Suarez refuse to shake Evra hand

[Paul Marin]

I'm not sure if I despise ManU more than I despise Liverpool. Definitely not a Liverpool fan. Been a long time Hotspurs fan..and any team a yardie playing on..Stoke and Bolton.

My take is Evra knows Suarez is not racist and had no racist intent behind their incident but Evra still chose to report the incident to the FA. The FA instead of doing anything meaningful to stamp out racism came down with a bs judgement for political reasons.

Finally - someone gets it. If Suarez was a racist, and the incident had any REAL evidence other than Evra's word, then fine...drop a rockstone on Suarez foot - OR - as with the JT case, leave it to the police. Suarez was not criminally charged because there was ZERO chance the police could get a conviction without further evidence than Evra's "word".

[Paul Marin]

What you mean is nobady is prepared to speculate or deal in pure fantasy or conjecture as to why Liverpool Police havent charged the Liverpool player.
And NOBADY can give any reason that make sense as to why LFC; with all the wealth and legal experts at the disposal were not prepared to overturn a decision which damages both their global branding appeal and revenue, having no doubt read the evidence gathered and decision made by this so-called kangaroo court.
What are we meant to believe? That the mighty and great LFC frighten of challenging a very damaging verdict made by a tin pot Kangaroo Court?.

GazX, you have to take a step back and think this through. There are two issues you raise above - correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Why should anyone speculate as to why Suarez been charged criminally?
2. Why Liverpool has not appealed the decision?

Let's look at these one by one.

Criminal Charges. First of all, in the case of #1, there is zero speculation. The reason that Suarez has not been criminally charged is very simple. There is no evidence that would stand up in court. To try to paint this as a Liverpool Police (actually it's the Merseyside Police) bias is simplistic and ludicrous. They have an obligation to make charges for the public good and in a public case like this, they would have no option were there substantial evidence. The truth is there was not.

Appeal. This is a great question and very appropriate because if he was innocent, why accept the verdict? Simple, under FA rules, you have to basically "prove your innocence" under very onerous restrictions. You cannot as I understand it, introduce new exonerating evidence that was not introduced in the initial case. Worst, you run the risk of your sanction being INCREASED. By putting the ban at 8 games, the FA were basically daring Liverpool to appeal. They would have been crazy to do so. Add to all of this that the initial hearing itself was a sham, there was little chance that the appeal would have been anything different than a second "kangaroo" court.

GazX - there are many other points that I could make on this but I would run the risk of it being too long to expect you to read, but believe me, this was far more of a political witch hunt and a stacked deck than most people realise. Liverpool fans have understandably been vocal in their support for Suarez primarily because they have been the ones to delve deepest into the issue. As Peter and X have said, we'd be the first to mash Suarez foot if he was truly guilty. He was not.

[Gamma]

So correct ALL AROUND

[GazX]

Why so many quik to reject or cast doubt on the word/testimony of Evra yet quik to accept the innocence of suarez who as LFC themself say MISLEAD THEM] into believing he would shake Evra's hand but as CONCLUSIVELY shown on TV shown didnt?
If he can mislead his own aggressively supportive manager KD (who now looks stupid) and club. Why doubt his ability not to do other more undesirable things as Evra claims on the pitch?

[Peter R]

Why so many quik to reject or cast doubt on the word/testimony of Evra yet quik to accept the innocence of suarez who as LFC themself say MISLEAD THEM] into believing he would shake Evra's hand but as CONCLUSIVELY on TV shown didnt?
If he can mislead his own aggressively supportive manager KD (who now looks stupid) and club. Why doubt his ability not to do other more undesirable things as Evra claims on the pitch?

You don't really get the crux of the matter Gaz,...but first, if you are going to use preceding behaviour as a yard stick for current behaviour you lose offa Evra, his history is not a today one...

And it is not so much about believing his innocence as much as it is about believing that he is not guilty, as his guilt has never been proven to the satisfaction of us with inquiring minds.

[GazX]

You don't really get the crux of the matter Gaz,...but first, if you are going to use preceding behaviour as a yard stick for current behaviour you lose offa Evra, his history is not a today one...

