25 Apr 2013

Complicity & Betrayal: 5 reasons why Suarez - and LFC - deserve the 10-game ban

As expected, the FA has severely punished Liverpool striker Luis Suarez for his ill-advised bite attack on Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic. The Uruguayan's ten game ban means he'll now miss the rest of the season, and Reds fans are (predictably) foaming at the mouth over the alleged injustice of it all. Well, in my view, Suarez absolutely deserves this massive ban, but he's not the only one at fault here. Liverpool FC are complicit in the Uruguayan's downfall, and the club must consequently take a major share of the blame.

Forget the lame excuses, tenuous rationalisations, and cretinous conspiracy theories - Suarez brought this on himself, and there are many good reasons why he - and LFC - deserve this ban:


This incident is not a one-off - Suarez also bit PSV's Otman Bakkal back in 2010, and if he's stupid enough to do the same thing *again* (in front of worldwide audience), then he deserves everything he gets.

Despite receiving a 7-match ban and being dumped by Ajax as a result of the Bakkal bite, Suarez has learned NOTHING in the last three years, and the Ivanovic incident is proof of that. Why should someone who shamelessly disrespects the rules of sportsmanship and fair play be afforded the benefit of leniency for committing the same heinous act on two separate occasions?

Whether he broke Ivanovic's skin is irrelevant - Suarez intended to bite Ivanovic, and with that act of pure selfishness, he completely disrespected the game, his team-mates (who are still battling for Europe), and the club that has supported him through thick and thin.

As a comparison (NOT literal before anyone tries to argue that!): if X murders Y, goes to prison for 20 years, then gets out and murders someone else three years later, should X be given a lighter sentence? Of course not. What kind of twisted logic is that? X would get a more severe sentence because he committed the same crime in the past and *failed to learn his lesson*

The same applies here - Suarez received a 7 game ban for biting the first time, and increasing that to 10 games for doing the same thing again is fair, and should be *expected*


Suarez has a long history of negative on-field behaviour, including:

- Cheating (Mainly diving)
- Deliberate handball for Uruguay and LFC.
- Admitting in public that he would cheat for LFC.
- Using 'insulting words which include a reference to [Patrice Evra's] colour'
- Giving opposition fans the finger.
- Stamping on players etc.
- Refusing to shake another player's hand despite promising LFC he'd would.

Despite all the bans, and the countless second chances, Suarez has not changed one iota. Liverpool have (unwisely) bent over backwards to accommodate him, and how does he repay that? By persistently and unapologetically sullying the club's name and reputation. Suarez needs a shock to the system to finally WAKE HIM UP, and perhaps this 10-game ban will do that. I doubt it, but it's a possibility.

Suarez and Liverpool should drop the victim complex, take the ban on the chin and start working towards a positive future. If they take the negative route of bitching and moaning, this will set a negative example, and the cycle will just continue.

No one forced Suarez to bite Ivanovic; he did it, so now he must pay the price.


This season, Suarez has escaped punishment for:

- Punching another player in face.
- Admitting that he 'invented a foul' against Stoke City.
- Admitting that he would cheat in an LFC shirt.
- Blatantly stamping on FOUR separate occasions.
- Deliberately using his hand (again) during the Chelsea match.

All of the above show a persistently pig-headed disregard for the rules of the sport, and Suarez's luck finally ran out when he bit Ivanovic. Additionally, in a display of unwarranted arrogance, Suarez - no doubt coached by the club - pre-emptively lobbied for a smaller punishment by disputing the FA's contention that a three match ban would be 'clearly insufficient'. This shows Liverpool's dismissive approach to the incident, and when combined with Suarez's long list of infractions this season, it seems that there's an element of Karma at play over the subsequent award of a 10-game ban.


Like elements of the club's fawning fanbase, LFC are great enablers when it comes to Suarez, and the current state of affairs is (IMO) indirectly related to the club's amateur, laissez-faire approach to handling the Uruguayan. The (arguable) fact is that despite his transgressions, Liverpool have singularly failed to properly hold Suarez to account for his behaviour.

Instead, the club has repeatedly subjugated its values and compromised its principles in a bid to avoid upsetting him. LFC and its fans have basically enabled Suarez's behaviour, and made him appear to me more important than the club, and this dereliction of duty has led inexorably to the current 10-game ban.

You only have to look at the Reds' response to the various incidents involving Suarez to see that what I describe above is true. Take the Evra situation, for example: the club's pugnacious and overly defensive attitude to that incident will go down as one of the most embarrassing moments in the club's history. It was total amateur hour, and along with the juvenile T-shirt stunt, it made the club a laughing stock across the globe.

Liverpool's response to the Ivanovic bite incident is similarly amateur, and this was exemplified by (amongst other things) Brendan Rodgers' attempt to deflect the issue by comparing it to Fernando Torres' alleged elbow on Jamie Carragher, and - most embarrassingly - Ian Ayre's pitiful fawning over Suarez in the club statement that announced his alleged 'punishment'.


As I argued on Monday, Liverpool took the coward’s way out by merely handing Suarez a fine of two week's wages. What kind of deterrent is that? A monetary fine makes NO DIFFERENCE to an elite footballer, and everyone - including the LFC hierarchy - knows that. Liverpool had the opportunity to take swift, decisive action and institute their own ban, but once again, the club shirked its responsibilities and failed to act through fear of alienating Suarez.

If Liverpool HAD banned him straight away - like Ajax did in 2010 - then it's conceivable that the FA may not have handed down such a severe ban. However, from the outside looking in, it looks like the Reds didn't take issue seriously enough (which they didn't), so the FA had no option but to impose a severe ban, and they are right for doing so.

Forget selling/sacking Suarez - Ian Ayre should be given his marching orders as soon as possible (IMO). He is the common denominator in LFC's atrocious handling of various negative incidents over the last few years, and he is also responsible for the club's persistently amateur PR response.

Fans will inevitably come up with all kinds of reasons why Suarez has allegedly been mistreated (Defoe didn't get banned; victimisation; Suarez is treated worse because he's a non-Brit etc), but in my view, every single one of these lame excuses is borne of rampaging pro-LFC bias, insular groupthink denial, and a stone-cold refusal to see things the way they really are.

