Publish and be damning. Printed on the FA website on New Year's Eve, the written reasons behind Luis Suárez’s eight-match ban for racially abusing Patrice Evra suggests Liverpool have little hope of mounting a successful appeal even if they work hard to widen the “he said, they said” loopholes in the 115-page report.
The commission came out so emphatically against Suárez, condemning his evidence as “unreliable” and “inconsistent” and, at one point, “simply incredible”, that it would be almost inconceivable that the FA would reduce the punishment. The commission simply believed Evra’s word against Suárez, throwing in some new video footage of the incident to back up its case.
Liverpool’s lawyers could attack the “probability” element of the report and revisit point 223, focusing on the difference between someone being racist or simply using racist language, but it remains difficult reading for Anfield. The commission even considered a “greater suspension”.
If Liverpool decide against appealing, Suárez will be available to play Manchester United at Old Trafford on Feb 11. If they overcome Oldham Athletic in the FA Cup, half of Suárez’s eight would be in cup combat (including the Carling Cup).
Liverpool have to think carefully, weighing up the probability of any reduction in the ban (unlikely) to the reality that he might miss only four games in their pursuit of a Champions League place.
There are many key points in the report but the one that jumps out, in the summary, reads: “We have found that Mr. Suárez used the word “negro” or “negros” seven times in his exchanges with Mr. Evra”. Seven times. It was the frequency of the usage and the manner in which the words were said, aggressively according to the commission, which explained the punishment.
The commission clearly did not accept Suárez’s cultural differences’ argument, his defence that such words like “negro” could be used if said in certain circumstances.
It was clear to those watching the game at Anfield on Oct 15 that this was a heated dispute between the pair; certainly Evra was incensed at what had occurred. The referee, Andre Marriner, had to intervene to calm them down.
“It happened, also, in a number of phases,’’ the commission reported.
“First, there were the exchanges in the goalmouth. Secondly, there was the exchange just before the referee spoke to the players. Thirdly, there was the exchange just after the referee had spoken to the players.
"Whilst we recognized that the exchanges occurred over only a two-minute spell in the second half of the match, there were multiple uses of the insulting words by Mr. Suárez.” The “multiple uses” undermines any heat-of-the-moment defence.
“The second aggravating factor was what Mr. Suárez said when using the insulting words,’’ the report continued. “He did not simply use the word “negro” to address Mr. Evra. He did that, but he also said that he had kicked Mr. Evra because he was black, and that he did not talk to blacks.
"Even if Mr. Suárez said these things in the heat of the moment without really meaning them, nevertheless this was more than just calling Mr. Evra “negro”'. According to the Spanish language experts, the uses would have been regarded as racially offensive in Uruguay.”
The commission analyzed the tone as well as the words. Yet the word “negro” is unacceptable anyway, regardless of context or cultural differences.
Suárez accepted this by the end. “He told us that he would not use the word “negro” on a football pitch in England in the future,’’ concluded the commission, “and it would be highly surprising if he did so.
No comments:
Post a Comment