Football 2011-2012

[eFestivals]

They've become a total joke club. The Celtic of England.

But hopefully one day they'll reflect on how they've handled this and wished they had handled it differently.

Even now they accept the charge and punishment yet still plead innocence and attack Evra. If they truely feel that strongly about things then they should be appealing all the way.

While they might now wish they'd handled it differently, there's nothing they can change about what's already happened.

From where things are now they've done about the best thing it's possible for them to do short of branding one of their players a racist.

By the rules they've signed up to they're obliged to accept the judgement. But nothing of those rules says that they're also obliged to admit guilt along with accepting that judgement.

Processes like these do get things wrong - particularly when there's no fully-damning evidence as is the case here - so it remains a reasonable possibility that the judgement is wrong (tho I don't think Suarez is innocent of the charge myself).

Considering other news yesterday - the Stephen Lawrence murder trail - I think it was a good day to put this issue to bed, and the reality of things means that how they've gone about it was how they (or any other club) would be likely to do it.

If Terry is found guilty in court I don't expect Chelsea to do things in much of a different way, even if there's damning evidence (which it sounds like there might be) in that case.

[Benj]

Why is it a joke? They're allowed to maintain he's innocent, if that's what they wish to do (and I'd hope they're doing that because that's what they honestly believe is the case).

I know you're someone who thinks the law should always be respected, but please do tell me how much respect you'd have for it if it found you guilty of an offence that you believed yourself innocent of. ... oh, I forget, any law is so perfect that you could neverr even be falsely accused.

However much you might feel the law should be respected, it's beyond all doubt that the law and similar processes get things wrong at times - and while I don't personally feel the verdict here is wrong (based on the little I've read), what you or I think means nothing towards the truth of things. Suarez knows in his heart whether he's guilty or not, and him and Evra are the only ones who can ever know the real truth of the matter.

[eFestivals]

Does that mean you condone the use of the word "negro" in Great Britain?

The word is not *ONLY* racist in meaning, even within the UK. Perhaps you should try getting your head around that true fact?

Having said that, I wouldn't say that I condone use of the word. I'd say it's unwise to use it, but mainly because of the unthinking attitudes that some people (such as you) are displaying towards it's use.

[eFestivals]

In the context of a spanish conversation in which it is not offensive yes. As an abusive term or in English- God no.

Oh c'mon - wise up.

This thread is full of people who want to condemn Suarez for racism on the basis that Suarez supposedly doesn't get what racism is, and yet many of those same people are displaying that they don't get what racism is by their unthinking attitude to the non-racist use of that word. It's laughable.

There should be no problem with using that word in a non-racist manner. The only reason it's unwise to use the word is because some people can't differentiate between what is racism and what isn't, as comments like the condemnation of any use of that word gets to show.

[eFestivals]

Its the first paragraph, they are squaring blaming the FA suggesting he was always going to be found guilty, feeding the Ferguson/FA conspiracy with the "Manchester United Player" comment and then following it with the statment saying they won't appeal...

So you’ve got a multi-million pound brand which they believe has solely been tarnished by a corrupt organisation but they don’t want to take it above their heads to court?? Ok…

would taking it to an appeal tarnish them any less even if they won? With the attitudes being displayed here and elsewhere, the answer is clearly no.

Added to that are the limited appeal options. Liverpool have no way to appeal the judgement thru the FA, they are only able to appeal the punishment.

Their only way to appeal the judgement is thru the Court of Arbitration, which carries the risk of them reaching the same subjective opinion (it's only that because there's no smoking gun evidence to prove guilt or innocence beyond all doubt), and further tarnishing the club.

They're allowed to continue to believe Suarez innocent (which I don't, just to be clear), no differently to how the Guildford Four continued to claim their innocence.

From where things had got to, Liverpool have taken the best way out - for them, for football, and possibly for anti-racism too.

[eFestivals]

I'm not wholly satisfied, he should have been banned for more games IMHO and forced to do some work with the community.

And it's very worrying that people who are disagreeing with those who are defending Suarez are being branded as trolls. Very worrying.

Your anti-racism stance is admirable. You knowledge of what is racist and what isn't is not.

So yes, you are trolling when you declare that to say 'negro' is always racist, as you have done.

Perhaps you'll get to learn as much out of this incident as Suarez might. I hold out more hope for Suarez with this tbh.

[eFestivals]

Even though he admitted it?

what part of "the word negro is not by default a racist word" are you finding so difficult to understand?

Him admitting saying the word does not make that admission an admission of racism.

(that is ONLY a comment on the word and how it can be used, it's not me saying Suarez is not guilty).

