APR 22 2018: This site is no longer being updated. You can read about why here: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2017/07/liverpool-kopcom-future.html

2 Jan 2012

Exclusive: How the FA withheld vital evidence from Liverpool in its case against Luis Suarez

Having the read the FA Regulatory Commission's report into the Luis Suarez-Patrice Evra affair, I think it's fair to say no one involved in the whole sorry saga comes out with any credit. This includes the FA, which inexcusably withheld potentially vital information from Liverpool's legal team.

Just to be clear: I don't raise this issue as a defence of Luis Suarez, or to suggest that there is a conspiracy against Liverpool; I raise the issue to highlight the questionable conduct and possible procedural impropriety of the FA, alarming issues that should worry every club in England.

Let's start at the beginning:

Suarez Charge Letter

On the 16th November, the FA outlined its charges against Suarez in a letter, a key part of which stated:

"The Football Association also provides with this letter documentation listed in the attached Schedule 2. This documentation is not relied upon by The Association but is disclosed to you as unused material."

The 'Unused Material'

FA Report - Section 17:

"The unused material is...material which the FA gathered or considered in the course of its investigation but on which it did not intend to rely.

"The purpose of providing it to Mr. Suarez was to enable him and his advisers...to see whether...it was relevant and helpful to Mr. Suarez in defending the Charge.

"The unused material might be thought by Mr Suarez and his advisers to be directly helpful in itself or to set them on a train of enquiry which might lead to their acquiring helpful evidence.

"The disclosure to Mr. Suarez of unused material is intended to achieve fairness and transparency in the process."


Clearly, in cases such as this, any 'unused material' could be potentially important.

The 'hidden' Interview with Patrice Evra

Section 18:

"As a result of a question raised by the Commission during the course of the hearing, it transpired that the FA had interviewed Mr Evra on 20 October, and that this interview had been recorded. No transcript had been made".

The Suarez Hearing started on the 14th December 2011, which means the FA withheld information about its interview with Evra for almost two months. Why was this not revealed sooner, and why was no transcript made? It gets worse...

Evra Interview Tapes Withheld

Section 17:

"The tapes [from the Evra interview] should have been, but were not, included in the schedule of unused material".

The Commission is clear on this point: The interview tapes should have been handed to Suarez's legal team, but they were not. Why? This is no accident. You don't just interview a high-profile Premier League footballer and then forget about the tapes.

Evra Interview Notes Withheld

Section 17:

"Upon enquiring into this omission, it also emerged that the FA was in possession of some brief notes of interviews, which also should have been, but were not, included in the schedule of unused material".

This seems to suggest that the FA didn't immediately reveal the existence of the notes. it appears that after learning about the tapes, The Commission pressed the FA and only then did they admit to the existence of notes. Once again, these notes should have been given to Suarez's legal team. Why were they withheld?

The Content of the Tapes/Notes

Section 19:

"There were...two tapes of the FA's interview with Mr. Evra on 20 October. On the first, Mr Evra described what, according to him, had occurred during the match. On the second, Mr. Evra gave his account of what had happened by reference to video clips that were viewed by those present at the interview".

Evra giving his version of events on the record, only days after this incident? This is vital information that could've been extremely useful to Liverpool.

LFC Put Under Untenable Time Pressure

Section 18:

"When this [Withholding of Evidence] came to light, Mr. Greaney [Evra's QC] properly offered to provide copies of the tapes and other notes to Mr Suarez and his advisers. This development took place before Mr. Evra had started to give evidence".

Evra gave Evidence on the 15th December; the hearing began on on the 14th December, which means Liverpool's legal team had one day to listen to the tapes and process all the information.

Section 18:

"The Commission directed that this additional unused material should be disclosed forthwith to Mr. McCormick; that Mr. McCormick should have an adequate opportunity to review the material, including listening to the tapes, to take instructions from Mr. Suarez on any matters arising from this additional material, and to review his planned cross-examination of Mr. Evra in the light of it".

How does one day constitute 'adequate opportunity' to:

* Review and analyse the new material.
* Discuss it with Suarez.
* Review the already planned cross-examination of Evra.

Information Withheld was Extensive

For more of an idea of how much information was withheld (and the time it would've taken to process everything), consider the following:

Section 19:

"The Commission arranged for the stenographers, who were present for the purpose of transcribing the hearing, to produce 10 such transcripts of the tapes as they could in the time available.

"A transcript of the first, longer tape was available by the time Mr McCormick commenced his cross-examination of Mr. Evra, and was added to the bundle of documents before the Commission".


Clearly, the information withheld by the FA was extensive. What is worrying here is the fact that Liverpool's lawyer [Peter McCormick] did not review the transcript of the 'longer tape' before cross-examining Evra.

How could Mr. McCormick he be properly prepared without thoroughly examining the transcript first? Remember, this is the same lawyer who admitted during the hearing that Suarez's statement had suffered from 'bad drafting' during the preparation phase. According to McCormick though, he DID have enough time:

Section 20:

"Mr McCormick, whilst understandably critical of the omission of the tapes from the schedule of unused material, confirmed that he had had an adequate opportunity to listen to the tapes and to review the brief notes of interviews before commencing his cross-examination of Mr. Evra".

SUMMARY

* FACT: The FA failed to reveal that they had interviewed Evra on the 20th October.

* FACT: This only came to light after the Commission questioned the FA on the 14th December.

* FACT: The FA was required to present Suarez and his legal team with all 'unused material' gathered during its investigation.

* FACT: The FA failed to pass along tapes and notes related to the Evra interview, and only did so when compelled to by the Commission.

* FACT: Once this info was disclosed to Liverpool, the Club's legal team had one day to process everything before commencing cross-examination of Evra.

* FACT: Despite the time-pressure, Liverpool's lawyer did not request more time to process all the information.

* FACT: Liverpool's lawyer only received a transcript of the longer Evra Interview tape after he'd already started questioning Evra.

Final thoughts

Why did the FA withhold this information? It was an interview with Patrice Evra (!) as part of a very high-profile disciplinary investigation. Are we expected to believe that the FA just 'forgot' to pass the information to Liverpool?!

No. It was deliberately withheld, and that would only happen for a REASON. Remember, 'unused' material is information 'upon which the FA does not intend to rely'. What type of information would the FA NOT rely on? How about info that could be potentially damaging to its case (or was perceived to be by the FA).

Additionally, why did Mr. McCormick not request more time to process the new information? Surely this would've been the prudent and responsible thing to do? Indeed, the Commission offered him the extra time but he didn't take it.

Before discounting the information on the Evra tapes, surely Liverpool had a duty to properly analyse the content, and search for inconsistencies in Evra's testimony? I don't see how that could've been achieved in a one-day timeframe.

On the facts, there can be no other conclusion other than the FA deliberately withheld vital information from Liverpool.

The information itself may not have been crucial to the case (we'll never know unless it is released), but that doesn't matter - it's the principle that matters: the FA had a duty to be 'fair and transparent' and it failed to do that, which seriously undermines the organisation's (waning) credibility.

The FA simply cannot be trusted and *every* football team in England should be worried about that, not just Liverpool.

The FA refused to comment


182 comments:

  1. The England FA is rotten to the core, works like a circus similar to the Great London Circus'

    ReplyDelete
  2. I hope this Suarez vs Evra issue to brought upon a court in england or in court of arbitration for sport. This will reveal the real motive of FA and shame it and to make all the rotten FA office bearer to be sacked! Banished red nose manure alex to north korea to lick the ass of its dictator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it is inevitable that this case will be reffered to a court as the lack of proffesionlism in the handling of the case by the FA. are some of these your theories or is everything fact based in this article (just curious)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Everything is based in fact.

    * The FA withheld tapes/notes about Evra's October 20th interview. That is a fact, and it's stated in the report.

    I believe it was deliberate, but it could also have been a mistake (though I doubt it)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Have you sent this to Piara Powar, executive director of Football Against Racism in Europe who has alot to say against the club and the club's stance in backing its player.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi there - confused about what?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I say that, the FA has got a lot to answer for. Oviously it seems that they have an agenda, against Liverpool  FC. Liverpool should take this corrupt FA to the highest courts, for smearing Suarez name on PROBABILITY???.

