RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Luis Suarez hit with 8 match ban.......

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Luis Suarez hit with 8 match ban.......

    Suarez hit with eight-match ban as panel rule he did racially abuse Evra





    By Sportsmail Reporter
    Last updated at 8:05 PM on 20th December 2011

    Luis Suarez has been banned for eight matches and fined £40,000 after an Independent Regulatory Commission found a charge of misconduct against him proven.
    An FA statement said: 'Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1).

    'The insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2).


    Row: Luis Suarez (left) and Patrice Evra clashed as United and Liverpool drew



    'Mr Suarez shall be warned as to his future conduct, be suspended for eight matches covering all first team competitive matches and fined the sum of £40,000.

    'The [penalty] is suspended pending the outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Suarez against this decision.

    'Mr Suarez has the right to appeal the decision of the Independent Regulatory Commission to an Appeal Board. An appeal must be lodged within 14 days of the date of the written reasons for the decision.

    'The penalty is suspended until after the outcome of any appeal, or the time for appealing expires, or should Mr Suarez decide not to appeal. The reason for this is to ensure that the penalty does not take effect before any appeal so that Mr Suarez has an effective right of appeal.'
    The Uruguay international, charged by the Football Association with abusing the Manchester United defender and referring to his 'ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race', faced a disciplinary hearing last week.

    Flashpoint: Suarez was charged with abusing Evra at Anfield



    Suarez denied the allegations levelled against him by Evra after the 1-1 draw between the sides at Anfield on October 15, with formal proceedings in front of an independent three-man panel having started on Wednesday.
    Although the case became one man's word against the other, complexities left it open to interpretation.
    From the moment Sir Alex Ferguson escorted his player to see referee Andre Marriner at Anfield after the game, Evra insisted Suarez abused him on numerous occasions when they clashed in the second half.
    He confided in team-mates for several weeks that he was supremely confident the case against Suarez would be proven and his complaint vindicated.
    Suarez did not deny using the word 'negro' or 'negrito' once, but what complicated the case was his defence that the term was not meant as an insult and would be acceptable in Uruguay and many countries around the world.

    Man in the middle: Ref Andre Marriner had to speak to Evra and Suarez at Anfield

    THE MEN WHO HAD TO DECIDE


    PAUL GOULDING QC (chairman): Works at the same Blackstone chambers as the barrister who was successful in representing the FA in Wayne Rooney's Euro appeal. Qualified FA coach who appeared for Jean Tigana in his successful £2million-plus claim following his sacking as Fulham boss.

    BRIAN JONES: Chairman of Sheffield and Hallamshire FA, who wrote to county members six months ago stressing need to fight discrimination.

    DENIS SMITH: Ex-Stoke defender who managed York, Sunderland and Oxford United. Now mentor at Stoke academy.


    Brighton boss Gus Poyet said: 'In Uruguay it is a nickname for someone whose skin is darker than the rest. It is not offensive. Such people are part of society. We will defend them, go to war with them, share everything with them and at the same time use that word.'

    Body language is also said to have been put forward as a mitigating factor, with Suarez claiming his lack of aggression towards Evra also suggests no harm was meant by his comments.

    His defence submitted video evidence they believe supports this point.

    Opinion was divided on the issue - as well as Anfield boss Dalglish, Ferguson and Poyet having there say, Fulham boss Martin Jol also revealed he would be shocked if the charges against Suarez were proved.
    Jol worked with Suarez over an 18-month period during his time as Ajax manager and would be taken aback if the charges against the 24-year-old are found proved.
    'If it is true, I certainly am surprised,' the Dutchman said. 'At Ajax we had players from all over the world, with all the continents involved and he was good with them all.
    'He was my captain and you can imagine I told him it was his


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz1h6kIVBO7

  • #2
    OOUUUCCHHHHH!!! If he deserves it he deserves it... sounds like one of the harshest penalties I've heard of in terms of match bans in the EPL... not saying it isn't warrantied... man haffi watch dem mout now!
    Peter R

    Comment


    • #3
      Somebody give Gus Poyet a rope!
      "Jamaica's future reflects its past, having attained only one per cent annual growth over 30 years whilst neighbours have grown at five per cent." (Article)

      Comment


      • #4
        and a cilice and a cat o nine!

        Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

        Comment


        • #5
          compared to what dem dish out in spain and elsewhere .....

          it should be punitive as well as a deterrent ......

          Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

          Comment


          • #6
            Poyet does have a point... but it won't fly here; the problem is Suarez figget him not in Uruguay, and does not yet recognise the norms of the society he's living in, or failing that he was being deliberately obtuse. His ban, besides being a lesson in how to behave, will be welcome news to the enemies of Liverpool and those of Suarez. he will have time to reflect and "come again".

            With respect to Poyet, in Jamaica people are referred to as "******" , "chiney" and no offense is taken, at least when I was in JA albeit a few decades ago... in North America and in England you have to be careful how you refer to man especially if you referring to his race.
            Peter R

            Comment


            • #7
              it all has to do with context. him and evra was not having tea and crumpets in an english garden .... he intended to be offensive in the context which is why i thought his defence was weak ... better him did apologise and seh .... "i didn't realise" .... for him to get off would mean that contextually and otherwise it was OK and at the moment, the FA has to seem as if it is taking a strong stand against racism .... WC 2018 in russia is looming in the background...

              Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Peter R View Post
                Poyet does have a point... but it won't fly here; the problem is Suarez figget him not in Uruguay, and does not yet recognise the norms of the society he's living in, or failing that he was being deliberately obtuse. His ban, besides being a lesson in how to behave, will be welcome news to the enemies of Liverpool and those of Suarez. he will have time to reflect and "come again".

                With respect to Poyet, in Jamaica people are referred to as "******" , "chiney" and no offense is taken, at least when I was in JA albeit a few decades ago... in North America and in England you have to be careful how you refer to man especially if you referring to his race.
                Well said

                Comment


                • #9
                  Is ongle when dem wrong wi always empathetic an ah wondah it dem guilty or not. Wha mek a pale face nah guh call yuh dat deh name an dem bred pan it. A bet if ah di nex man di duh sump'n wrong Lawd God wi wouldah crucify di man an put him pan di cross

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    John Terry next.
                    • Don't let negative things break you, instead let it be your strength, your reason for growth. Life is for living and I won't spend my life feeling cheated and downtrodden.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Let us move one .
                      THERE IS ONLY ONE ONANDI LOWE!

                      "Good things come out of the garrisons" after his daughter won the 100m Gold For Jamaica.


                      "It therefore is useless and pointless, unless it is for share malice and victimisation to arrest and charge a 92-year-old man for such a simple offence. There is nothing morally wrong with this man smoking a spliff; the only thing wrong is that it is still on the law books," said Chevannes.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by X View Post
                        Let us move one .
                        which one?
                        "Jamaica's future reflects its past, having attained only one per cent annual growth over 30 years whilst neighbours have grown at five per cent." (Article)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          least you could have said is he is wrong. How you a go move on when Liverpool nuh accept it and they are appealing it?
                          • Don't let negative things break you, instead let it be your strength, your reason for growth. Life is for living and I won't spend my life feeling cheated and downtrodden.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            ...of course they must appeal it, wrong or not. It is democratic justice in action... when your best striker gets an eight match ban.. you must appeal! nuh dat Rooney did duh di odda day..
                            Peter R

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Move on to the next chapter , appeal or not , lets move on , wrong about what ? In what cultural norms is it wrong ? I heard a lady refer to a guyanese indian as a ****** at work and she cried and alleged racisim.

                              They were amicable friends before.Suraez will learn ,In our culture everyone is refered to a colored name or ethnic or nationalistic name , from white boy , to black boy to red , to chiney to indian to ****** ,to syrian, cuban etc , in affectionate terms, but like a man said in what context?

                              The screwed up thing is almost everyone thinks they are black regardless of ethnic background...go figure.

                              Even in the most vulgar context, racism is nonexistent with intent,but the objective is mostly to draw attention to an issue.It doesnt mean it doesnt exist in our culture.
                              THERE IS ONLY ONE ONANDI LOWE!

                              "Good things come out of the garrisons" after his daughter won the 100m Gold For Jamaica.


                              "It therefore is useless and pointless, unless it is for share malice and victimisation to arrest and charge a 92-year-old man for such a simple offence. There is nothing morally wrong with this man smoking a spliff; the only thing wrong is that it is still on the law books," said Chevannes.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X