Ask yourself the following question: has *anything* positive come from the poisonous symbiotic link between Suarez and LFC? Clearly, the answer is a resounding NO, and the truth of the matter is self-evident: since Suarez signed, the Liverpool FC's image and reputation have plummeted to an all-time low, and that is no exaggeration. The worst thing about the whole situation, however, is that the club is stubbornly complicit in its own fall from grace.

When it comes to the crunch, Liverpool and the likes of Ayre, who - is the de facto Chief at Anfield - have repeatedly betrayed LFC's unimpeachable ethos of always placing the club above the individual. Indeed, even *after* Suarez received this ban, Ayre played the victim card again, and released a defensive statement about how the club is 'shocked and 'disappointed' by the ban.

Ayre just doesn't get it. Liverpool FC don't get it, and Suarez definitely doesn't get it. It seems likely that the club will almost certainly take the same overly defensive, victim-led stance as it took during the Evra situation, and if this happens, it will further damage its reputation and standing.

Sadly, a disturbing accountability vacuum is sucking the integrity out of Liverpool FC, and this is exacerbated by a damaging lack of strong, decisive leadership at the club. It's a toxic mix, and the sooner it is acknowledged and exorcised, the better.

Ultimately, if you're going to sell your soul to protect something, or someone, it better be worth it, or you run the risk of destroying yourself.

In this case, is Suarez worth it...?

IMPORTANT NOTE: By all means disagree, and do so as vehemently as you like, but ANYONE who hurls any kind of insult will be permanently banned.

NOTE: Please stick to the Comment Policy (Click to read)


  1. might i just suggest you fuck off and support Manchester United or as i suspect you already do.
    Every player has things he has done that written down would be just as condemning. Luis is no Angel and yes he did deserve a lengthy ban but 10 matches is out of proportion.

  2. go fuck your self

  3. LS fault my house burnt down, LS fault my gf left me, LS fault i didn't get to work on time come on drop the LS event pls its getting ridiculous

  4. my comment went just like that wow hm well let me try to rephrase it nicely can we pls let go of the LS event and stop trying to bring it up it's been about a week almost

  5. Definitely knew this article was coming and it is a top article. You can see the vigorous thought and effort. +1 to JK.

    Myself and many others have defended Suarez on numerous occasions on a plethora of incidents and talking points. However this time, Suarez has been his own worst enemy, and from someone who tries to see things as evenly as possible, I just cannot find any defence for him. Forget stupid precedent like the Defoe biting or unfair treatment from the FA. And, IMO diving, handballs and the racism debacle shouldn't even need to be mentioned...

    The undeniable point about all this is that Suarez should not of bitten anyone in the first place. This should not of even happened. However it did and Suarez should face the full consequences. Both player and club should shut up and cop it on the chin. Again, I can't find any defence...

    As for Ayre, he is not independent. I think if players, staff or management hierarchy have a view or opinion (Suarez ban was too severe) then Ayre will just reflect that in public. I can't identify any other realistic options that he has, although the obvious one is to stop playing the victim etc, there's not much else.

  6. Jaimie, by and large, I tend to agree with the majority of what you say here.

    There are a few points here or there that I don't agree with but it's somewhat irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

    Bottom line is that Suarez was wrong. I was a bit perturbed by LFC's response of "shock" at the 10 game ban. Seemed very hollow to me and more of a cheap political move than anything else. They couldn't be THAT shocked.

    My guess is that the FA was always planning to give him 7-8 games. Ban him 10. He appeals and they knock it down a peg. Everyone moves on with their lives.

    The real problem for LFC is lack of success over the past few years. Look at the top teams: Man U had Giggs' affair and the Rooney international incident. Man City had Tevez, Balotelli. Chelsea had Terry.

    Success cures all ills or at least makes people easily forget about them. When you aren't successful and you mishandle situations (or dare I say, bite someone), it exacerbates the issue overall.

  7. Ivanovic must have remarked to him "My, what big teeth you have!"

  8. Well said Jamie.

  9. Yes, Suarez only received the ban yesterday, but I'm well out of order for posting an opinion a massive one day later. Shame on me.

    Please stop posting pointless comments. If you disagree, then argue against the post.

  10. One thing that I do hope that comes out of this are more severe responses to other extremely dangerous plays. Two footed tackles, studs up, etc.

    Carra made a great comment this week about how those are just as dangerous if not more than the Suarez bite.

    This is not to downplay the Suarez issue. This is to hold the other dangerous plays accountable on a similar level to an egregious offense such as biting someone.

  11. NO! your completely wrong! i dont quite know why you are but you are!!
    your points are logical but my genetic makeup makes me refuse this logic!!
    MY HEAD HURTS!! its SAF! its gotta be SAF!! thats why this is happening to us!!......HOWARD WEBB!!

  12. I'll be honest Jamie I can't argue with anything you said,When I heard the 10 match ban I was baffled because it wasn't consistent with other players bans but LFC should have banned him,For some reason I think they are trying to keep his value as high as possible to sell him in the summer.I have no idea how we'll replace him but I thought the same for Torres so we'll find someone.

  13. I am with you on that one Pete as I was also one of the fans defending him but he really is his own worst enemy. I was started to believe that he was changing and then this happens. The thing that bugs the hell out of me is other clubs and fans trying to take the moral high ground when they have/had players who have committed worse crimes on the pitch. I guess the fact that he will have missed 20 games through suspension is going to knock a few milion off his valuation in the market.

  14. Jamie congratulations you've changed my attitude to liverpool fans --i get so sick of tribalism and the way some fans from all clubs defend their players no matter what damage it does to the game they claim to love-- Suarez was simply wrong and biting is way out of order no matter who does it and that includes anyone from my club as well -- so cheers

  15. ...... Waiting for a certain someone to leap to LS' defence

  16. i agree with the violent conduct charge but the football association cannot decide ,when it feels like, the regular "violent conduct banning" is not sufficient. It is truly absurd and everything should be considered, whether or not he "broke the skin" is relevant. This is football things happen, racism is rife, vengeance is all over the place but to make Mr. Suarez the poster boy of "what we will do to you" is simply unfair. Mr. Suarez and terry perfect example. So you have had enough how this suarez chap but get a grip buddy and stop throwing stones with the enemy.