    I would be flabbergasted if LFC do not, do not fight this corrupt FA conclusion, of Suarez!. 

    ReplyDelete
  8. The FA is controlled for and by Sir Alex Ferguson. The Panel contained a personal friend of the said Sir Alex Ferguson, a representative of one of Sir Alex Ferguson players (Roony) and 2 so called experts from Manchester University (who don't speak Uruguayan). Two words come to mind, Stitch and Up.

    I rest my case

    ReplyDelete
  9. 'this is no accident'

    accidents don't happen?

    ReplyDelete
  10. what has happened is the FA have given Suarez a ridiculous suspension knowing we will appeal.The FA will then reduce this suspension on appeal to I believe 8 game suspension with 5 games suspended.I wouldnt count this as a success and whatever the FA try to conjure up to appease LFC unless its a complete overturning of the ban LFC will go to the sport of arbitration.This is not about Suarez getting his ban down its about Suarezs reputation which has been dragged through the mud by corrupt people from man utd to the FA.Why is Evra allowed to use insulting words but Suarez isnt allowed to insult him back,what a farce england is no wonder everyone mocks this country.

    ReplyDelete
  11. it could be an accident, but on the balance of probabilities, is that really believable?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jamie, fantastic article as always.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Does sound like the FA run a cowboy operation as per usual but at the end of the day, McCormick, one would assume is a qualified professional. So clearly he felt in his respected and qualified opinion that he had 'adequate opportunity'. You are looking in from the outside, whereas McCormick was looking in from the inside. 

    Maybe he was right or wrong in some people's eyes but at the end of the day, he is qualified enough to make that decision. I think one has to look at McCormick's view (which I suppose is hard to gauge) in depth, not just the FA, if one is to be critical about this angle of attack.

    ReplyDelete
  14. One has to get a proper in-depth view of the situation and process before one jumps the gun, even if its just probability. I don't think the report itself is enough and one needs clarification from the involved parties

    ReplyDelete
  15. Not the FA we have to worry about but all these anti-football anti-racism bodies who have backed the FA and are now trying to undermine Liverpool's global appeal when it looks like we didn't have all the facts to fight or to even charge Suarez ourselves with bringing the game into disrepute!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Are the FA now allowed to tell liverpool that they have to accept the decision it just gets worse and worse it's a game of chess and liverpool and suarez are in a DEATH TRAP whatever we decide to do the FA and evra will win as they have thought out every possible move that liverpool will make nothing left to do now but to accept and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Maybe the information on the tapes brought no new facts to light from Evras story and therefore LFCs defence decided they didn't need the extra time. And before any knee jerk reactions to this comment, I'm not saying I feel that this justifies the FA withholding them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. the FA are bent lfc will rip them to bits in court... FACT

    ReplyDelete
  19. You may be right about that. I just don't see how LFC's legal team could properly absorb the info in such a short space of time. (and by absorb I mean go through it with a fine tooth comb)

    ReplyDelete
  20. jamie, very interesting article. nobody in this whole affair comes out smelling of roses including evra, suarez, the FA. even lfc legal team appear useless. my take on the report is as follows

    # firstly the fa say evra is a creditable witness, this is a joke as everyone knows he has tried this before.
    # secondly the fa have statements from ryan giggs this is a man that has been to court and lied saying that a person with whom he was having an extra marital affair tried blackmailing him.
    # thirdly the fa used various experts in language all of which come up with different translations i.e por que is because but porque is why

    ReplyDelete
  21. Given how incompetent the FA have shown themselves to be in the past, it would't surprise me at all if it was an accident.  On the other hand, given how corrupt football governing bodies are, it also wouldn't surprise me if it was intentional, a tough call I think.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The 24 hours before a case begins is critical and at the very least the late arrival of this evidence during this time and the requirement to analyse it must have served as a distraction from the rest of the case and could even be seen as justification for rushing the transcripts of statements and the apparent drafting error MrMcormick claimed to have made which the commission used ah their justification for calling Suarez an unreliable witness.

    This entire case is flawed and it's a disgrace that their allowed to destroy a man's professional reputation on such unreliable evidence. I'm not even going to get into the fact that Evra was allowed to watch the video evidence while giving his statement, a courtesy not extended to Suarez. Or the fact that the vital evidence of the 4th officials notes upon which the referee based his own report were somehow lost or destroyed which seems incredible given the severity of the case. 

    ReplyDelete
  23.  I have just read this report and watched the video with it. The FA at best have missed a vital part of the saga, and at worst are lying about Evra being kicked.
    This video clearly shows there was no kick, possibly not even contact and certainly not intentional.
     
    It thows into question Evra's motive for asking why he was kicked, and now opens up the case for Evra being an unreliable witness.
     
    If anyone else has similar videos that contradict the FA repost them in as many places as possible to highlight the FA's inconsitencies and Evra's unreliability.
     
     
     

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have just watched this video and report, and it
    shows the
    FA have obviously not done their home work properly

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1005734-video-why-the-fas-report-could-be-inconsistent-in-the-suarez-evra-saga#/articles/1005734-video-why-the-fas-report-could-be-inconsistent-in-the-suarez-evra-saga

    Copy and paste this in to your browser.
    It shows the initial incident, and from this angle it shows Suarez did not kick
    Evra, so Evra really has no reason to ask why he was kicked.

    Has anyone else any other similar videos reports that conflict with the FA's
    report.

    If you agree that this video shows the FA have missed a vital part of this
    saga, then
    please repost this video in as many places as possible to
    highlight why we rightly feel Suarez is being victimsed.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm sure the Liverpool legal team could have requested for more time to review the tapes and other material if they felt they were given insufficient time.  In fact, it says so right there in section 20 of the report!  Stop clutching at straws.

    ReplyDelete
  26. great analysis and a very key point. 

    I have have raised the issue with the FA as to why they did not look into the complaint made against diouf by the everton ballboy a few years ago.
    racist comments made the other way and a complaint made. cleared by the police, but no FA investigation...why? No comment from the FA!...strange that!

    The point I wanted to make was that the FA had no reason to (blatter), and would not have charged a black player with racist comments towards a white person

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yes, but it also states that they didn't receive a full transcript of the *longer* tape until after McCormick had already started questioning Evra. How can Liverpool be fully prepared if no one has sat down and gone over an important transcript with a fine tooth comb?

    Listening to tapes under time pressure is not enough; you need to examine the transcript thoroughly. That did not happen, and in my view, it was a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  28. As a diehard Liverpool fan.. I feel if Suarez appeals they will hit him with a 12 match ban

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jaime, he had the tapes themselves...why does he need the transcript?  And, again, he was asked if he was satisfied that he had enough time, and he said yes.  If anything, you should be upset at our legal team.  

    I'm curious, how do you feel about the apparent cover up undertaken by Liverpool with both Kuyt and Comolli changing their stories to fit Suarez after it was obvious they'd contradicted each other?  Take the punishment and be grateful that the FA doesn't take any more action against Liverpool.  I'd also be wary of Evra suing Liverpool for slander after the repeatedly false statements regarding his previous...

    ReplyDelete
  30. NEGRO is not a racist word. The United States Census Bureau announced that "Negro" would be included on the 2010 United States Census alongside "Black" and "African-American" - does that mean the US government promotes and condones racism?
     
    The trouble here is the judgement has been made by 3 individuals who probably have never experienced a second of true racism in their lives. They are a joke and disgrace to the United Kingdom.
     
    THE FA OF ENGLAND IS THE RACIST PARTY HERE, NOT LUIS SUAREZ!

    ReplyDelete
  31. all this happened arround the time of mr. blatters' "famous" comments. therefore (although not condoning racism in any way shape or form) would the fa or even evra have made anything out of the incident? i honestly do not think so.
    another question, what will happen to JT if found guilty or worse, not guilty? the fa will not be able to "prosecute" case closed!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Try looking at it from another angle......

    ReplyDelete
  33. Really good article jaimie well done...I just wish this whole thing will go away...