[The Nal]

From where things had got to, Liverpool have taken the best way out - for them, for football, and possibly for anti-racism too.

[ralph250]

The FA appeals board had the power to overturn the verdict, not just the sentence. All getting into the ground of Wednesbury unreasonableness, acting ultra vires etc though.

Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1947] 1 KB 223

http://www.justis.com/data-coverage/iclr-s4821028.aspx

Backed up here.

https://twitter.com/#!/FootballLaw

[eFestivals]

And comolli and kuyt both reported that luis said "because you are black" in two different languages

which could have been an Ali G style joke!!!!

From the little I've read of the words that were supposedly exchanged between the players, that's exactly how I've taken it to be.

That doesn't mean that I think Evra was wrong to take offence from those words. I can see completely how he might still be offended - but (from just that one sentence) it can also make Suarez rightfully innocent in his own mind.

Beyond that sentence the other words Suarez is supposed to have said make him beyond doubt guilty of racist language, but those first words might not be the insult they can be read as being.

[eFestivals]

3 points in Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea. Going to be interesting. Think the order of the top 6 may stay the way it is to be fair.

yep, that's what I'm thinking too - tho Arsenal might overhaul Chelsea.

But of course the window is open, and who each team buys (or not) could change things around.

[eFestivals]

They can... It is very much their right to defend the indefensible... But that is what they are doing...

Not if they believe Suarez's version it isn't.

115 pages of evidence that left Liverpool NOWHERE to go with an appeal.... Speaks for itself...

Well done to the FA....

No, the rules that Liverpool signed up to - you know, the thing that you like to keep mentioning - are what left Liverpool nowhere to go with an appeal.

Try a little bit of consistency with your statements, eh?

Those 115 pages gets to show that the panel have reached an opinion, nothing more. But don't tell me, you believe your own opinions to be 100% faultless. PMSL.

I agree with the opinion they've reached from the little I've read, but unlike you I'm smart enough to realise that it is only an opinion and nothing more. There is no 'beyond all doubt' evidence.

[Benj]

Oh c'mon - wise up.

This thread is full of people who want to condemn Suarez for racism on the basis that Suarez supposedly doesn't get what racism is, and yet many of those same people are displaying that they don't get what racism is by their unthinking attitude to the non-racist use of that word. It's laughable.

There should be no problem with using that word in a non-racist manner. The only reason it's unwise to use the word is because some people can't differentiate between what is racism and what isn't, as comments like the condemnation of any use of that word gets to show.

[Benj]

As someone who "hates" Man U.... I have always followed Liverpool as a second team of sorts... My mums side of the family are all from Liverpool as well so I had that connection. Despite claims I am bias by some.

I can't stomach the stance they have took on this... Not a single sorry out of the player or club...

A simple "sorry for causing offence but I didn't mean it" would do... There current stance is distasteful...

[eFestivals]

What's your opinion on employees of LFC changing their statements, following Suarez's changing his? Hardly the actions of a body confident in their case

it defo doesn't look good - but it's possible that it's come about due to an honest mistake due to people misunderstanding stuff that's not in their native language and where their Spanish-Spanish differs from Uruguayan-Spanish.

TBH, I'd have thought that if it was some sort of collusion to try and prove him innocent I'd have expected them to have done a better job with it, but who knows?

LFC have handled this terribly and will have lost a lot of respect from people throughout the game and beyond.

The statement they put out after the verdict leaves a lot to be desired, as does the t-shirt thing. They could defo have done a lot better.

But all this is new ground for football, so I guess hoping for perfection would be wanting too much.

It will be interesting to see how Chelsea, handle things with Terrry, should he be found guilty, at least they have a test case as to how to run the PR campaign now and it won't follow LFC's!

yup - there's lots that Chelsea can learn from this.

The circumstances around the Terry case are vastly different tho. It's better for Terry because the burden of proof is much higher in a court so it's hugely more likely he'll get off if the evidence is of the same strength as it was with Suarez.

Here's betting that Barry Moron will manage to post lots of bollocks around that case while refusing to take into account that the processes are wildly different. To him, guilty only means guilty, the process by which someone is found guilty is of no relevance.

[eFestivals]

The FA clearly publish their rules and regulations...

Liverpool and their players agree to them...

They are then found guilty by an independent panel applying the rules and regulations... A panel Liverpool had a choice over who sat on it...

And they continue to support their player... refuse to appeal...

And you think this is a good day for anti-racism ?

Sorry but I disagree....

Do you think it is 100% impossible for that panel - no matter who might have agreed to it - to get the verdict wrong?

I guess you must do. Nothing else would back up your view that Liverpool should state that Suarez is guilty.