  17. I understand your point Philip, but surely Ian Ayre as the Managing Director is entrusted with the authority to deal with these things. That's is why he is there, to oversea things. He got it wrong last season and this season.

  18. P.s I wrote on this post earlier but didn't actually read the article until now.
    Great read...If you are a Liverpool supporter,Sir, you are most definately a credit to your club and football in general. If only more supporters had your sense of perspective.

  19. I agree with you that FA need to be more consistent. Then again they are the ones who backed Rooney to try and get his international ban reduced for kicking a player. I mean seriously? He kicks a player and the FA backs him?

    Lack of consistency.

  20. I agree with you once more with regards to LS' antics Jamie and thankfully it looks like more people are starting to see it. To summarize your points, LS has become bigger than the club. Plain and simple the majority of fans and our management are willing to trade 121 years of respect built across the globe to keep our best player happy no matter what he does. I'm shocked. I even had a mate argue that LS' competitive nature had him bit ivanovic in order to try and get a reaction and a penalty...I had to check the calendar and check whether it was April 1st! Ian Ayre is a great businessman and did well to get us a great shirt deal with Standard Charted but he cannot lead this club especially with the intense media focus that LS has brought to the club. The only question is who do we replace him with? I know managers and players but I have no idea what good managing directors there are on the market. But I would simply have Ayre take back is commercial director position and bring a real leader in because a self imposed ban would have probably seen a smaller sentence a little more respect given to the club. I mean, a great advocate for hillsborough dies and after LS brings the club into disrepute during the game to honor her, we think it’s appropriate to donate his fine to the organization? Talk about poor poor PR management. Embarrasing how they think they could use those emotional ties to simply make everything seem better. Im convinced its a phycological problem that has never been addressed. Players love him, ex players love him, glen loves him obviously so i cant see him being a racinst, and he's often described as soft spoken so I'm shocked that he finds himself in these positions. Obviously the media plays a huge part but there's never smoke without fire and LS needs to have more self control. BR asked him why he did it and LS had no answer which reafirms my guess that its something that lies subconciously. Hopefully we can remedy it before next season because I love watching him play more than anything, but I hate reading about him the next day

  21. Jamie. Go and support another team. Please.

  22. Asking the FA to change and be consistent is as unrealistic as expecting Suarez to change,Thats the sad reality of it

  23. which of the following statements do you concider to be false?

    FA now needs to keep the stance theyve made when next biting event happens. it will be a 10 match ban.

    and we had 6 more players of suarez talent we would be higher in the table...

    He shouldnt have gone out and said those things.... even if both statements are facts.

  24. Liverpool Football Club asked to get involved in the last two years' worth of controversy and to have its name tainted by signing a player with history of disgusting behavior. If it so happens that Luis Suarez stays part of the team, there is only going to be more of the same.

  25. Well said. The only issue I have with all of this is the FA's twisted/lack of consistency. How can Balotelli only receive a 4 game ban for a 2nd charge of violent conduct in one season when he stamped on Scott Parkers head, but Suarez gets 10 for a bite. I certainly know which I'd rather be on the end of. This 10 game ban needs to now set a precedent for violent conduct or the FA will run the risk of appearing biased.

  26. I think the point of the argument coming out of Liverpool is if the ref had seen it it would have been a 3 game ban from a red card and Goran Popov got a 3 game ban for spitting at a player because he got a red card, Defoe got a yellow card and no ban for his biting incident and the ban isn't in proportion to other more serious offences Ben Thatcher got an 8 game ban for an elbow smash into the face of Pedro Mendes which was his second offence after a previous incident with Nicky Sumberbee.

    Your point about the previous offence at Ajax should have had no part to play in the panels decision as it was already said that it would not be taken into account.

    And I do agree with Liverpool's argument that the FA were wrong to put pressure on there own independent commission to give a longer ban.

    I don't condone what Suarez did and I have no problem with a 10 game ban if that is what they say the offence warrants my problem is with the process, the FA should have I list of punishment for certain offences and the independent panel should then decide what level of offence it falls within.

    Players are receiving varying bans for similar offences and smaller or no bans have been given for more serious offences and that is what managers, fans and players can't understand and the FA give no information on the procedure

  27. The thing is (Right or Wrong) this judgement, like an actual court of law, is supposed to be based on the current offense. As it stands past offences should not be taken into account, if thats the case the ban makes it seem that the FA treat this offence more seriously than racism...Should it??

  28. I thought the ban was a bit excessive but I pretty much figured it was going to be this much so I'm not really losing any sleep over it. And while I don't want to defend Suarez, I am annoyed at the fans of other teams condemning Suarez and calling for him to be booted out of England while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the transgressions of their own team's players. I don't think there's a team out there that has a clean past so it just amazes me how anyone can say Suarez is a disgrace to the game when so many other players are equally as bad for other
    reasons. I feel like if you're going to be that upset over Suarez biting you
    should be equally upset and shoe equal righteous indignation towards so many other incidents. But the life of a fan is to have a selective memory when calling out others.

    I think the biggest issue here is that Liverpool are way too over reliant on
    one player. Sure he's world class (in terms of skill) but we can't build a team around one player. We need to start recruiting more talent. We need to start building around an entire team and not just one really talented attacking player. I'm upset at the ban because I don't have confidence in our team to be able to compete without Suarez. I'm really sorry to say it because I mean no disrespect to the other players but I just don’t see us challenging for a top spot with our current roster minus Suarez.

  29. I'm disappointed in the FA with giving lesser punishments to other players for similar incidents. We all know who they are, so no point going over them again.

    I just hope that he learns from this and goes on to be a goal scoring legend for the club. I doubt he'll want to stay, though, the media have been lapping this up and will be on his back forever: regardless of how good a player he is.