    ReplyDelete
  34. There's no way Liverpools legal team will let this go to court, the club haven't really handled this whole affair very well at at all as it is. Damage limitation is where it's at now, especially if Evra decides to persue legal action regarding the false allegations from LFC and Dalglish which were bordering on a smear campaign at one point. I don't think he will to be fair though, he seems happy enough that the FA have done the right thing in his mind, he said himself he doesn't think Suarez is racist, let's just leave it at that.

    ReplyDelete
  35. suarez is 1 quater black his granfather was a negro, so is this racism ?
    did not evra confess to using abusive language to suares also threaten to punch him obviously he is above the law!!
    if suarez used the n word x number of times why was this not exposed by video evidence as it was in the case of john terry, using a lipreader?
    i thought a man was innocent till prove guilty not guilty by hearsay.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The ban is no longer relevent. This is not about football games.
    This is no longer about LFC and Suarez!!This is about fairness and transparency!!
    The FA are a corrupt organisation and should be investigated properly. 
    And they have the cheek to cry foul when they are not awarded the World Cup. 
    If that really was the process used to charge Suarez then Liverpool should appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I agree totally!!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Is this true??? The 4th officials notes were lost or destroyed???
    Somebody please confirm this.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I have said it for years!!! Ol red nose and the FA have been in bed from '92. Since the whole knock em off their perch rant.
    Can someone confirm the members of the panel??
    Because this is not the first time I have heard this.

    ReplyDelete
  40. If Suarez is a racist then the documents should be sent to the CPS where Suarez / LFC and a proper legal QC team can challenge the FA / Evra under oath.
    The truth will eventually come out, but sadly the lie has already made it around the world before the truth got out of bed.

    ReplyDelete
  41. i watched the game and could tell you evra did not get kicked. he dived and rolled over 3 or 4 times like drogba used to, when suarez tried to win the ball in there 18yard box.
    he then persists  niggling at suarez who was giving him the run around, the ball goes for a throw, hes by then upset the crowd who can clearly see his little game plan, so they give him some stick,
    he casually walks over to take the throw and kisses that badge hes lucky enough to wear, this obviously upsets the fans even more, he clearly does not mind abuse and insites it.
    its as good as afray.
    liverpool may as well wear there suarez t-shirts to old traf its quite simular.

    ReplyDelete
  42. im not up to what this legally means but could suarez get any good out of it pls reply

    ReplyDelete
  43. risk it...............in a propper court that aint corrupt.
    it will be thrown out

    ReplyDelete
  44. it all makes sense...........unless your anti liverpool and anti suarez

    ReplyDelete
  45. Better idea - read the report, it's free, and it's available online. My god, it's your player, your club, yet hardly any of the commentators on here and elsewhere have bothered to read it.

    Instead you rely on feeble apologists like the guy above to tell you that you were robbed, or cheated, out of justice.

    Just like you've been robbed and cheated out of the league title for so many years.

    ReplyDelete
  46. liverpool should take it all the way to clear suarezs name, and show wat the fa are all about to the whole world. if the biggest cup competision (world cup) was totally corrupt, wat makes this little soap drama any worse. racism needs to stop im not implying otherwise. but crowds of thousands need to be stopped where its clear to the whole world.
    there is no smoke without fire with evra

    ReplyDelete
  47. how can u leave it first evra said he was racist now hes saying hes not . how can u be both . suarez isnt exactly white either . just wish the whole truth on evra and suarez would come out .its not fair on suarez because we didnt hear the whole side of the story what did evra say to suarez evras hardly a saint id go to court and clear my name no body else heard all this on the pitch. one mans word against another beggars believe .we would be threw outa court if it was my word against urs and no witnesses . to me both players should of been banned and that would of been enough end off

    ReplyDelete
  48. Great timing from Bellamy, in relation to his blast at Krul during the last game(!)

    Youtube search Krul Bellamy

    ReplyDelete
  49. Saurez was tried and judged by a kangaroo court appointed by the corrupt and unaccountable prawn sandwich brigade at the FA. Saurez admitted he had committed an offence. In a criminal court the defendant would have been given credit for such an admission. At the very worst he should have been given a 4 match ban with the rest suspended. As it is, they have now made him a marked man. Two more 'upheld' complaints and Saurez is finished !

    ReplyDelete
  50. I don't think any organisation in the world would have enough time on their hands to reply to every single fan who complains, as well as go about their other duties

    ReplyDelete
  51. Well it seems McCormick didn't feel the need to have more time.

    ReplyDelete
  52. i feel sorry for suarez such a great player and for a new comer to the english league . one way for utd to get rid of this fantastic player brand him with a horrible  name and try to ruin his carear .id take the fa to court and evra .justice was not done  like the hillsborough report it might take years but the truth will eventually come out . shame on u the f.a and u evra

    ReplyDelete
  53. Weren't your lot cheated out of it even relegated when we were winning the league!!

    ReplyDelete
  54. yes its quite clear wat hes saying, one big problem is it will never have legs even if krul complains.......why................because hes white and he dont play for man utd

    ReplyDelete
  55. Evra can't sue he changed his accounts with what N word was used by Suarez even the United players in the dressing room use different terms from Evra.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I read that the investigation was done independently, so the finding was not that of the FA. If there was a legal mistake made Im sure, if it is in any way significant, it should be a feature in Liverpool's appeal. I do think Liverpool fans(I am one) are a bit to quick to get behind Suarez. He has admitted using the word negro to address Evra while they were clearly in a heated moment, that's a disgrace to Liverpool FC, lets not forget that. I dont understand why we're not talking about that. The defence that it was 'affectionate' is laughable under the circumstances of the exchange, and even more suspect in lew of Suarez's track record- he's a fierce competitor who doesnt see a line when it comes to winning or gaining an advantage. Even among pro footballers, I find much of his behaviour particularly distasteful. He was made an example of, but it sends the right message. Football clubs and the fans should avoid this blind faith support for their players in cases like this for obvious reasons; it's a football equivalent to religious tribalism and it's a scary manifestation of some of our most pathetic weaknesses( in this case the security, courage and conviction derived by cowards and idiots when they get into a group, and the different surprising behaviours that result). Remember, a person is smart, people are stupid. How else do we explain mormonism and scientology? The feeling of being part of a group or club is an unfortuante goal most of us seem to have. People can believe and behave en mass, in ways only a fool could in isolation.

    'Remember your humanity and forget the rest'
    Bertrand Russell

    ReplyDelete
  57. As Rafa might say the facts on this are: 1) the tapes WERE provided to the commission (so no withholding of info) albeit they were late; 2) Liverpool WERE then offered more time to review the tapes (which they refused). Now any sensible person would think that maybe a little bit of the responsibility for not reviewing the tapes would lie with Liverpool but that doesn't seem to be the view of the blog author or the replies here. Its seen as just more FA bungling or part of a media/FA/Ferguson/Fu Manchu  plot against the last hope of mankind - Liverpool FC and his holiness Kenny Dalglish. Here's a question - can a Liverpool fan conceive of the possibility that Suarez maybe, just maybe, might have used racist language to wind up Evra?

    I'm starting to worry about this subset of Liverpool fans that have placed all their spiritual hopes and beliefs in the club. Its a human organisation like any other and believe it or not Dalglish, although a proven great manager, is not a god, he can make mistakes and he can be misled.

    ReplyDelete
  58. why evra though?? your biased and deluded if you cant see in that game wat evra was up to from the start, all because he couldnt live with suarez. how many times did evra foul suarez?
    watch the game over in full.  evra then resorts to diving himself. you should question yourself before coming on here sounding off trying to sound like a smart ars

    ReplyDelete
  59. I think its a bit much to make comparisons with Hillsborough.

    ReplyDelete
  60. The referee's report. Mr Marriner wrote up his report that evening. He referred to the notes that Mr Dowd had taken, which Mr Dowd had given to Mr Marriner before they left the ground. Mr Dowd told us that the notes consisted of 4 or 5 bullet points where he had roughly recorded what had been said. He did not write down exactly what everyone had said; he had just paraphrased the main points. Once he had finished his report, Mr Marriner threw away Mr Dowd's notes.

