...n-6283931.html I've already referred to the Lawton Article - not one word of it adds to any of the aspersions he was already casting before the 'verdict' of this quasi-court was announced, let alone further gloating after the Ferguson Association/Independent Commission eventually rustled up some unsubstantiated, partisan conclusions they'd jumped to, buried in over a 100 pages of cack that they hoped everyone would skip past before they got to the self-justifying summary that could have been written by Lawton, Martin Luther Ferguson and St Evra the Sudacslayer themselves. And, vicariously, it almost certainly was - on the 'balance of probabilities' anyway. The word 'irrefutable' in this context is as subjective as the reasoning and reductive logic used by this kangaroo court. Same verdict in a PROPER legal court (even a civil one) and I'd agree with the irrefutable part Not this star chamber though - it's been like watching watching the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird, with Suarez as Tom Robinson. But here I stand - if Liverpool DON'T support Suarez in this, come whatever the consequences, I for one will walk away from this club and close the door without looking back. I would hope Kenny resigns too, as a matter of honour. As as previously mentioned, we've been here before as the convenient whipping boys of the country after Hillsborough. The same papers and hacks that are castigating us now are the same vipers that tried to paint us in a corner to condemn our own fans for breaking down the gates on the 'irrefutable' word of the FA and the police. Then when that lie was exposed they wanted us to turn our backs on our dead because they'd picked the pockets of the dead and peed on our brave boys in blue - this time on the 'irrefutable' evidence of the police again and News International (sic). We've never been forgiven for not cravenly accepting the noise from the established powers, and this is a fight we'll never win, in a conventional sense anyway. But, and with no apologies to that harpie Powar who reckons our international standing is being effected - **** off. I've been proud of our international, multi-racial, worldwide following since I was a child. I remember Micheal palin going to mud huts in Africa in the 80's and saying the only thing they knew about England was the Queen and Liverpool Football Club and beaming with pride. But **** each and everyone of them if they are superficial enough to think that this is even remotely really about race: they're not the supporters we need or want anyway and should jump onto a plastic organisation such as Chelsea or United if they want a glory tour with no test on their loyalty or faithfulness. If there are any Liverpool 'fans', including the owners, who want to walk away from a long fight, the consequence of losing being that Ferguson has now hit upon a formula and an acquiessent FA as to nobble every team he deems fit, AND WILL USE IT RUTHLESSLY AS IS HIS NATURE, then support another club where expediency means you leave a man twisting in wind on the accusations of cynics, liars and pissheads like Lawton. Then again, if the forces of United's evil empire DO force a humiliating, forlock-tugging climbdown by our owners it's maybe me who needs to form a queue of one at the exit. I hope, for their honour and dignity, that Kenny and Suarez leave too, and leave the remaining cowards who know nothing about our club's impossible victories the football club that United will allow them to have.
