Suarez refuse to shake Evra hand

[Paul Marin]

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

Sure, but do so fairly under fair rules and let the process run.

[Mosiah]

...and your several rationalisations, and they get worse by the minute!

[Paul Marin]

...and your several rationalisations, and they get worse by the minute!

Educate me then. I am not without humility. I will stand corrected, maybe you can bring a "zephyr of truth" to my perspective.

[GazX]

Sure, but do so fairly under fair rules and let the process run.

the chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) Gordon Taylor said it was clear racism would not be tolerated in the English game.
He said: "This was an independent commission experienced in law and football and they must have had compelling evidence and it sends out a very strong message to the rest of the world." http://www.supersport.com/football/b...es_Suarezs_ban

[Peter R]

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

Could character evidence be used by the defendant against his accuser?

[Gamma]

absolutely!

[Paul Marin]

GazX - don't bring this jackass into the equation. Here's a bit of history on this ass, where was he in these two situations?

1994. Stuart Pearce is alleged to have racially abused Paul Ince. Taylor's response was that it was: “in the heat of the moment…Stuart regrets what he said, and he’ll be ringing Paul to apologise. Hopefully that will be the end of it."

2002. Reading’s John Mackie admits to racial abuse of Sheffield United’s Carl Asaba. Taylor comments: “Obviously we were very concerned about the comments that were made but it’s to John Mackie’s credit that he has subsequently reacted in this way and apologised. We would expect Carl Asaba to accept that apology, which was unreserved, and do not feel there is any reason for the FA to take any action in this case.”

If you don't think there were underlying forces at play in this incident that go beyond Suarez (who was a scapegoat) for some other hidden agenda I heard on good accord that the Brooklyn Bridge was for sale. Taylor himself even hints at it "it sends out a very strong message to the rest of the world." (meaning - strong message to FIFA/UEFA over their case from 2010)

==

As for the panel being an "independent commission experienced in law and football" you also may not be aware that one of the panel members, Denis Smith, has a very very tight relationship with Slurgie and his son Darren. He managed Wrexham for six years between 2001 to 2007, during which time a
key member of his squad was Darren Ferguson who he made Wrexham club captain. Smith had such a cozy relationship that he got two free transfers from Manu** that first season (highly unusual) and even arranged for Ben Foster to get signed (on loan from Stoke to Wrexham) by Manu**. I also believe he is godfather to Slurgie's grandson or some such thing (but don't hold me to that last bit).

Now - if Denis Smith is the best that the FA tribunal could do for "experience in football"...well blow me down with a feather. You'd believe they would have had someone on the panel who could not even remotely be tied to Manu**, but such is the FA in their competence. These are the same idiots that lose Capello over a race row, then appoint a new interim manager who was himself guilty of racial abuse. Brilliant!!!!

[Paul Marin]

Could character evidence be used by the defendant against his accuser?

Peter - there is some confusion as to whether Liverpool were denied this option prior to the hearing or whether they were advised against it. The logic behind the latter being that discrediting Evra in the court of public opinion was a PR disaster.

As I understand it, there were several improprieties about the process, including the apparent (we don't know this as fact, but this is speculated) denial of entering this video into evidence where Evra himself - speaking in English - is clearly heard using the "n" word. (Note: the video is part of a documentary in French, but Evra is speaking about two black Chelsea players (I believe) - you speak French, maybe you can decipher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4_fQ...ilpage#t=2130s

Anyway, in testifying, Evra then says that the "n" word is not a word he likes to use...really? Here's what it says in the report:

271. When, shortly after the match, he went to see the referee with the manager, Mr Evra complained that Mr Suarez had said "I don't talk to you because you nig**rs". Mr Evra told us that he believed, from the moment he heard Mr Suarez use the word “negro”, that this meant nig**r. The Commission asked Mr Evra why, then, did he not tell the referee that he had been called nig**r, as opposed to black. Mr Evra's answer was that even when he pronounced the word "nig**rs", it was not a word he liked to use. He added that maybe it was also because he was speaking in English, that "black" was the English word in his mind, and he felt he had done enough to complain by telling the referee that he had been called black.

Really Patrice? Come on man. Geez. This underscores my position as why I think the whole thing was a misunderstanding.