    ReplyDelete
  61. mate you have hit that nail on the head i think he should go to court aswell!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  62. I can't believe that real Liverpool fans think this way. Come on - consider it possible that Suarez made a racist comment to wind up Evra - doesn't make Suarez a racist but he should be punished for it.

    There's a split among the Liverpool fans I know on this whole thing - those that see this is a no-win situation for Liverpool and its time to accept it and move on, and those that are in denial, encouraged by Liverpool FC's and KD's stance on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Raffa, I have better things to do with my time than read a 100 odd page bullshit report full of kack which amounts to a joke!!
    Football is not the be all and end all of my life.
    I was asking someone to clarify that point for me.
    We havent been robbed or cheated out of winning the title. Man U robbed and cheated to win the title.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Evra used the word N****R but this was never used by Suarez like Evra said and changed the word to negro to fit with FA's wording of the probable account.

    ReplyDelete
  65. don't talk such nonsense. the enquiry was transparent and independent and now you have the findings and reasoning you don't like it...well tough

    ReplyDelete
  66. I'll bite. So let's accept that Evra fouled Suarez and Evra dived (not that Suarez has ever done any of these things before). That's not what the commission was about - it was about a "racist" comment that Suarez allegedly made. Suarez has accepted that he used the word in question at least once. Given all the statements made by all parties Evra's account is deemed the most credible. So that's really the end of it - Liverpool can appeal all they like (they won't) and people can whinge all they like on these forums. However many people are now realising that Suarez misled, inadvertantly I'd say, Dalglish and the other Liverpool people involved. But the Liverpool fans can't admit to this (or at least not until after the day he's been transferred to some other club then it will be open season on him, just like it is for El Nino now).

    ReplyDelete
  67. there is no way Suarez can just leave it at that either....he and indeed dalglish have public apologies to make not least to evra but to every black footballer in world football....... do you think any black footballer in any country would not find it offensive to be called BLACKIE 7 times and endure the kind of insults suarez made......or is that all nonsense???? perhaps the enquiry just asked independent experts to make it up????

    ReplyDelete
  68. the only court it can go is magistrates a la Terry and that is if as we are now told the Police who are reviewing the evidence deem it a criminal matter then the CPS will decide....it is written into the FA rules that once the appeal process has been dealt with there is no further recourse including Swiss arbitration....

    ReplyDelete
  69. the whole world is against you all eh...conspiracy at the highest level eh..

    ReplyDelete
  70. bet your beloved club does not even appeal and what message does that send.....you should all be ashamed

    ReplyDelete
  71. You're suppose to say "5 times".

    ReplyDelete
  72. Evra didn't use the word negro but the word n****r to the world and humanity . 

    ReplyDelete
  73. get to bed boy and talk sense when you go back to school....muppet

    ReplyDelete
  74. fool, you're an utter embarassment

    ReplyDelete
  75. and you would be a QC would you ??

    ReplyDelete
  76. ha ha ha ha yeah right, not at all biased or selective or in fact WRONG

    ReplyDelete
  77. ha ha ha you're fool you should be called 5times = 39........ 

    ReplyDelete
  78. I F**ING LOVE IT

    jaimie kanwar blatently copying of rafa benitez's *FACT technique,

    how ironic!

    RAFA RAFAEL RAFA RAFAEL RAFA RAFAEL RAFAEL BENITEZ

    we love you

    ReplyDelete
  79. you really have never read into this have you, evra has NEVER made any racist allegations before.....the 2 occasions relate to others making the allegation which he said he didn;t hear....get it....even your oaf of a manager made this unfounded allegation....
    You use giggs in this argument...... you have a captain who took three punches in so called self defence and was only let off because it was a liverpool jury......kuyt lied to help suarez and comolli and dalglish both changed their statements.... LIARS all...
    the language experts are of course all united fans and hate liverpool....thats the conspiracy proven then eh.....
    talk about thick

    ReplyDelete
  80. wat a load of rubbish your spouting off. your only saving grace is man utd have the fa on board its so obvious. most creditable dont mean a thing, one mans clearly brighter at these things more than the other. must of had previous practice experience.
    wats to admit?  anyone else but evra and id maybe believe it, but he truelly is a bad coin.
    but fair play you stand by your man and il stand by mine. had i not seen wat i did in that game, evras behaviour then i may consider regardless wat evra is, condoning suarez. but wats the point you saw a different game all together.
    wat now happens with evra threatening suarez and taunting him about where he comes from???
    no wait..................hes white..............and dont play for your club.
    fact.............now #uck off

    ReplyDelete
  81. they make me sick with all this conspiracy nonsense....... they are still suggesting that evra has made racist allegations before etc....does any of these poor hard done by precious scousers have the ability to at least research this a little bit???

    ReplyDelete
  82. yes we were relegated and still had the biggest crowds in the country...... always in Uniteds shadow boy

    ReplyDelete
  83. Ferguson is really one of those lizards that David Icke warned us about - how else to explain that Liverpool actually lost some matches since then. Who do you think made Liverpool sign Jimmy Carter and now Andy Carroll? Those lizards. Bet they're on the panel too.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Relegated:) thanks for biting:)

    ReplyDelete
  85. I'm hungry, I'll bite again. Evra is deemed more credible because his statements are more self-consistent and tally better with video and other accounts than Suarez' statements. Suarez' account of what happened changed as the case progressed. I reckon more and more Liverpool fans will realise that he has misled Dalglish on what happened. My point is that Suarez "is not the Messiah, he's just a naughty boy", and Liverpool fans have got to adjust to that. It will be interesting to see how they handle that.

    (if you reply again you can put in as many swear words as you like - the internet doesn't mind and it might make you feel better).

    ReplyDelete
  86. Of course Liverpool were never relegated - the years 1954 to 1962 never happened. But its better to just say "5 times" (same as Robbie Fowler did).

    ReplyDelete
  87. No - you are ignoring the plain facts stated in the report. The FA withheld the info; the commission stated that the tapes SHOULD HAVE been - ah, f**k it, I can't be bothered.

    ReplyDelete
  88. This is the type of problem you get when the law of the land is taken out the equation.

    If Evra felt he had been racially abused, he should have been advised to go to the police. Because that would mean a crime has been committed and should be investigated by the appropriate authorities to get a clear out come.

    At the moment where left with a matter of opinion, depending on who you support, and how you feel about the FA and how they handled the case. 

    This is not good for football at all. 

    ReplyDelete
  89. Have to say this is a brilliant article. I haven't got the patience to read the FA's 115 page dissertation on why Luis Suarez is a bad person, but I can see you have highlighted key issues within it. Shocking that Suarez's camp had a single day to listen to tapes, of which key info could have swung the hearing. As you said, no one in this sorry saga comes out with their dignity intact, the FA in particular have handled it appallingly.

    ReplyDelete
  90. From the report:
    "19. Whilst Mr McCormick was listening to the tapes"

    Seems to me that he was somehow able to listen to the 'withheld' tapes. Not actually trying to upset you here (this is a good blog and this is a good analysis) but what exactly do you mean by 'withheld'? Do you mean that Liverpool never got access to them or that Liverpool had delayed access to them? If the former then point 19 would seem to contradict that, while if the latter then Mr McCormick was given the opportunity to ask for more time to go over the tapes.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Evra more credible because his statements are more self-consistent and tally better with video?  Evra gave his account of what happened by reference to video clips that were viewed by those present at the interview. Suarez's initial account of what happened 'changed as the case progressed' as he did not have the benefit of refering to video clips that Evra had to refresh his memory from the very beginning. This is added to the fact that Suarez barely knows any English, and he had to give his account through an interpreter.

    If these disadvantages do not cause Suarez's statements to appear less self-consistent and tally better with video and other accounts than Evra's statements, will you please go ahead and enlighten me on what does?

    And to your question, "Can a Liverpool fan conceive of the possiblity that Suarez maybe might have used racist language to wind up Evra?"

    Lets assume Evra's account is true beyond all doubt and that it is in fact what truly happened. I'd like to ask why it took Evra six times to be called what he perceived as 'nigger' to visibly and physically react to a comment by Suarez (which is stated in the report and depicted in video
    evidence).