And it is not so much about believing his innocence as much as it is about believing that he is not guilty, as his guilt has never been proven to the satisfaction of us with inquiring minds.

However you argue it. it still it shows trust in what LS says cant be taken seriously.

[Peter R]

...and why should I put more credence in what Evra says? but that is a digression.. just understand that some of us have taken a stance that the that the guilt is still unproven...

[Paul Marin]

Why so many quik to reject or cast doubt on the word/testimony of Evra yet quik to accept the innocence of suarez who as LFC themself say MISLEAD THEM] into believing he would shake Evra's hand but as CONCLUSIVELY shown on TV shown didnt?
If he can mislead his own aggressively supportive manager KD (who now looks stupid) and club. Why doubt his ability not to do other more undesirable things as Evra claims on the pitch?

Again, you ignore the fact that Suarez could have offended Jesus himself, it wouldn't matter. One man's word over another is not good enough on cases of such extreme seriousness and not in a court of law for cases where the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard is applied.

As Peter intimated, there is a "burden of proof" on any accuser as there is an implied "presumption of innocence" with all defendants. If I walked over to my neighbour and accused them of tiefing from my mango tree, even if I saw them do it, no court would convict them without some sort of corroborating evidence. Suarez was not tried by that standard - simple.

[Mosiah]

Paul Marin...Paul Marin...mi lose offa yuh star bwoy!

[Mosiah]

I don't know if him is a racist. I think he is. What is not in doubt is that he is a phuqing cheat and an ass! I would say Liverpool needs to get rid of him but since I am no longer a Liverpool fan, I don't give a damn!

[Paul Marin]

Paul Marin...Paul Marin...mi lose offa yuh star bwoy!

Mo, did you read the report?

[GazX]

Again, you ignore the fact that Suarez could have offended Jesus himself, it wouldn't matter. One man's word over another is not good enough on cases of such extreme seriousness and not in a court of law for cases where the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard is applied.

As Peter intimated, there is a "burden of proof" on any accuser as there is an implied "presumption of innocence" with all defendants. If I walked over to my neighbour and accused them of tiefing from my mango tree, even if I saw them do it, no court would convict them without some sort of corroborating evidence. Suarez was not tried by that standard - simple.

So to summarize the FACTs of what we do know concernnig LS which gives us some insight into his character/behaviour.

1) He stops a certain goal by Ghana in the quarter final by illegally using his hand in the 2010 WC to get side through to the Semi final.

2) He is accused of using racist language at Anfield against a black player and after the testimonies/evidence is given to a investigative commission is subsequently found guilty of using racist comments on the pitch.

3) LFC his wealthy employers, and powerful global brand name after the verdict is given do not legally contest this decision or attempt to overturn the decision given by this committee and in not doing so; prefer to see their player remaining stained by the decision reached.

4) LS gives some kind of assurance to LFC/KD that he will shake hands with PE when the two sides meet last saturday.

5) LS deliberately blanks Evra's attempted handshake in front of the watching media inspite of his given assurances.

6) LFC in a statement accepts LS was wrong to not to shake hands and finally drawing a line under the whole affair and during their statement says the player has mislead them.

So inspite of these known facts about LS character and his past/current behaviour your still confident that LS is wrongly judged of resorting to racism on the pitch?

[Gamma]

well at the very least his credibility.

regarding HOW he said it, he was having an exchange in spanish with evra who is NOT from uruguay and who does not speak uruguayan dialect, i would imagine that suarez would speak to him to so that he can understand especially because he was trying to insult him (an insult is lost of the person receiving it does not understand it).

i must say that i am mystified at peter and paul's continued defence of this reprobate, but then ... i am biased.

"why did you kick me?" .... "because you are black!" this is OK?

"go ahead blackie blackie blackie blackie" this is also ok?

[Paul Marin]

So to summarize the FACTs of what we do know concernnig LS which gives us some insight into his character/behaviour.