  30. Let me throw something in here...okay, we all knew the kind of player Suarez was before he came to this club. After the Evra incident, has LFC done anything to develop the person of Suarez? From the looks of the latest incident, nothing really.
    This season, we've seen Suarez get frustrated many times and yell at the linesmen and refs, going to ground quite easily...why hasn't BR addressed this more strongly.? Suarez is a ticking time-bomb and LFC has done nothing to defuse that aspect of him. I feel LFC is partly to blame because they failed to develop the character of Suarez knowing the kind of person he was when he joined the club. BR is more inclined to pampering the players when, some times, what they really need is a kick in the rear.

    That said, 10-match ban is too harsh and the FA are just hypocrites. Then again, we all knew that and so did Suarez.

  31. I totally agree with you that they got it wrong last year and you would like to think following that debacle, FSG as the owners would of at least implemented a simple action plan or policy for the club to adopt to prevent a repeat occurance. Wether this policy was to close the door and remain silent until all the facts where gained or something else, you would think that they would of set a new set of peramiters to ensure the same mistakes were not made. To be honest, If FSG have implemented a new policy to be adopted by the club and Ayre has disregarded this and just wobbled, there is no doubt in my mind that he will be chopped as we have seen that FSG can be ruthless when hiring and firing. However, if FSG do not chop him, or end up coming out with a comment that is disproportional to what Ayre has stated, then; 1. they never implemented clear direction from last year so are guilty of failing to provide clear direction to the board and MD or 2. they agree fully with what has been said and should take full responsibility.

  32. "Where in the FA handbook does it state that repeat offenders will suffer a more severe punishment?" Let's start with a few basic examples - commiting several fouls will eventually get you a yellow card, two yellows and it's a red, five yellows gives a suspension, ten gives a longer. Get the picture?

  33. Whilst he most definitely deserves a ban, I think 10 games is too much, and the reason being, is because he received a shorter ban for racist abuse, as did John Terry. Are the FA saying that biting is worse than racism?
    I really do think the FA need to sharpen up the process for discipline, because it is so inconsistent. Also the fact that if the ref had seen it and, say booked him in the game. He would have received no ban? How does that make sense....

    Also with everyone talking about Suarez's past offences at the moment, I have seen the Uruguay handball again a few times, and noticed that the other player on the line also tries to handball it, lol. I wonder how different things would be if the other player had got to it first?

    One more thing, I don't agree with all the offences you point out, saying they were deliberate, we don't know if they were all deliberate I'm sure some were, but I don't think all were.

    My opinion is that the FA are, have given a longer ban, due to his past 'incidents', which I think is wrong, as I think it clouds judgment on what is actually being judged.

  34. Well it's hardly surprising you feel this way JK but there is one thing you're overlooking. The Liverpool supporters that are foaming at the mouth because of the injustice are not doing so because they feel he should not be punished. They're doing so because Suarez gets 10 games and the FA don't need more than two days to come to that conclusion whereas there are numerous examples of players doing a lot worse than biting a player (WHICH IS WRONG, DIRTY AND DESERVES A BAN) where the FA did nothing or the players got off with a less severe punishment. John Terry got four games for racial abuse, the second time he's found guilty of that by the way, and it took the FA almost a year to come to that decision. Roy Keane got five games for ending Haalands career. Ben Thatcher got 8 games for breaking someone's jaw. Now if that's not injustice, you tell me.

  35. Suarez was foolish, the length of ban doesn't surprise me though, it is very strong compared to recent, more serious offences.

    This decision has been politicised by PM's spokesperson urging a long ban.

    FA rules are all over the place, they repeatedly hide behind the reasoning that match officials have seen an incident so punishment cannot be meted out.

    If there was a real will to protect children from being influenced by should be role models then there would be a proper tariff system for all offences. Also there should be sin bins for EVERY form of dissent.

    Suarez will likely stay with us, his price tag should be £40 million minimum but there is no one who will pay that. Other English clubs surely won't and continental options have alternative targets.

    Symbiosis is a mutually beneficial relationship, so yes there has been positives for LFC.

    Hicks and Gillet sucked the integrity out of our once great club, thanks to David Moore's greed.

    We are now a commodity, bought by complete opportunists at a knock down price. They will do all they can to increase revenues and that means CL qualification. Suarez improves the chances of this happening.

    I wish the ban was shorter and didn't impact next season as much but at the end of the day he is an adult and should know better. Up to Liverpool to make sure they educate him now. This is still redeemable

    Good article overall

  36. See that's the thing here buddha9, fans and managers of other clubs are always happy to judge Suarez and to condemn Liverpool supporters for sticking by him but the simple fact of the matter is that LFC supporters don't need your approval or that of anyone outside of the club. We stick by our own. Had we not done so, Michael Shields would still be in jail today and the Hillsborough victims and families would never have seen justice. Because when we needed your outrage and involvement, you were all nowhere to be seen. It's only when outsiders can criticise that you all come out of the woods. I'm proud that so many of us stand by one of the greatest, most talented players ever to wear the Liverpool red and that they don't give a shed about what anyone else thinks about that specifically or our club and its supporters in general.

  37. Standard FA being about as good as ever at sorting a p1ss up in a brewery. having non independent panels, punishments which never match. Not just this case but almost every case ever. There as random as you get. It staggers me how bad they are. Yep they didn`t make the punishment but they do employee the people who do.

    10 game ban? seems about right for this case.

    Now how about bringing in some decent rules which mean some people don`t get zero bans, and others get loads. How about actually using some logic. How about forgetting the whole silly idea of if the ref has seen it we cant do anything. How about scrapping the idea of adding more games on bans if you appeal them, I mean that`s a shocking one. How about actually trying to do stuff which helps football. Bring in a decent fit and proper person test not the shambles one we have now. How about being firm with English players too instead of kid gloves to them just so they can be fit for the England team?

    How about that!

    So scrap Independent panels as clearly they are rubbish and give out different punishments for the same offense depending on what mood there in. Make clear rules that voilent conduct recieves 10 game ban full stop. or even break it down. spitting is 5 games, gbh is 10 games. just make it clear so there can be no more cases where no one can work out why someone got off with it and someone else didnt.