    Why would Evra wait until the sixth time he had been called "nigger" to
    react visibly and physically as the report described he did on the sixth time?
    The sixth time was the only real time he heard it. Evra's account is unreliable.

    ReplyDelete
  92. The issue here is the FA withheld the tapes/notes for almost 2 months before Liverpool got to listen to them. I've never argued that Liverpool never got the chance to listen to the tapes, so I don't know why you keep raising that.

    * Suarez got his charge letter on Nov 16th. The letter had an appendix that listed the 'unused material' his legal team would have access to.

    * The tapes/notes from Evra's October 20th interview should've been included here. The commission specifically stated in the report that they SHOULD HAVE been included.

    * They were not, which is where the 'withholding' aspect comes into play.

    * Liverpool only got hold of this evidence on the day the actual hearing started, and only because the Commission discovered that the an interview had taken place on the 20th October.

    * If the Commission had not queried that interview, the Evra evidence would not have been handed over.

    Whether McCormick asked for more time or not is irrelevant to the fact that the FA did not reveal details of the tapes when they should have.

    When Liverpool found out, the hearing was already underway, and the pressure was on.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Evras conduct during the match and after in the tunnel has been charged with emotion and misguided vitriol.
    His intent during the game was to wind up his opponent and he then cries when the opponent fights that fire with fire.
    He misinterprets suarez words for the racists word nigger! that’s not the word he uses, the context and intent with both men’s language is rather foolish. Cant condone surez comments he was very unwise .However:The evidence is flawed (interpretations , lack of transparency etc..)Add to this evra is rolling around trying to get opponents carded for imaginary fouls (see the video of the match) and the mans credibility and ultimately his reliability is dubious ! ’s not the word he uses, the context and intent with both men’s language is rather foolish. Cant condone surez comments he was very unwise .
    However:
    The evidence is flawed (interpretations , lack of transparency etc..)
    Add to this evra is rolling around trying to get opponents carded for imaginary fouls (see the video of the match) and the mans credibility and ultimately his reliability is dubious ! Suarez has been left hanging in the breeze for every cheap wanabe journalist/web poster to label him a racist, this is why the club may appeal or take other action?
    Both men sullied the game with their conduct however its important to remember once evra claimed it was the n word he put himself in a position he couldn’t back down from.
    The pfa , both clubs , the fa all cud have made more effort to appease the situation sadly they didn’t.
    Both men have done wrong here , both should be sanctioned . The level of sanction is debatable but not important really, what is is the integrity of the game we love,
    This has brought a big shadow over football and I feel it has a little longer to run.Suarez has been foolish , he also comes across as a little immature, however he is categorically not racist It does seem quite inconclusive evidence , however the bubble has caused a storm so a strong hand was played by the fa The LFC legal skill set appears 2nd rate , quite baffling in fact they need to take a long look at themselves the damage has been done now.Extremely hypocritical that people who feel it is taboo to deal with the simple issue of skin colour want to redefine to Hispanics worldwide! the meaning of the word Negros

    ReplyDelete
  94. This "independent panel" was selected and appointed by the FA. For it to have been truly independent it should have had ZERO connection to the FA and should not have contained someone who has done work on behalf of the FA before.

    The QC, whilst well respected, has a reputation as being a fighter against discrimination in the work place. This means that his natural inclination was to side with Evra. A sitting or retired judge with a track record of being a fair and unbiased moderator should have overseen this whole thing.

    Denis Smith is a friend of Alex Ferguson and has been for over 20 years. Need I say more.

    I don't know a whole lot about the third member of the panel but all that was needed was a 2-1 majority.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Factually correct and to be the point. Slight bias perhaps but only because of the FACTS presented.

    ReplyDelete
  96. If this article is 'biased' 'selective' or 'wrong' then please show HOW. just saying it means nothing. Prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Evra accused the citizens of Senegal of being racist to him. He has openly used the word "ni**er" in the past and he has previous history of given UNRELIABLE testimony to the FA in relation to a race case. Evra is also shown to have clearly lied in relation to what was said to him by Dirk Kuyt. If he as clearly lied in one part of his testimony, why should anyone believe the rest of it?

    The language experts, one of whom was from Manchester, has never been to Uruguay and is stated as having "learned Spanish from time spent in Colombia". That's like learning English in England and trying to apply it to America.


    By the way, you spelt your name wrong. The correct spelling is CLOWN7

    ReplyDelete
  98. You had the biggest crowds because you had the biggest stadium. No club was as big a draw as Liverpool both on TV and for Liverpool's visits to other grounds.

    Your pathetic club are obsessed with Liverpool, Ferguson's entire tenure has been aimed at making United more successful than Liverpool and he has failed to do it. Quite sad really.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Ok, thanks for your reply. The title of the blog made me think that you meant that the FA withheld the tapes so that Liverpool never got to hear them at all rather than a 2 month delay in getting the tapes. It might have been clearer to use the word delay rather than withheld. Now, while I agree with you that the FA should have revealed the details and that there wasn't enough time in one day to review the tapes, the fact that the Commission offered to give Mr McCormick more time to review the tapes (an offer which he refused) means that the Commission was aware that the tapes were delayed in being made available and recognised any potential difficulty it could give Liverpool. That Liverpool did not want any further time to review the tapes is not the fault of the commission. The question then is did the FA deliberately hang on to the tapes? I doubt it because like most organisations they're just not that smart - like most conspiracy theories on the internet its more easily explained as a cock-up rather than some masterplan. If it was a 'cunning plan' the tapes would have got "lost" or got "accidently damaged". So I do agree that the FA made a mess of handling this info. However the Commission's subsequent handling of this issue puts the responsibility on Liverpool on how it should have been handled from that point on.

    Thus I have to say that I still stand over my two facts in my initial reply: 1) Liverpool WERE given the tapes; 2) Liverpool WERE given an opportunity to take more time to review them. So whether this caused a material impact on the Suarez case is entirely down to Liverpool, not the Commission and not the FA. However I guess we can add a third fact we can both agree on: 3) The FA did not release the tapes as they should have done in the initial schedule of materials.

    ReplyDelete
  100. And do soft Londoners like yourself even know how to read?

    ReplyDelete
  101. "it is written in the FA rules".

    Yes, indeed it is. Shame Liverpool can, and likely will, go further than the FA. 

    ReplyDelete
  102. 'fair and unbiased'

    Sorry but no one is truly neutral, as people always have natural tendencies. 

    If Liverpool had a problem with Denis Smith, they should have brought it up and objected to his presence on the panel prior to the panel, which they were entitled but they didn't, so one assumes its not that big of a problem in the small world that is the football world. 

    Much ado about nothing 

    ReplyDelete
  103. haha, love the point behind the post - some of these Liverpool fans are truly paranoid to a unbelievable level!

    ReplyDelete
  104. It was never proven that he lied about what was said to him by Dirk Kuyt. 'clearly lied', my backside.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Museum. A history museum, that sums up Liverpool. 

    ReplyDelete
  106. Jeez, some Liverpool fans love wallowing in self-pity, playing the victim card and simply being ridiculously paranoid to a comical levels

    ReplyDelete
  107. I hear what you're saying Jamie and I appreciate it, but how does this unfuck the inconsistencies in Suarez's account of things? I know you say that you're not using this to back Suarez but you are giving lifelines to those desperate to muddy the issue enough to somehow exonerate Suarez. The emphasis on this issue doesn't necessarily show the decision to be flawed and especially as Suarez's lawyer accepted the statement as not being pertinent to his defence.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Hello Phaaz
    how about this evidence to show the FA are not as unbiased as they'd like us to believe.

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1005734-video-why-the-fas-report-could-be-inconsistent-in-the-suarez-evra-saga#/articles/1005734-video-why-the-fas-report-could-be-inconsistent-in-the-suarez-evra-saga

    Copy and paste this in to your browser.
    It shows the initial incident, and from this angle it shows Suarez did not kick
    Evra, so Evra really has no reason to ask why he was kicked.




    As this is the start of the whole episode and that it is vital as to why
    Evra confronted Suarez, I believe this shows that Evra is NOT a reliable
    witness and the FA have not acted unbiasedly, remember their report said they
    were convinced that Suarez kicked Evra intentionally. Here it shows there was
    definitely no kick and probably no contact.