1) He stops a certain goal by Ghana in the quarter final by illegally using his hand in the 2010 WC to get side through to the Semi final.

2) He is accused of using racist language at Anfield against a black player and after the testimonies/evidence is given to a investigative commission is subsequently found guilty of using racist comments on the pitch.

3) LFC his wealthy employers, and powerful global brand name after the verdict is given do not legally contest this decision or attempt to overturn the decision given by this committee and in not doing so; prefer to see their player remaining stained by the decision reached.

4) LS gives some kind of assurance to LFC/KD that he will shake hands with PE when the two sides meet last saturday.

5) LS deliberately blanks Evra's attempted handshake in front of the watching media inspite of his given assurances.

6) LFC in a statement accepts LS was wrong to not to shake hands and finally drawing a line under the whole affair and during their statement says the player has mislead them.

So inspite of these known facts about LS character and his past/current behaviour your still confident that LS is wrongly judged of resorting to racism on the pitch?

Short answer - Yes. Long answer: You have gone to great lengths to paint a character portrait of Suarez, which is wholly irrelevant. I think that this has been a huge part of the problem in this debate in that people think this is about Suarez - it is not.

It is about fairness and holding institutions to a higher and fairer standard especially on issues of such gravity as race and implied racism. The FA charged and convicted the man based on another man's word. Their system placed no "burden of proof" on the prosecution (FA), there was no "presumption of innocence" and the verdict was reached on the lower "balance of probabilities" legal standard, not the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard which I submit is the appropriate standard for such a serious charge.

In a court, Suarez would not have to say one word in his own defense. His accusers would have to PROVE his guilt based on evidence put forth. In this case, that would only have been Evra's testimony as nothing else supported his word - no witnesses for sure and the FA has NOT released the video that did not make broadcast as far as I know. Why? They went to great lengths to publish a report, why not release the video used in the case? Certainly the broadcast video is inconclusive, other than substantiating the fact that they had an altercation, were called over by the referee, and Evra slapped away Suarez's hand in what looked like an attempt by Suarez to reconcile. If you have more evidence than that, fine...let me see it.

As I've said before, were this trial held in a court of law, it would have been near impossible to get a conviction based on Evra's word alone. This is why me and others speculate he was not charged by the police - lack of substantive evidence. To underscore this, the FA are not handling the John Terry case because video evidence was sufficiently clear to carry the case to a criminal charge by the police. Surely this fact cannot be lost on you?

Lastly, one has to question the FA's agenda. You can go around the web, this board, everywhere you want where this matter is discussed and you will find people calling Suarez a racist, yet the FA went to great lengths to not call him a racist, Evra did not call him a racist, but respected publications and others have used the word over and over. Do you think the FA didn't know this was going to happen? Do you think that they believed that the average punter would read their 115 page document and understand the subtleties? Absolutely not. I speculate that the reason they stopped short of calling Suarez a "racist" is because that word by itself could have triggered a libel suit in the courts, where they know this verdict would have been overturned, however, the media would make sure that the insinuation of hm being a racist would be carried forward, which would accomplish their intent anyway. But why? I don't know, but I do speculate that this is their "issue of the day" especially because of the row with Blatter and UEFA on racial abuse of their players in 2010 that still has not been resolved.

Just as importantly, for Suarez and Liverpool, the FA made sure that they would think through any appeal by leveling an 8 match ban. Under their rules sanctions can be increased in appeal. That's not my understanding of how court systems work. I don't believe your sentence can't be increased in appeal...maybe Gamma can clarify.

At the end of the day, if we allow the FA (or any institution) to come to this conclusions unfairly, we have grossly abrogated our responsibility as citizens and deserve fascism. We can't let our dislike for the defendant justify injustice. I don't know Luis Suarez, he may be a racist, he may be a good guy - I just don't know but I do know that he was not given a fair trial. Were the conviction fair, I would have been the first to kick his ass out of Anfield regardless of his past record - whether he be saint or sinner.

[Gamma]

how about the continued behaviour of the defendant ... in ANY event character evidence is permissible in cases where the issue is the witnesses character...