  38. Independent panels mate, thats the big white elephant in the room. There not really independent as they get paid by someone and they change to often to ever make the same choices. roy keanes thing happened ages ago so the people on the panel will have changed thus there point of view will be different and in turn the punishment,

    I completely agree with 10 games for Suarez, maybe he will wake up and stop messing us about now just I don`t agree with the system used which is shockingly bad at handing out punishments. Its proper Adolf. complain and we increase the ban, its jokes.

  39. I would also add, that the 2 week's pay being docked is the most a club is allowed to fine a player without getting approval from the FA. That's the MAX they could fine him, at that point. It was immediate, it was the maximum, and it was done with the full knowledge that the FA was going to be dishing out punishment on tip of it.

    No team is going to add suspension of games ON TOP of what the FA will issue. It's still a business, they're in the business of winning (though they're not really that good at it lately).

    If you want to criticize LFC over shirking responsibility, wait until Friday, after they file the inevitable appeal. Then you can fairly criticize them for it. If they were responsible, and wanted to teach him a lesson, they'd not appeal it, they wouldn't say a word about it, and they'd come down hard on Rodgers for saying crap like "They (The FA) is punnishing the man not the offense." Then, it would be more like, not adding to the offense, but accepting a harsh standard and upholding the values of LFC. But that's just my take on it.

  40. jk you should work for the FA, everyone loves them as well !!! ;0)
    while i agree with half of your points, we live in a forgiving country and if suarez were english he would be less hammered at every given opurtunity.
    he is troubled and clearly needs some calming pills, i hear more good things about him than i do negative and off the pitch he is supposed to be a good person.
    he is being treated 24/7 like someone whos done evil.
    bottom line is fans of his are comparing leg breaking tackles and eye busting elbows etc in comparison to a little nip from suarez.
    thats your problem.
    the problem is the FA. and suarez is on his last chance if hes still here to find out.
    he cant be replaced for ability, so maybe we will get a squeeky clean pro in who ticks all the boxes for being a gentleman , side parting , and shirt tucked in.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,like all the old greats of the game.

  41. Why do you care so much what the rest of the world thinks about our club?

  42. Judges change per court case as well but I've never heard of one person getting 20 years for armed robbery and another getting three months for murder. The funniest thing is, you wonder why the FA need independent panels. Aren't they supposed to be independent and unbiased themselves? This ban won't change Suarez same as Keane's ban didn't change him and Joey Barton's bans never changed him. Some players have this mean streak, it's what makes them the player they are. You can be a great player without doing weird things as well but it's a given that many great players in the past had some type of deficiency. For every Messi there is a Maradonna or a Best or a Cruyff or a Suarez...

  43. There is no excuse for what Suarez did and people commenting on it may be hypocrite but at the end of the day, had he kept his cool and not done it, they wouldn't have anything to talk about. Suarez knows the FA, opposition players and the refs have it in for him. He knows he will be pushed around and kicked because they can't compete with him in ability and talent. He was stupid to do what he did, whether he bites him, punches him, calls him a derogatory word or says something not so nice about his sister. He knows what he did was wrong, he's apologised for it and he will have to accept whatever punishment they give him. He doesn't honestly think that they will let him off with 3 games, he is not stupid. He is Suarez and he is a foreigner so of course he gets a long ban. He should have thought about that before he did what he did. Thing is, he didn't think. He sometimes doesn't and so far it has cost him 18 games.

  44. That's completely irrelevant. And yes I'm well aware of the card issuing policy, this has nothing to do with what I was talking about, OK?

  45. Come to think of it, he would have been better off had he just called Ivanovic negrito....

  46. so we have waited days for this jaimie ,i have not felt so dissappointed since xmas 78 i asked for a chopper and got a axe never mind i got over it shame you will never get over suarez i have read this for days on man ure sites ,but what more could you expect from a suarez hater one question when he has gone who,s next in the fireing line

  47. for once rodgers has been right imo

  48. my faith in your site is at an all time low jaimie you may have brainwashed the masses but suarez will never walk alone whilst he gives 200%in my eyes,

  49. 6. Fa wants to end Suarez time in the UK - they just dont want him here.. In their view hes a bad guy (what he actually is)
    To be honest i was kinda surprised how BR handled this, his interview was really good, he was defending Suarez but said at the same time that its understandeable - while he questioned the FA decisions.

  50. its crazy m8 ...he bit someones arm ...big deal...if you look whats going on in the world in and out of sport which goes unmentioned and unpunished and this makes so much of the news...its an embarrassment to to us all as a nation...its funny racists are made captains..wife beaters fawned over....drunk drivers and coke addicts ..well there just kids...suarez bites and hes satan ...we live in a sick world

  51. It will surely be poor old brendan and you two can annihilate him together. What a team that would be! Although I do sometimes think your a fictional character that JK has created just to wind us all up :)

  52. a bad guy..how so....giggs was shagging his brothers wife thats kinda low....what suarez does is on the pitch...not off it ..perhaps he should just snort coke and abuse some star struck fans after beating up his wife....do me a favor ... fred west is a bad man...are you f*cking real

  53. most Liverpool fans i know back suarez....thats why he doesn't get much support here

  54. poor old buck do me a favour ,hes not even worth a mention

  55. or butted him...or broke his leg...or did a flying armbar on him..or spat at him ..or shagged his wife

  56. Jason - perhaps you should grow up, eh?

  57. agree m8 the worlds gone mad and judging by most of the posts on here lfc fans are the maddest in the world,some poor child got excluded from school because of suarez ,s bite nothing to do with there parents being no marks who fancied there 5 mins of fame come on would you go to the papers no you would smack there arse and send them to bed end off

  58. The idea that Suarez got a ten game ban because he is a 'foreigner' is nonsense. There's absolutely no evidence to back that up, and it's just the easy excuse that fans grasp at in a bid to demonise the FA.

    When the FA banned Ferdinand for 8 months, why was that? He's English. Let me guess - the FA hates non-whites too, right?

    Suarez got a 10 game ban because he deserved it. He has a LONG history of repeated negative incidents and total disrespect for the rules of the game, and that all came home to roost.

    Previous incidents are not supposed to be taken into account, but that's impossible. The panel will have subconsciously taken everything he's done into consideration, and that's just human nature.

    By blaming the ban on xenophobia, you once again indirectly give Suarez a pass for what he's done.