    .

    ReplyDelete
  109. Liverpool FC should sue Peter McCormick. A poor decision to employ him.
    Also get statments from the three LFC players Suarez spoke to after the match

    ReplyDelete
  110. On the "sixth time" thing, some people  would react on the first time, some on the third, some never ... I think you get the idea.

    I think you already know what "cause[s] Suarez's statements to appear less self-consistent [etc.]", but you can't let yourself admit it.

    Remember that what's already inarguable is that Suarez' has admitted using language that is racist in the UK (we all agree Suarez is not a racist) and that Evra did take offence from it (unless there are still some people who are denying even that). Liverpool's problem is that they have such a quasi-religious self-image that they are in denial and what would should have been a 7-day wonder story has been blown up into some sort of crusade by Dalglish. In my opinion it's a bad call - its hurting the club, splitting the Liverpool fans and creating even more bad blood than ever before between Liverpool and Man Utd. There's no winners here, not even Ferguson as Suarez could miss the games against Man City.

    ReplyDelete
  111. You know Suarez rolls around too and looks for opponents to get carded as well as get free kicks/penalties with his theatrics. Probably the best/worse (depending on definition) at it in the league is Suarez

    ReplyDelete
  112. Hi Deebo. I agree with you - the FA withholding info doesn't change the fact the Suarez's evidence was inconsistent. I just don't feel it's right for the FA's conduct to go unquestioned. Their failure to provide information may not have been fatal in this case, but what about future cases? The FA cannot be allowed to get away with this kind of thing, which is why it needs to be highlighted (IMO)

    ReplyDelete
  113. Yes, Liverpool could've brought it up, and the fact they didn't was yet another f**k up by the club's legal team. The entire case has been characterised by amateur mistakes on LFC's part.

    ReplyDelete
  114. With respect, At no point did I argue that it was the commission's fault that the tapes were not produced.

    I do not believe for one moment that the FA 'accidentally' held onto the tapes. This was the highest profile FA disciplinary case for years, if not all time. The publicity was massive; the issue extremely sensitive; everyone was watching, yet we're supposed to accept that the FA just forgot to hand over tapes of an interview with a key player in the whole affair?!

    If you believe that, you believe anything.

    You're right in that Liverpool were given the tapes, the key question is WHY were they handed over?

    Did the FA volunteer the tapes? No.

    The Commission 'raised a question' that led to an admission that Evra was interviewed on the 20th October. Only then were the tapes handed over. Speaking in causal terms, but for the intervention of the Commission, the tapes never would've seen the light of day.

    As you say, Liverpool were given more time to review the tapes, and the fact that they didn't is negligence as far as I'm concerned.

    * The report states that the hearing began 'just after 3pm' on the 14th December.

    * Marriner was cross-examined in the afternoon then the hearing was adjourned.

    * The tapes were listened to on the morning of the 15th, and then Evra was cross-examined on the afternoon of the 15th.

    So - Liverpool's legal team basically listened to the tapes during one morning and that was the extent of the 'analysis' of the content.

    How is this enough time to analyse tapes that were described as 'long' in the report'?

    As I said, utter negligence.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I recall that the ref's report did not make any mention of Suarez calling Evra "negro" or "black" or anything racist, which also means none of this was brought to the ref's attention during the match. Yet, the Commission upheld Evra's evidence that after his first altercation with Suarez, he went up to the ref to complain that Suarez racially abused him. Well, either the ref was lying or Evra was. In these circumstances, how could the Commission find Evra's evidence to be reliable? And if they found it to be reliable, shouldn't some disciplinary proceedings be commenced against the ref for failing to report such a significant incident?

    ReplyDelete
  116. pig ignorant, wat else would you expect, when this man has blinkered vision

    ReplyDelete
  117. yeah maybe, but half your team does it.
    and seasons ago you would defend ronaldo, you lot are a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  118. all because the boy cried wolf

    ReplyDelete
  119. Nothing could have swung the hearing,JC. The FA already had their verdict

    ReplyDelete
  120. the FA are the second most corrupt group just pipped by blatter mob, thats why the fa wont give the 4th official a screen and let them see the repeats off the incidents and sort it fairly and correctly every time but then the fa would loose one off their many ways to tamper with the league and get their brides or the team they or freinds have finacial/personal intrests in just like thier  doing with liverpool here, they obviously have intrests in tottenham chelsea or arsenal and dont wont liverpool getting in the top 4, if suarez says he's innocent it's time liverpool and the supporters to not let him walk alone against such a corrupt organisation as this one YNWA

    ReplyDelete
  121. Was his evidense inconsistent - or just the panel's understanding of the language? None of them speak Spanish, let alone the Spouth American version!

    ReplyDelete
  122. a bit like vera playing the race card,eh?

    ReplyDelete
  123. It is worrying to see the amount of posters that have obviously not read either all or at least the key points of the report (it is available free online ffs). Liverpool fans are in danger of really isolating their club with amazingly Poor comments.
    So many things to say about the Liverpool fanbase but would be a lesson in futility. (always somebody else to blame but never look in the mirror)  I would give more than a penny for Dalglish's or John Henry's thoughts right now!

    ReplyDelete
  124. Caught_pants_down2:09 am, January 03, 2012

    It is not ridiculous if you consider the technicalities. Suarez did bring the game into disrepute by insulting/abusive behaviour towards Evra which warrants a 4 match ban. That Suarez did admit to making a reference to Evra's colour doubled the ban, therefore, technically, it is an 8 match ban. All that said, Evra should be getting a 4 match ban for being equally guilty of the first offence.

    ReplyDelete
  125. you sound so obnoxious by wrting that your sayin how much better you are than the general population at the end of the day you obviously cant support liverpool if you have those opinions and actuall honour them the club motos YOU'LL NEVER WALK ALONE and your here telling liverpool supporters that we shouldnt support one of our players, at the end of the day evra's the racist one, if he has such a low opinion of a black male he finds it offensive to be called one. its just banter i'm bald i dont find it racist or ofensive when sum one refers to that just like a bung or blond its just banter whether its friendly or not using a discriptive word just before a offensive one doesnt make the first a word a offensive/racist word its just normal 

    ReplyDelete
  126. Caught_pants_down2:14 am, January 03, 2012

    The FA probably has no specific agenda against Suarez or Liverpool FC, however, Suarez was most unfortunate to be accused of something so controversial at the wrong time and the FA felt they had to make an example of him. No surprise they weren't fair to him as they did have an agenda, which was to crucify the first scapegoat who came along and it happened to be Suarez.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Typical Liverpool fan slur that is actually false.  Evra has no (zero) previous record of accusing anyone of racially abusing him.  ( LFC forums do not count as evidence by the way)

    ReplyDelete
  128. It is amazing how many times the Liverpool fans throw false accusations around, yet suggest that their own players are almost angelic compared to rival teams' players.  Maybe it would be unwise to mention other cases such as 'self defence' Steve etc but their hypocrisy knows no bounds and they should try looking up some actual 'facts' beforehand

    ReplyDelete
  129. The problem here is not that Suarez did no wrong at all. Evra is no saint. The fact that the so called independent panel can say that Evra is credible and Suarez is not is a joke. Suarez has more integrity than Evra. At least he did admit he used the word. He could have denied that he ever said it. And there was no proof to say he did anyway, expect for Evra's word. We don't condone racism but Suarez is not a racist, even Evra and the FA worded it that way. He said it probably because Evra irritated him and just blurted it out.

    Btw, racism is not just about skin colour right? Its about race. What about Evra insulting Suarez first? Does that mean calling someone yellow skin or white is okay? Is that not racism? How about red nose Faggortson then? Oops, issn't then all the man u haters gulity of racially insulting Faggortson and we should all be charged?

    ReplyDelete
  130. Your talking absolute bollox.... 

    ReplyDelete
  131. Of cos man u players have 'credibility'. After all, rooney admitted to visiting prostitutes and Giggs admitted to his affairs incl with his sister in law. And George Best is a drunkard right? Ha...

