F.A. Hypocritical ****ers

You make my point for me in your first paragraph. It is highly likely that a reference to SAC would have had the effect that you outline. However, pressure would have been on to stop Liverpool taking the matter to the High Court with the mere threat of suspending the club from all FA sanctioned activity. Hence my reference to a pyrrhic victory.

As for coaching, go back and read the report again. There are more than one references in there along the lines of "did you not mean this" coming from the panel itself when dealing with Evra's testimony. Whilst the panel chose to take Kuyt's, Commoli's and Dalgliesh's staments as being at variance with that of Suarez it can also be seen as identifying that the linguistic difficulties were more complex than the panel were willing to countenance.

It was and remains a very poor piece of administrative justice.

 

Civil courts also base decisions on the balance of probability. Defamation, divorce, personal injury, car accidents and many other potentially multi million pound legal court cases can be decided on balance of probability. And the same principles of justice and preparation apply in these cases - people can be bankrupted and parents lose access to their kids if the appear dodgy on the witness stands, so I don't see why footballers can't get a ban for a few games based on the same standard. Like I said before, Contador got a two year ban from CAS on balance of probability.

But like you say, it is an entirely subjective interpretation. And with balance of probability, letting Suarez off would have been just as subjective an interpretation as there was no presumption of innocence. After all, there was absolutely no evidence for his innocence barring his own contradictory and confused testimony.

 

To be honest mate, I can't see the High Court taking the case on. On what basis would Liverpool appeal? The High Court isn't going to judge a case against the FA's rules, it's going to judge it on UK laws. And using racially offensive language isn't illegal in the UK unless it's a public order offence. You could try for restraint of trade, but the High Court would never accept that either - otherwise every footballer to ever be banned would be appealing to the courts.

Any examples of the coaching from the panel? Can't remember any. And what linguistic difficulties do you mean?

 

The same

 

Whilst a reference to the High Court is now purely academic it would have had to be based upon an abuse of power resulting in financial loss.

The linguistic difficulties I referred to were the interpretation of the words used by Suarez that gave rise to Kuyt, Commoli and Dalgliesh's statements.

Let's face it Evra specifically claimed in his complaint to the referee that he had been called one thing but then changed the charge to say that he had been called something-else. Then, in his written testimony, he admits to not only insulting Suarez at the start of the incident but also racially abuses him! The charge should never have been accepted by the FA in the first place. But to then condone Evra's part in the affair without comment or sanction is proposterous.

 

They can all amke points, but they just can't pick apart the obvious truth, most fans based their opinions not on the report but on guardian and tabloid trash that ptinted incorrect information to the extreme, plainhly obvious by the stance of almost every manc that they didn't even read the fkn report but instead fed on what were basically lies and omitted important info printed by the BBC Guardian and a host of others.

Rather than admit the truth, they'll stick to believing the lies and Evra who totally pulled one here, lying fkn digger

 

So we're all agreed then?

Racists make racist remarks and if you're truly innocent you don't admit guilt.

 

And if you plead your innocence in a court of law and get found guilty you're truly up **** creek without a paddle.

 

The FA

David Bernstein - City Fan
Trevor Brooking - West Ham Fan
David Gill - United affiliate
Gartside - Bolton affiliate (probably never forgiven us for relegating them all those years ago + we are Southern)

Is anyone surprised by any of this? This whole situations smacks of self interest.

Divide and Conquer has always been the tactic of the FA

The Media - Split between Spurs, West Ham and Man Utd

 

Chelsea fans thinking everyone's against them

United are the most hated team in England, not you.

 

Used to be but its the pikies from Shepherds bush now

 

United also have the greatest amount of glory hunters (a lot of them in the media), which is a big enough amount to cancel out those who hate them.

 

So you hate United more than us?

Have a day off son.

 

There's not too many Chelsea fans in Shepherds Bush really

No, but that's because i'm a QPR fan who is born and raised to hate Chelsea and my dad's a Manc, but in general, United are hated by the most.

 

Not sure what law you think would cover that. As part of playing in the UK football league system clubs submit to the absolute authority of the FA and CAS, much like UK citizens submit to the absolute authority of the court system. So you'd effectively be asking the court to undermine its own authority by ruling the FA could abuse the power LFC agreed to give it as part of playing in the league.

Besides which, if the High Court was willing to set this precedent, it would still open the floodgates. Utd could claim abuse of power when the FA suspended Rooney for swearing on the basis no one else got punished etc etc. It would create a big legal mess and whole load of work for the courts, so I doubt they would even touch the case.

I could understand that if it was just one of them. But for all three of them to give witness statements that he said pretty much exactly the same thing ("because you are black"), for conversations had in both Spanish and Dutch, implies there was more than just a linguistic issue.

Evra's initial complaint was based on his belief that the word "negro" translated to "negre" in French, which means "nigger" in English. As soon as the error of his translation was pointed out he accepted this and, to his credit, testified to the FA that he thus didn't believe Suarez was racist. He also did not admit racially abusing Suarez - he claims he said "why did you kick me?" rather than "don't touch me you South American".

To be honest, I believe that he did say "don't touch me you South American", as that just seems more plausible in light of the whole conversation. But then with the contradictions over what Suarez said ("don't touch me you negro" vs "why negro") and the fact Suarez initially stated he was trying to calm Evra down before later admitting he was winding him up counted against Suarez a lot in this area.

I reckon if Suarez had stuck to the original story, that he told Kuyt, Commoli and Dalglish - that Evra called him South American and he responded with "because you are black?" the DC would either have punished both players or let them both off with a warning. But with Suarez changing his story on fairly crucial points it counted strongly against him and shifted the balance of probability in the eyes of the DC. At that point, they realised it would create more problems with media and public perception to acquit him that to punish him. Maybe not the best way to judge a hearing like this, but then since when has football justice ever been based on absolute fairness? Suarez is hardly the first player to be convicted after media pressure and in an effort for the FA to look tough...

 

Well let's just hope that the game today is remembered more for the football than anything-else. I think it will be tight.

 

Draw would be a nice result for us but I would like to see Liverpool beat you on your own turf Swarbsy

 

Agreed.

Nice to see you old fella - How's OZ or are you back now? Hope you had/having a great time

 

don't agree - I hope they kick lumps out of each other - and red cards get waved a lot...

 

Yes because no body that ever pleaded innocent actually lied did they D'OH