If you have time, if you can be arsed, read, the FA's report on the Suarez case.
Pretty damning to be honest.
Here it is
There are many paragraphs that are quite cringy to be honest and frankly make a mockery of how Liverpool dealt with the whole incident.
Just to repeat (for the 23459872346027698th time) Suarez ADMITTED to using a word that the commission found was to be racially abusive. Incidentally, it is NOT the word that was originally put out in the media but a word that has NO ambiguity whatsoever in its connotations or reasons to use other than to rile, abuse and illicit a reaction.
'highlights' from the report:
302. The position, therefore, is as follows. Mr Suarez spoke in Spanish to Mr Comolli soon after the game about this serious allegation. Mr Suarez also spoke in Dutch to Mr Kuyt. Both Mr Comolli and Mr Kuyt understood Mr Suarez to have told them that when he spoke to Mr Evra he said words which translate into English as, "Because you are black". According to Mr Suarez, Mr Comolli misheard what Mr Suarez said in Spanish, and Mr Kuyt misheard what Mr Suarez said in Dutch.
What both of them?????
321. The impression created by these inconsistencies was that Mr Suarez's evidence was not, on the whole, reliable. He had put forward an interpretation of events which was inconsistent with the contemporaneous video evidence. He had changed his account in a number of important respects without satisfactory explanation. As a result, we were hesitant about accepting Mr Suarez's account of events where it was disputed by other credible witnesses unless there was solid evidence to support it.
357. Not only did we reject this evidence of Mr Suarez, but we found it remarkable that he sought to advance a case that was so clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of what happened. Even Mr McCormick accepted in his closing submissions that the pinching could not reasonably be described as an attempt to defuse the situation. To suggest otherwise, as Mr Suarez did, was unarguable. Mr Suarez's evidence on these topics, which was shown to be flawed, profoundly undermined our confidence in the reliability of his evidence.
Patrick Collins in today's Mail makes some interesting points:
Here
"........Yet through all this, Liverpool FC’s stance has been that of the affronted victim. Long before they saw the detailed findings, they called the decision ‘extraordinary’ and ‘incredible’. They impugned the character of Patrice Evra. They allowed players and manager to parade in ‘supportive’ T-shirts, a piece of imbecilic posturing."
Two artciles from the Telegraph
One and Two
".......Suarez, who admitted using the word 'negro’ to Evra, was said to have offered a defence for using the term that was ''full of inconsistencies’’. The commission said that as he used the word 'negro’ so often, the lengthy ban was necessary to preserve the image of the English game and provide a strong deterrent.
The verdict reveals how previously-unseen video evidence — including 12 clips of the on-field altercation — were analysed following the game on Oct 15. Evra is described as ''an impressive witness’’ whose version of events remained consistent throughout the disciplinary process"