    ReplyDelete
  132. Santiago Gomez-Chartier3:14 am, January 03, 2012

    he

    ReplyDelete
  133. Difficult one to say Trev. At the moment it looks like Jaimie (The author) is trying to draw blood from a stone. Many other Liverpool fans on this page do it. It seems an obsession (write now think later) or not at all in most cases. But in answering your question for a few reasons I think nothing will be made of it. Interesting read though.

    ReplyDelete
  134. How naive of you to assume that I am a Man United fan. The only joke here is on you.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Suarez, the role model of integrity(!)
    Like your objectivity, Singapore, as well as the intelligence behind the Ferguson analogy(!)

    ReplyDelete
  136. Just as the Independant Commission concluded that "probably" Evra was right.. the FA will no doubt now be found to be "probably" guilty of withholding crucial evidence..
    Nice Jamie .. thanks for bringing this up!
    Have you thought about representing Mr Suarez yourself? You d "probably" do a much better job that his previous Solicitors by the sound of things!
    Good Job!

    ReplyDelete
  137. How about this hypothesis, The FA did not release the information (as the probably should) until a day before the hearing. The Lawyer representing Suarez had a good hour two hour analysis and decided that
    There was no case worth delaying the hearing for. In short he believed delaying the trial would do more damage to Suarez than good by missing games etc

    ReplyDelete
  138. 'biased' because the commission did OFFER time to Pool lawyers to review it, as you yourself have said. If they wanted to withhold it why would they offer them time ?? you are simply making a mountain out of a molehill. And do you know the best way to win a case ?? Be innocent and truthful ?? And Suarez was not as the report suggests. As for the 'duty' of the FA. They have given Liverpool time to appeal. Hope your lawyers are doing their 'duty'. Lets see what happens.

    ReplyDelete
  139. After being dominated by Liverpool for so many years, they decided to change the name of the first division league to Premier League along with new a set of rules.  They also put their men on the FA board to make sure they start winning the league. Now that Dalgish is back...they are so afraid that any thing will do to keep liverpool away. They have always cheated to win the league so this time too they are doing it.  The late offiside goal for Sunderland against Man City says it all....... 

    ReplyDelete
  140. Thanks, Jaimie, great post.

    In addition, I would like to post a link to another great read, which questions FA's and Evra's credibility.

    the whole case smells of politics.  Now I understand the t-shirts, the passionate official statement, the overall emotional support...

    Hope and believe the club will appeal!

    the link: http://supportsuarez.com/the-fa-suarez-report-observations.html

    ReplyDelete
  141. another great post. hope the club will use native Spanish language experts in the appeal.

    http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showpost.php?p=6859329&postcount=1148

    ReplyDelete
  142. oh .. man this has been refuted on this very website. Get your facts straight. Also any prior issues have got NOTHING to do with this case. Suarez used a racial slur. He ADMITS it. Your legal team MESSED up bigtime. 

    Daibhi - do you really believe Suarez used that word in a friendly manner?

    ReplyDelete
  143. "Fegusan's entire campaign has been aimed at making United more successful than Liverpool "

    Well we are more successful domestically ?? Do you not agree ??

    As for the 5. Fergie has yet not retired. Also football has been here for 100 years and will be for another 100, probably 1000. Fortunes will keep changing but Daibhi - you will always be this pathetic and classless.

    ReplyDelete
  144. So Suarez is innocent ?? Answer this. 

    ReplyDelete
  145. ...which also explains to an extent why they have managed to win so many domestic titles and so few international ones.

    the truely great teams/managers succeed on the international scene, not only the domestic one...

    ReplyDelete
  146. Finally a normal person, I am a Lfc Fan , but i agree halfway whit u, The thing is that the word Negro isnt racism, if it was, is being called white racism? Think about it! Evra did however refer to Suarez race by saying " DONT TOUCH ME U SOUTH AMERICAN" That is racism! Also Evra have admitted to starting it all and should also get a large punish. If Suarez should apologize to all black people, then Evra should appologize to all South American people! This whole thing will also have further effects for football when u can ban someone just on the word of another player! I very much look forward to the meeting in spring, when i hope that every Lfc player accuse every Utd player of raccism! Then FA would have to ban the whole team for 8 games! If they dont, it is legal ground for diskrimination and a lawsuit!

    ReplyDelete
  147. It's just sad that Suarez & Liverpool don't have much avenue for recourse. To appeal to the very board (FA) which condemned him in the first place is probably not going to change much but I do feel they should appeal anyway as Suarez, LFC & the fans need closure to this matter and that won't be achieved by sweeping it under the carpet.  If LFC/Suarez decline to appeal, you can rest assured, for the rest of time, the "racist" chanting will be a constant at every match.

    ReplyDelete
  148. biggest stadium...?? in the 70's when I was following United the stadia were similar in size, it was just that United were the bigger club then despite going down for a year....go and ask grandad

    ReplyDelete
  149. where are you from DAIBHI????? another home grown liverpudlian...NOT! You're a fool ...... I live within 20 mins of Old T.....you???

    ReplyDelete
  150. and we would be playing football in........England where such terms are considered insulting in a racist way....no if you're from argentina thats fine.......you have your rules....but please respect ours

    ReplyDelete
  151. Sorry folks but this is a moot point - if we had a problem with the lack of time to review this tape, we needed to formally mention it during the hearing as you would do in any other court case. Because we didn't - we then can't complain about it after the fact.

    Our legal team listened to the tape, if they thought it contained anything useful we could/should/would have requested extra time.

    ReplyDelete
  152. We came back and won the title within 2 years of coming back not 16 years later!

    ReplyDelete
  153. Sorry to tell you both sets of fans can be pathetic and classless all depends how far you want to go with your insults and what your idea of banter is.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Great response Jeff - I now don't think all Liverpool fans are bell ends

    ReplyDelete
  155. Imaguest asked about the notes which where destroyed how can evidence be used
    when the original evidence was destroyed?


    Yes Suarez is gulity of using the Spanish word negro in saying black, but
    Evra didn't use this word he was telling the world N****R which has been found
    not to be true so if Evra was using the N word which was never used how can Suarez be found gulity if
    Evra is using the N word in his complaint that was never used by Suarez?
    Evra told the enquiry he didn't like using the N word and that was the reason he never told the ref but was telling the world and Fergie the N word, inconsistent evidence I don't like using the word one on one to a ref but will shout it out after the game to the world how IMPRESSIVE !!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  156. When i sit with my fellow lfc supporters at anfield i look around and see all colours and all religions something special and i would never allow someone to change that i do believe something was said in the heat of the moment but that does not make him a rasist a hot headed fool yes so let him take his punisment and learn that this will not be tolerated at Liverpool fc and we need to move on

    ReplyDelete
  157. Good thread Jaimie - fairly and factually stated as always - FA riddled with its own inconsistencies and political agenda - You can always rely on them to b**ls it up. The fact that a "friend" of Sir A (use the term loosely) is on the "independant" panel is a joke but does not surprise

    A short ban may need to be served, 8 games ridiculous 2 or 3 maybe yes and then get back on with the footy - just a footnote from an English Dictionary .....

    Prevaricate: to speak falsely or misleadingly: deliberately mis-state or create an incorrect impression; lie

    Also an anagram of ... Patrice Evra

    ReplyDelete
  158. SPOT ON!
    MIKE 

    ReplyDelete
  159. Remember Zidane-MAterazzi case. Zidane testified that Materazzi had used racist words against Zidane's algerian background. But, Materazzi was never found guilty because only Zidane's evidence was not enough. I'm still wondering how this so-called independent commission could give a verdict based only on Evra's evidence. I mean where the verbal exchange took place, the ref was only couple of yards away and other man u players were there too, the linesman and cameramen having their mics were not far away neither. Not a single evidence apart from Evra's interview. Come on, be more professional. You can't see only 1 side of the coin and give a serious verdict like this 1.