  59. Agree, Simon - sin bins would be a great addition to football. Overall, the FA is a joke, and it's rules are laughable, but as long as it's run by out of touch dinosaurs, nothing is going to change.

  60. Well maybe my description was bad - people of other clubs see him as a bad guy, there are many worse football players on the world .. (giggs, bellamy ...)
    100% agree with your on/off the pitch topic, but the fa won't change their mind, its unfair, but we have to get on with it - unfortunately ...

  61. i actually vehemently disagree with what you say.

    On many accounts your raison d'etre has little foundation.

    Yes Suarez is in the wrong and has been on many occasions this season. However is he the only one that dives? Why do we offer a little chuckle when an englishman blatantly dives i.e phil neville.

    Secondly can you recall the black defender of norwich who blatantly used his elbow in suarez his head - the referee didnt see that too - but was there no violent intent there? Perhaps Robert Huth who stamped on Suarez back had no violent intent either? How about Whelan the stoke midfielder who 2 weeks on the trot committed atrocious 2 footed tackles?

    The reason for suarez position is that he is a high profile player for a high profile club. I dont know any justice system which punishes people for this as opposed to the offense.

    I am not saying i agree or disagree with the 10 match ban - infact i could quite easily make an argument for it being longer or shorter. As the intent was there and aesthetically it was out of order. But punishments should be on the basis of the crime not who you are and who you work for.

    This same FA is the the one who actually appealed to the FA when Rooney was banned for violent offence is a game.

    What liverpool fans like me get upset about is the discrepancies in the decisions. They can ban suarez for a whole season im not bothered but next time Robert huth kick shit out of players i expect similar punishments - thats all i expect.

  62. Re the Terry ban - that is such a red herring, and the reason he got a lesser ban is simple:

    * FA's Rule E3(2) states that if abuse includes a "reference to a person's ethnic origin, colour or race", the panel has the discretion to double the ban

    * A four-game ban is the entry-point for breaches of E3(2) (as confirmed in the Suarez-Evra written reasons) and the FA panel doubled that minimum ban in Suarez's case to "reflect the gravity of the misconduct".

    * Suarez was found guilty of using the word Negro *multiple times* towards Evra. That is the 'aggravating factor' that prompted the panel to double the ban to 8 games.

    * Terry said what he said *once*, and there was a modicum of reasonable doubt about Terry's intention, mainly due to the fact he was cleared of the race charge in court.

    * Suarez, on the other hand, *admitted* using the world negro in a hostile environment. He was accused of giving 'unreliable' evidence, and several other LFC employees gave conflicting evidence about what happened.

    * To be clear: as I argued at the time, I believe Suarez should only have been convicted for his single use of the word negro, i.e. the use he admitted to. There was direct proof of that (from him), whereas there was absolutely no proof that he said it 4-5 other times.

    * Having said that, the FA found him guilty of using the word multiple times, and that is why he got 8 games.

    There's no conspiracy; it's not because he's 'foreign'. If you consider each situation without pro-LFC bias, it's clear to see why there is a distinction between the two cases.

  63. I was impressed when Roy Keane said a couple of weeks ago that whenever he got a red card he asked himself if he "gave the ref an excuse to send him off". And that is the attitude Suarez and Liverpool are going to have to take. Theres no point complaining when Suarez is treated differently to other players because its not going to stop the FA doing so.

  64. Agree, great points. As you suggest, you'd think that the owners would've implement some kind of strategy to deal with major incidents like this, but clearly not as it's still amateur hour at Anfield.

  65. Mark - if Suarez just kept his head down and didn't bite/dive/stamp/punch/admit to cheating in public, the press would have nothing on him. He keeps himself in the media; the press don't force him to get into all these scrapes.

  66. but what message does it send out... i fully expect the next racist incident to get 10 plus match ban anthing else is an insult

  67. Peter - you say:

    I am annoyed at the fans of other teams condemning Suarez and calling for him to be booted out of England while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the transgressions of their own team's players.

    Isn't that exactly what LFC fans do? Condemn players from other teams for doing things wrong, but then defend Suarez to the hilt?

  68. Such a polite request, but alas, I must decline. Sorry.

  69. 1.) The hand ball against Chelsea was not deliberate . his arm was completely limp and hit him directly in his head. if you deliberately punch the ball your hand isn't going to thrash about like that after being hit. That is common sense. That is a desperate attempt to make him look worse.

    2.) this is mostly Lfc's FAULT. they handled it poorly they shiuld have banned him immediatly for 6 games. fa would have seen that as taking the apporiate action. and probably would have followed suit..

    3.) Ajax didn't dump him they actually suspend him for league games, but insisted on playing him CL, which is why the KNVB came down so harsh. and the money offered by lfc for was WAY TO GOOD for any dutch side to pass up. they are feeder clubs, bottomline.

    this is not a defense of saurez by any means. the fa acted because micro did not. I don't think the ban is necessarily appropriate except for no action was taken so they acted decisively. hopefully saurez stays and learns.

  70. Great points, tesoman. Agree re the Hillsborough donation - it smacks of corporate suits on a conference call having a lame lightbulb moment.

  71. True that. It was one thing to donate his fine to them but that shouldn't have been mentioned to the press if it was sincere.

  72. Insularity is just as bad as ignorance IMO.

  73. The FA published a 63-page report regarding the disciplinary proceedings conducted by an Independent Regulatory Commission; it labelled Terry's defence as "improbable, implausible and contrived". The Commission concluded that it was "quite satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there [was] no credible basis for Mr. Terry's defence that his use of the words 'fucking black cunt' were directed at Ferdinand by way of forceful rejection and/or inquiry. Instead, [the Commission was] quite satisfied, and [found] on the balance of probabilities, that the offending words were said by way of insult." So there was no doubt about his intention. Furthermore, Suarez as well as many of his countrymen have always insisted that the use of the word negro or negrito, which is what Suarez admitted to saying, is not meant to be hostile. Yet that was swept aside for no apparent reason other than that they decided not to believe him. So did they actually have a good reason not to believ him? No and they slapped an eight match ban on him. And what's the difference anyway? Racism is racism. It's not about what you say and how often, it's about what is in the mind of people.

