F.A. Hypocritical ****ers

Take your points on this guys but we are all getting a bit off topic here What about those two faced sycophantic ****s at Soho Square who have employed a known racist!

 

ta

 

They can go and literally **** themselves Robby

 

Sorry Swarbs but you are wrong. LFC were not limited to an appeal to CAS. They could have gone to the UK courts. However, it is highly likely that the publication of the decision was accompanied by 'private' pre-emptive messages from the FA to LFC that any attempt to do do would only result in a pyrrhic victory at best.

Please don't refer to Suarez changing his testimony without also pointing to Evra's changes plus the coaching that he received prior to the hearing.

In your heart of hearts you know that the Tribunal was deeply flawed. The decision itself was not based upon the balance of probability but on what the FA believed was their responsibility to be seen to implement their policy on racism. That is why so many Reds are so incensed at what happened. It has very little to do with either Suarez or Evra (they are probably both ****s) but it does have everything to do with justice.

 

this

 

Report the FA to FIFA

 

.

 

I've just been listening to TalkSport,apparently it doesn't matter what Pearce said as he apologised after.This is the same Talk Sport who pilloried Sepp Blatter who said racist comments should be settled with a hand shake and apology

 

They's just make Pearce and Ince shake hands in the centre circle after the next In-Gur-Lund international...

What goes on on the pitch, stays on the pitch...

 

Not Adrian '****' Durham by any chance?

 

It depends a bit on the manner of the apology and whether lessons have been learned. For example " What I said was racist, I've now reconsidered these views, they are abhorrent to me and I've changed my behaviour completely since then" is a lot different from "I regret any offence caused".

And on earlier posts surely people can see the difference between Stuart Pearce having a brother who is a BNP member (which is irrelevant unless he shares the same views) and Terry wanting to play alongside or even captain the brother of someone against whom he is alleged to have commited a criminal offence.

 

.

 

As much as I enjoy the embarrassment this must have caused the F.A today, I think it's a bit ridiculous this being front page news. But then this is the scum we are talking about.

I think whilst the racism thing is a hot potato at the moment, if Pearce apoligised at the time and it was in the heat of the moment, I don't really see that much of a problem. It's hardly like he attended KKK meetings.

I think it's similar with Terry, if he said what was alleged it is poor and not befitting of an England captain. However in the heat of the moment we all know these things can get said. It's not the end of the world and as has been proven by the Pearce incident, is not a new issue.

The real shame is that the Terry and Suarez incidents have made it seem as if racism is rife in the game where as I suspect it probably isn't. If anything, the F.A attempts to be seen to be taking a hard line has probably made the English game look worse for racism and leads to stupid chants etc at games ala Liverpool and Chelsea fan/s.

 

Good points.

 

I think it was silly of The Sun to bring this up. Why wasn't this same outrage shown while he has been the manager of the u20s England team? Sensationalism at its best (or worst). At least Pearce had the decency to apologize for what he did unlike other footballers who show defiance while their fans wear t-shirts of the guilty, chanting his name while vile racist chants are being made.

 

No you couldn't. Not unless you wanted to become the UK equivalent of FC Sion. Had Liverpool appealed to the UK courts they would have gotten us suspended from international competition - Blatter would've jumped at the chance.

Problem was, the whole crux of the case was whether Suarez said "Why, negro" or "because you are black". Given that Kuyt, Commoli and Dalglish all stated that Suarez told them he'd said "because you are black", he was undermined right from the start. As for coaching, don't be so naive - every expensive lawyer worth their salt coaches their clients on exactly what to say in court, particularly if that individual is not a native speaker. As long as the lawyer is not encouraging his client to lie then coaching is perfectly acceptable - if Liverpool's lawyers didn't see fit to coach Suarez on how to present himself in a positive light then more fool them.

I agree that the FA wanted to be seen to crack down sharply on racism, and are probably happy with the outcome, but the way Liverpool and Suarez constructed their case made it very easy for them. Suarez' testimony was contradicted by three members of his own club, and he changed his testimony whilst giving evidence to the panel. Like I said before - he won't be the last person to be convicted purely because his story broke down under close examination. His own actions tilted the balance of probability against him, even tho I agree that the version of events the DC decided on is probably not what actually happened.

 

Hmm..., so being inarticulate in your defence makes you guilty?

 

Not in and of itself. But if one side of the case puts their case across clearly and the other side cannot create a coherent argument then one side is clearly going to be at a strong advantage. It's one of the reasons the US has the 5th amendment - to prevent inarticulate defendants from talking themselves into trouble or saying something they will regret.

But like I said, that's why we have trained, professional lawyers. That's what surprises me - the fact that Liverpool's legal team put together such a weak and contradictory case for such an important matter. I can only assume that the club initially thought nothing would come of it and so allowed individuals to give witness statements without being briefed by the lawyers first. Then by the time he was charged it was too late to undo the damage.

 

****ers

 

We keep talking about an FA tribunal as though it is a quasi-legal court. It isn't. It is not subject to the rigorous burden of proof required in a court of law and it doesn't have the pursuit of justice as its sole, or even major, priority.
The possible agenda behind the decision has been discussed ad nauseum already and there's no need to repeat it here. A look at the report however (not just the selected extracts the idiot rags use to back up their diatribe) shows that they consistently dismissed evidence which cast doubt upon a verdict they seemed to have already decided upon.
To suggest that LFC should have made a better case for the defence disregards the fact that the evidence -or rather the lack of it- should have been enough in itself to show that they couldn't possibly come to a fair decision. It all came down to a highly subjective interpretation of what little there was to go on- and this after they had declared their intention to treat the whole matter objectively.
They should have dismissed the whole thing and given Suarez a warning as to his future behaviour.