Luis Suárez Judgement Not Perverse

It’s an irony that Liverpool’s QC did not seek to attack the veracity of Evra given the bile of fans and the Liverpool management. That’s probably the only thing they could have done and even then with an entry level of 4 game ban at best they would have tempered the ban.

The panel made great play that Evra’s evidence was credible and consistent. It was also consistent with his reactions to the events that unfolded on the pitch. Whereas Suárez account contradicted to a degree contemporaneous accounts of Comolli and Dirk Kuyt – Comolli does not come out well in my view either.

Nonetheless even someone with my low view of Evra finds clearly that the term ‘negro’ was used abusively to him, several times. The abuse was considered and not a one off action which in view of the minimum ban being 4 matches a ban of 8 encompassing many cup ties and avoiding a tedious build up to a clash at Old Trafford seems not to be perverse.

The FA has ignored all the other insults offered by Evra and allegedly Kuyt. However as we know sledging in sport is a fact of life. The FA is right to draw the line at racial abuse in my opinion. Calling someone a ‘cunt’ may be distasteful but its not going to cause the damage on the playground or estates that allowing the likes of Suárez to get off would do.

In the end Evra should get credit for drawing attention to this. Gordon Taylor and Blatter would have everyone shake hands over a cup of tea and brush it under the carpet. It should not be.

Suárez on pitch behaviour is among the worst I have seen anyway. What would be nice is if he were to come out and accept he did wrong and that what he did has no place on a football field. That would be a positive outcome. If he and Liverpool allow this to be a everyone’s against us then that will show the complete lack of perspective of football fans.

I’d like to think John Henry and New England Sports Ventures will consider the behaviour of the Director of Football, manager, club and the players in this.

Heads should roll.

2 thoughts on “Luis Suárez Judgement Not Perverse

  1. twsi Post author

    It’s 2 match minimum for insulting behaviour and with an aggravating factor of a racial dimension it’s 4. Saurez abused him 7 times in 3 or 4 instances. It’s unprecedented so the punishment is hard to judge but with a minimum of 4 hard to give him less than 6 or so given the repeated nature of the verbal assault.

    Evra’s account was consistent including with his own unprepared body language etc. As I say the only surprise his found to being an unreliable witness previously and being sent home a disgrace from the World Cup seems to have not been raised by Liverpool’s QC. However it’s clear with the inconsistencies from Saurez, Kuyt and Comolli’s accounts he would likely have been found guilty, 1 occasion would have been 4 matches at least.

    Be interesting if the FA charge Terry even if legal level proof proves elusive for the CPS et al. As our leading player in some senses he should expect as much if he charged by the FA.

    Reply
  2. allseeingi

    I find that there are various inconsistencies in the written judgement and various errors of fact, one instance being the translation of “Dale, negro!” after Evra threatens Suarez with violence, which would be translated as “Bring it on, mate (dark one – being closer to the actual meaning than the way it has been portrayed as negro, blackie or nigger”. There is no evidence that Suarez used the term more than once, only hearsay and a constructed review of video footage which fails to find the offensive words. Key within the ‘sentence’ is the FA’s wish to set out a deterrent with the severity of the ban. If Suarez had been sent off his entry level would have been two matches, double that would have been the normal tariff for this offense – eight matches is unreasonable and unwarranted by the nature of the offense according to the FA’s own rules and the nature of the evidence offered. The panel lends much more weight to Evra’s deportment and consistency as a witness (plaintiff?) than it does to Suarez, one wonders why? Evra in various actions in the past has shown himself to be vindictive and somewhat unreliable in giving evidence. As to bringing the game into disrepute, surely there must be some sanction taken against Evra who chose to publicize ( and exaggerating as he did it) a perceived wrongdoing, in advance of due FA process, via foreign broadcast media, thereby, bringing the game in England and a fellow professional into international disrepute? The questions and holes in the FA position in natural law are too numerous to individually quantify. As for heads rolling, I agree, it is now time to hear the solid thump of the England captains head hitting the deck, since that charge has now been brought by the DPP and a member of the public, as well as being plain to see to any member of the public with the ability to lip read expletives.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>