  74. Jaimie, if he stays at Liverpool, goes the whole of next season without so much as a murmur out of place and scores 100 goals, the media will still drag up his past. He's tainted now and no matter what he does from this day forward, he'll always have the baggage follow him around.
    That, is what the UK media are like.

    What worries me the most is him leaving and being replaced with a donkey and the club slipping further into obscurity.
    Bayern are 'reportedly' ready to offer £35m for him: the price of Andy Carroll, who will we get in if he goes?

    I'm getting sick of football these days. Maybe turning 40 has done this or maybe it's 20+ years of rubbish that's done it.

  75. Not at all, he should be suspended for what he did. No pass there. However, there are plenty of precedents to support it. Was Keane an angel before he broke Haaland's leg? Was Thatcher? Not exactly yet they got off lighter than Suarez. Defoe bit Mascherano when he was at West Ham and got nothing at all because the ref had already given him a yellow for "the incident" but had not established the bite. Ivanovic made the ref aware that Suarez had bitten him and he chose not to act on it. So he dealt with it by not doing anything yet still Suarez gets a ten match ban when Defoe, I repeat, got ZERO matches. He didn't even apologise for it which is the first thing Suarez did.. Sidwell nearly kicked Arteta in two the first matche he returned from a three match ban and only gets four matches...should I go on?

  76. Good points re the veracity of Terry's evidence, but that wasn't an aggravating factor worth of doubling the ban. Re the use of the word negro in Uruguay - the incident didn't take place there, it took place in Europe, so that point is irrelevant. Additionally, Suarez used the word in an objectively hostile situation, not in a friendly environment where that argument could hold some water.

  77. some valid points but even without LFC bias most fans i know who all support other teams think it was a joke that Terry whos word were caught on video got less than suarez who admitted using the word once in a context which wasn`t anyway near as offense. You could argue that the fans of other teams just dont like Terry, which could be valid but a higher chance is that it wasn`t a conspiracy just a case of the FA and independent panels are a joke.

  78. but Terrys use of the word wasnt in a friendly way either, which could be seen from the video. Looking at the context of the situation that Suarez was in chances are what he said was hostile as who says nice things when having a arguement. In that context both his and Terrys case were the same.

  79. evra calling jimmy floyd a n"gger on you tube! then has the gaul to complane about LS. that was the biggest witch hunt in football 10f"ckin games john terry 4 games same offence? defoe bites gets a caution. LS same offence 10 f"cking games

  80. And I expect anyone in future who bites to get a 10. Not sure it will happen though. As bad and weird as a bite is we saw worse at the weekend. Id rather a little bite than an elbow or studs over the ball anyday. As for what nasri did, he should have spent the night in jail.

  81. Yes, I agree, but Terry said it once; Suarez was found guilty of referencing Evra's colour multiple times, which is the aggravating factor that caused the ban to be doubled.

  82. Agree re alleged independent panels. The FA is a joke overall, that much is clear.

  83. Judging by most fans repsonses I assume they want the kid banned from school forever...

  84. damn right about Success. Ashley Cole shot a work expereince kid. I mean serious??? how on earth did that even happen, yet it washed over pretty quick and no punishment was given and the press ran one story then moved on. Success brings power and power brings the FA and media to your door begging.

  85. The fact that the incident didn't take place in Uruguay means that it was absolutely ok to ban him for what he said, however, the fact that he comes from a country where saying what he said is not considered racist should have been taken into account when it comes to judging the malice with what it was said. Terry called Ferdinand a black cnt, the last word proves beyond any doubt that there is malice but calling "a coloured person of small stature" a "little black guy" is insensitive sure, racist too but malicious or hostile? Not quite imo. We use different words when we try to be malicious don't we?

  86. How about Ashley Cole shooting a work experience kid. That trumps everything lol.

  87. And the fact that they found him guilty of doing it multiple times was based on absolutely nothing. There was no supporting evidence for that what so ever.

  88. was this the actual reason Jamie? the fact he said it more than once? if so im shocked that they count number of uses over words used. Then again this is the FA and im not really that shocked. Your allowed to mock players family, there dead mums, there sexual tastes just not skin colour. Random as ever lol

  89. U see poor ivanobitch had his arm in a sling while playing tonight & his purple heart on his jersey, luus, you should have at least took a chunk out for your 10 match ban :)

  90. probability. The FA work on that not evidence per see. They dont need evidence like a court of law does, this is why Terry didn`t get done in a court of law as it couldnt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. If suarez had gone to court he wouldnt have got done either as one word agaisnt another wouldnt have cut it without more evidence. However in a FA trail all they need is a thought. They think you might have done it they can ban you.

  91. Haha, the FA would love it if Suarez shot someone. They'd have to buy a 5 year diary to work out how long they could ban him for.

  92. Which basically means that the FA "justice" system is completely trivial and if they want to punish you more heavily because you're a foreigner, they can. Which is exactly what happened here and many times before.

  93. Insularity is what the entire footballing business isbuilt on. Us against the rest of the world sells a lot of red jerseys every year. You can't be us and the rest of the world if you want to be number one. You cannot be the sheep and the shepherd :-)

  94. There really is no hiding away from the fact that this Club has been seriously lacking in terms of taking full control and accountability of the problems that it has faced esp in recent years.

    It is always someone else's fault, be it SAF or the FA or certain Ref's with "obvious" bias or the Media etc etc etc....

    I have been arguing for years that "we" are our own worst enemy, this whole overblown incident smacks of the Evra gate "scandal" whereby Kenny was dragged into taking a stance re Suarez, then we had the T-shirts etc & were all told to toe the line and get behind the player blah-dy blah-dy blah....

    At what point should Suarez himself actually take responsibility for his actions without being defended to the hilt by over zealous blinkered die hard fans who see him & the Club...as the perpetual victim?

    When will "we" realize that "we" are very much part of the problem...? What is wrong with condemning a player who actively courts controversy to the detriment of the Club?

    Why, do we not have anyone at the Club with the balls to deal with this guy?