    ReplyDelete
  160. In a premier league game, where every inch of the ground is covered by hundreds of cameras, it's too stupid to believe none of the cameras could  provide any evidence. Viewers sitting in front of their tvs, can clearly lip-read players saying fuuck-off to opponents. Now if cameras could not cover that scenes of suarez then it's clear that alleged scenes never took place! Only suarez's haters vision what Evra is saying with no visual proof.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Actually it can be offensive if used in a condescending or aggressive manner. Clearly this was a heated argument, so Negro in the term of "endearment" is non applicable. At best he was being patronising like when a southern gentleman calls a black person "boy" at worst he was being offensive. Plus has he denied saying "I don't speak to blacks" because that's the worst of the lot. Oh and I'm a Liverpool fan, just not blinded by club loyalties!

    ReplyDelete
  162. Erm...FFS! It's not just about the word that was said, but the CONTEXT in which it is used in. If I called you white, that is not racist in itself. But if I said "I don't speak to whites", "Get away from me Whitey" and then went "Whitey, whitey, whitey..." That would be racist wouldn't it? In South America Negro can be used as a term of endearment amongst friends but also as an insult. Anyway, why is he referring to his colour anyway, what has that got to do with football?

    ReplyDelete
  163. Do you have to type on every single article with your rubbish! Again, It's not just about the word that was said, but the CONTEXT in which it is used in. If I called you white, that is not racist in itself. But if I said "I don't speak to whites", "Get away from me Whitey" and then went "Whitey, whitey, whitey..." That would be racist wouldn't it? In South America Negro can be used as a term of endearment amongst friends but also as an insult. Anyway, why is he referring to his colour anyway, what has that got to do with football?

    ReplyDelete
  164. The comment above was posted by Jamesuk in response to an article by Henry Winter in The Telegraph on 2nd January 2012.

    As a fluent Spanish speaker who has spent time in South America - and in the Southern Cone in particular - I found this an excellent analysis of the (unconvincing) case made by the FA and the incoherent nature of the arguments used in the report. 

    ReplyDelete
  165. Forgot to add the link to the Winter article:

















    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8987621/Liverpool-manager-Kenny-Dalglish-has-power-to-put-a-stop-to-the-Luis-Suarez-episode.html#disqus_thread

    ReplyDelete
  166. Nobody is condoning the use of the word "negro" by Luis. What others and I have explained previously, however, is that it typically does not  have racist connotations in the Rio del Plata area. The point we are making is that Luis is not a racist and that it appears that he was provoked unnecessarily by Evra with regard to (his non-existent) sister.

    Although no-one but Suarez and Evra really know what happened out there, it appears that Evra may have sought to provoke and manipulate Suarez. Suarez unfortunately and naively fell into the trap apparently set up by Evra, whose intention may have been to provoke Luis with a view to getting him sent off. The apparent reference to a (non-existent) sister seems to hark back to the Zidane incident in the World Cup Final, with Evra potentially seeking a similar reaction from Suarez.

    If the abusive reference to Suarez's (non-existent) sister is true, then should not Evra be on the dock for seeking to stoke up violence with patently unacceptable behaviour?

    ReplyDelete
  167. Very interesting analysis Jamie - I am wondering if you should not be part of Liverpool's legal defence team in the Suarez case after reading the article above!

    ReplyDelete
  168. Evra hasn't made any racist allegations before? Hasn't he? Have YOU done any research on one of your precious players before you come on a LFC website and spout nonsense not once but continually! Cast your mind back to 5th Dec 2008 when a one Patrice Evra was banned for 4 matches due to improper conduct after assaulting a Chelsea groundsman ( in front of witness's). Apparantely charges that groundsman Sam Bethell had used racially abusive language towards Evra after the match could not be proven. Umm, who accused Bethell then? There were plenty of witness's available unlike with the current race row and yet it couldn't be proven that racially abusive language had been used against Evra. Is that because there hadn't been any even though the accusation had been levied? It's furthermore interesting to note that Messrs Ferguson et al thought the 4 match ban excessive yet they are more than happy that justice has been done with regards Suarez. Surely not a case of double standards?

    ReplyDelete
  169. I'm sorry, but you need to get your facts straight. The official FA report into that Chelsea incident specifically states that Evra did NOT make a race complaint:

    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2011/12/debunking-lfc-myths-no-11-patrice-evra.html

    Evra has only ever made one race complain, and that was against Suarez.

    ReplyDelete
  170. no appeal then local lad....and suarez still hasnlt got the balls to admit anything...shame on him, dalglish and club

    ReplyDelete
  171. you believe wat you want. ive watched evra over the years and it dont take a boff to see wat type of bloke he is

    ReplyDelete
  172. hes obviously more on the ball than the clown that tried to defend suarez.
    good on ye jk

    ReplyDelete
  173. It sounds like your rebuttal is that the panel wasnt 'independent' enough for you. Ok.
    To suggest the QC was 'naturally inclined' to side with Evra is an amazing statement.
    'Need I say more'? You probably shouldnt but I'd like to know your source of information for that.
    I think your 'source' is what follows- Smith and fergie are friends and so you're inferring the decision was reached,fully,because one of the panel is a friend of ferguson? Would you honestly say your theory is compelling? You're assuming a pretty high level of corruption in the legal system, and putting it down to loyalty to an old friend.
    I think your loyalty to LFC is stopping you from seeing sense.
    It seems you've decided Suarez is innocent and Evra is lying,and you'll collect any piece of info that fits with your conclusion, which you'd reached beforehand. If this sounds possible have a think about it.

    There's many cries among LFC fans of foul play, but the club aren't appealing the charge or the punishment, so i'm guessing none of these factors amount to anything that helps Suarez's case. Again, for those of you who think legal mistakes made and FA is corrupt etc, why is nobody saying that Suarez made a mistake using that word? As Im sure he's aware now, using that word was not a trivial error he made. Anyone familiar with history of racism in England would surely agree, unless perhaps you're a racist. Punishment is harsh maybe, but it sends the right message.
    He made a mistake, he wont make that mistake again.

    ReplyDelete
  174. 'your sayin how much better you are than...'
    Perhaps you can refer me to that part?
    I can only assume the bit about mob derived courage felt a bit close to the bone.? If you read my post again you'll see I do include myself in that observation. And it's not my brainchild, it's a well demonstrated and documented phenomenon.
    'you obviously cant suport liverpool if you have those opinions...'
    I dont see how this follows from any opinion I voiced, please clarify that connection for me.

    Lets just dissect it a bit because we clearly dont agree. You're stating that Suarez used these words but it doesnt matter or need attention because he didnt mean them offensively and if he did only in a 'bantery' way. That's a fairly complex interpretation of the facts and not even the best one for Suarez. Suarez himself definitely wasnt suggesting he was jabbing Evra with 'banter' about his skin colour. But it's worth pointing out our disagreement here, that I dont think such 'banter' should be allowed, while you do.
    And also that I can't be a Liverpool fan if I think he was wrong to use that word? Chiefly because I'm going against the clubs motto.?

    Can you honestly say you think you've made a convincing case there?


    You're not offended when someone calls you baldy in a bantery way, presumably only your friends though, not strangers and also presumably not when you're in a heated exchange. Those are two differences, the third is that 'baldy' is quite different from 'black' or 'blacky'. That's my opinion. It's different from yours.
    I dont want to argue with people about points like that
    you bald titty 

    ReplyDelete
  175. Suarez made a racist comment, admitted it and claimed it wasnt racist 'where he comes from'. The bin dippers stuck by him in a bizarre and ill informed gesture that seemed to condone racism. They now accept he has done wrong but the humble Suarez is either lacking the intelligence or humility to admit that he did wrong.

    End of story.

    ReplyDelete
  176. interesting stuff, but let's face it, Suarez's behaviour and language were racist.....FACT
    the real disgrace is that Dalglish has given succour to racists by his unjustifiable support of Suarez.
    Suarez has been scapegoated by the FA and is really unlucky to be the one to be used to make a point but his behaviour was none the less completely unacceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  177. lets forget about the whole legal side to this whole issue. If you look at Evra's reputation, during his career in all leagues he accused people of racially abusing him. Why was this not brought up.....

    ReplyDelete
  178. Exactly, read the report, it is clear he had other cases.  Maybe those were in contingency (pay based on how much you get) that's why he did not pay attention.

    ReplyDelete