[eFestivals]

I agree but they shot themselves in the foot to begin with. That ridiculous statement after the verdict

absolutely. One of the most stupid things I've seen in football.

Pool in trouble without a striker. Some nice vintage Liverpool pass n move play last night until the last third where they didn't know what to do with the ball. Downing was fucking awful by the way. And another shocking dive from him too. Not reported of course because hes English. Alan Smith said "Theres not much in that is there?" and that was it.

I'm not sure they're in that much trouble without a striker - they got more shots in last night than City did.

I'd say that kenny fucked up with his selection last night. Why no Bellend? It was a match made for him ... as someone said on the BBC live page last night, "wind him up and let him go".

I couldn't believe it when Kuyt was taken off and not Downing to bring Bellend on. Downing is fucking awful, I can only think that Kenny sticks with him cos he makes some nice play most of the time before wasting the ball. And yep, a dive.

Mind you, the City pen looked like it might have been a dive too from the replays. The only thing making me think it wasn't was Skrtl's reaction.

They defo need to buy a goalscorer tho - I was saying that before last season ended.

[eFestivals]

Yup, all fair points, not in this case though as linguistic experts state that the words Suarez used were-

"considered racially offensive in Uruguay and other regions in of Latin America".

yup - I was merely pointing out that it's not a racist word by default, either in Uruguay or the UK.

For me, from the reports I've read of the report, Suarez's use was racist.

[eFestivals]

You seem to think that Liverpool could not of overturned the verdict on appeal... You are wrong... That was possible under the procedures...Namely rule K...http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/21/luis-suarez-liverpool-appeal-options?newsfeed=true

you can't read, can you?

Which part of this didn't you understand....?

It is important to note that Suárez can only appeal against the level of the sanction not the actual verdict.

I see ralph's post above, which I'll look at in a sec, and maybe he's right. As it happens, me saying that the verdict can't be appealed came from the exact article you've chosen to quote, which says precisely what I've been saying and doesn't say what you think it does.

[eFestivals]

They could of got it wrong sure... As could the criminal courts...

Well then, reign in your vitriol.

There is no damning evidence against Suarez, there is only the considered opinion of the panel - an opinion that could be wrong, like all opinions.

And because I'm able to recognise that it could be wrong, I'm also able to recognise that Liverpool are not being unreasonable by refusing to accept the verdict as correct.

My opinion is that the verdict is correct, but my opinion has been shaped by that panel's opinion - just as yours has.

[eFestivals]

The FA appeals board had the power to overturn the verdict, not just the sentence. All getting into the ground of Wednesbury unreasonableness, acting ultra vires etc though.

Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1947] 1 KB 223

http://www.justis.co...r-s4821028.aspx

Backed up here.

https://twitter.com/#!/FootballLaw

are you sure? Rule K allows an FA judgement to be appealed to an independent tribunal.

Given that this judgement wasn't an FA judgement but the judgement of an independent tribunal, it doesn't look to me as tho anything of this is applicable (and that sports lawyer that the Guardian used agrees).

[eFestivals]

No... You are wrong...While a "standard" appeal would only reduce the number of games he is banned for... An appeal under rule K would over turn the verdict BUT he would probably have to serve the ban while waiting for the appeal.So he would have his name cleared.Do try to read...

even if that's right, it becomes a somewhat pointless appeal from the point of view of the club, as they don't become any better off by going thru that process. And of course there's always a risk of losing the appeal (even if Suarez is fully innocent - as you've posted to admit).

So taking the punishment on on the chin while not accepting that the verdict is right is a realistic option and a sensible option, as it pits the whole thing to bed rather than dragging it out for months with all the hostility around it.

[eFestivals]

They are being unresonable by refusing to accept the verdict AND not appealing IMO... Its why I questioned if they are in fact bringing the sport into disrupte by doing so... Its shows NO respect for the procedures and rules they agreed to.

They're respecting the procedures and rules by their acceptance of them. Nothing in those rules says that they have to admit guilt along with accepting a verdict and the associated sanction.

And I suggest that you should try for yourself going thru a legal process where you know that the charges are false and based only in lies but where you are found guilty, to find out if you want to put yourself thru the whole thing again which has the possibility of the same outcome.

Sometimes the best option from all angles is simply to put it behind you and move on, even if you've been wrongfully convicted.

[The Nal]

I'm not sure they're in that much trouble without a striker - they got more shots in last night than City did.

[eFestivals]

But none with any real quality did they? None I can really remember. A were few blocked well by Kompany mind you, cracking player.

nah, few that were any cop ... the only decent one I can remember was from Kuyt that Kompany blocked.

They need a striker, but one that can actually score. I'm not sure who there is.