    It is a travesty, in fact this season & the last have been very damaging in respect of the Clubs profile, i am shocked that "we" seem to be in some kind of collective paralysis in terms of actually making big sweeping changes to personnel etc who quite frankly should have been outed a long time ago.........

    Like a rudderless boat adrift once again in stormy waters with no one taking any responsibility as to...

    A) How we got there in the first place....
    B) How to get out of there....
    C) & How to prevent it from happening again....

    There is a saying that goes something like this....

    A man walks down a street, doesn't see that there is a hole in the sidewalk & falls into the hole.....It takes him a long time to get out because he is angry about who put the hole there.....

    The next day he walks down the same street, see's the hole, but still falls in....This time he gets out quickly realizing that he himself was at fault....

    The following day, he walks down the same street, see's the hole in the sidewalk and carefully avoids it....

    Very good article JK.

  95. You need more proof that the FA are biased?

  96. The kid took his choc ice though...

  97. or maybe Cole dropped a penny and the kid looked like he was going to pick it up...

  98. I'm considering writing Suarez an e-mail to get him to kick a ballboy the next time he is allowed on a football pitch. Just to see how many matches more than Hazard he gets..

  99. And to top that off, it is worse if someone calls me white more than once than when they call me a white cnut.

  100. Ivanovic should just be happy that Suarez didn't huff and puff and blew his house down..

  101. If shagging someone's wife was an offense that justified a suspension than Rooney should be suspended for life for shagging his...

  102. Did you really expect Jaimie to empathise with Suarez and LFC, and have a whinge about the ban?

  103. it would be loads more. This is the thing. no one is saying what Suarez did wasnt right but there is a biased media out there. Like Hoq said if Suarez had shoot that kid there would be out rage at the monstor. If Suarez had kicked that ball boy there would have been out cry. Its not being a enabler its looking and not being blind to facts.

  104. well that is the best bit. I doubt anyone would get banned for calling you white as someone somewhere along the PC road decided you can give as much stick to a white person as you want and its not racist... The rules on engagment are so random and non logical its is laughable. slate someones dead sister... fair game. use a word to describe there skin colour even if they are that colour and OMG you are devils child. To the stake with you.

    Or in this case

    do what Robert huth did and stamp onto a player on the floor and thats fine, sure the player was face down and the ball wasnt close but it was only a stamp right so no ban for that.

    bite someone, which didnt appear to even leave teeth marks so more kinda put ur mouth around there arm and off with your head.

  105. nope. you just seem to mis read what people write. pretty much every post here saying Suarez should be banned thus not defending him at all. Pointing out that other players dont get punished like he does isnt defending him. Its just looking at facts and making a statement.

    Now if fans said Suarez should have no ban then i would understand ur point, but hardly anyone on here is saying that.

  106. Why the hell does Liverpool not have a CEO??????

  107. It's good to see that you're not siding with Suarez blindly unlike some Liverpool fans.Suarez is a brilliant player but his antics on the field, including the recent Ivanovic incident makes some wonder whether it would be more prudent for the club to just sell him and use the proceeds to buy few good players. It's pointless to have one world class player when that same player doesn't get to play often because he's either banned or injured. In the long run, keeping someone like him will also further damage the club's reputation.I wouldn't want us to be known as thugs and cheats so if some club comes in for him, let's think long and hard before deciding we won't sell him.

  108. You forget that Suarez got the 10 game ban cause of the bite. Not the stamps, dives etc.
    But ofcourse he built himself a bad reputation and I personally think its a fair ban due too his previous incidents. And dont give me the shit about they cant take other incidents into the evaluation, cause they can. Its like a court system, first time: Lighter penalty. Second/Third time: Harder penalty. It's logic.

  109. Because we're not a PLC

  110. What relevance does the skin colour of this ultra violent Norwich defender have? Too others than you, Terry and Suarez I mean?

  111. no but to try and justify the terry suarez saga as fair is stretching it

  112. lol i totally agree he deserved a ban i was hoping for three games thought it might be 6 but ten is a f"cking joke

  113. My hope is why that they are not publicity being too negative is that they are trying to protect a transfer fee. If they came out and said 'that's it he is gone' then the fee we would get would be lower than if it looks like we really didn't want to sell him but this offer we couldn't refuse.

  114. Well firstly isnt the laws of EPL state that a players record in other leaguesa or countries of no consequence.

    Suarez admittedly is a fool to himself and it wasnt a nice thing to do but isnt punching someone or trying to end careers with violent tackles much worse?
    I think if the FA are to hand him 10 matches fine every crude late tackler who inflicts any kind of injury should be given 20 matches maybe a season or 2.
    No why too many players missing games?

  115. Good point, I reckon he'd get the same sentance the boston bombers gonna get.

  116. For comments like yours i think Suarez do not deserve to play is a club like Liverpool .He deserves to play in realy big clubs like Barcelona or Real Madrid . I think Suarez is too big for Liverpool. I hope he leaves to a much better team.

  117. Not at
    all. I think you're just so on the offensive about this that you're not seeing
    the entire picture clearly. You hate Suarez so now you have something to really
    get behind to prove your opinion, which to be fair is not entirely far from the
    truth. I mostly agree with you except it sounds to me like most people agree
    that Suarez deserves to be punished, including myself. I think you just jumped
    to the conclusion that everyone would blindly defend Suarez. No one is saying
    what he did wasn't stupid or wrong, they're saying that in the context of the
    league as a whole it's not as bad as it is being made out to be. I think you and
    a lot of other people have this misconception that Football/Soccer is actually
    a beautiful game played by gentlemen. Wake up. The EPL especially is full of
    assholes that are completely full of themselves and are willing to do whatever
    it takes to win. I'll never get this sense that Football/Soccer is such a highly
    reputable sport. I love it but I'm not going to pretend it's anything more than
    it is.

  118. Unless the fa is a court of law, previous offences bear no relevance on punishments otherwise Lee cattermole would be banned for life for all his previous red cards. Ten games is pretty harsh when you consider he didn't injure him, compare his offence to the Thatcher assault on Pedro Mendes which would be a jail sentence if carried out off the pitch.

  119. what an idiotic response. The skin colour was included because i forgot his name! I am black myself! Please dont see racism where there isnt any.