Liverpool FC

[sweet potata!]

Austin 3:16

[The Camel]

Tiger 6:9

[outragous76]

Shakira 1

[bobby1]

Bet 3 6 5

[Acidmouse]

Naughty from Evra - it was he who lowered his hand when it was his turn to shake Suarez's hand.

Yeah, course he did, but so subtly that only you saw it...

this needs more love

[Peter Costa]

I find it astonishing that have reached new depth in our game. Lets look at Suarez and his time here in the PL. Within two months and after a major impact on the game, he suddenly became the villain for opposition fans and media alike. Why? He dived, he cheated etc etc. Yes, he went down easy. Yes, he was petulant. Yes, he was animated and wore his heart of his sleeve. Is that a crime? For a lot of opposition fans, yes it was. And so we began a journey of hate towards one person. Not simply by what he did here in the PL, but he also had a history which included a bite and a handball.  Was he alone in such actions? No, of course not, but football fans in general find it much easier to hate than to appreciate. After all, they don't support a club in order to appreciate the opposition. Although understandable to some extent, fans are in general open to abuse from the media and  the FA. By that, I mean that both institutions are always looking to find a victim in either a player or club, because they know they would have the vast majority on their side and help with any agenda they have.

For the media, it's simply a case of doing their job. And by that, I don't mean reporting facts and issues. I mean it's their job to sell papers and drive traffic to their sites. If they distort the truth along the way or even ignore it, so much better for them. They exist to not only report the news, but to create the news. The bigger the controversy, the better.  The more they can fuel any situation, the better. It's to their benefit.  Lets be clear about this, the bigger the club, the bigger its history, the bigger player, the better the story.  All clubs and all players are potential targets.  

We then have the FA. who prior to the Suarez case, were a laughing stock to the football world. They showed inconsistencies in many aspects of the game and left many fans, managers, clubs and players, totally confused and angered by their decisions and actions. Also prior to the Suarez case, the FA had attacked FIFA of their handling on racism. To say that the FA had no agenda from this point is avoiding reality. What they now needed was to prove that point at the first opportunity.  Then out of the blue comes the Suarez /Evra incident.  

What an opportunity this was for the FA. Suarez admitted using a word that began with the letter N. Never mind what that word meant to the two players involved. - it began with that letter N and pronounced as close to the most vile word in racism as possible.  What followed, had us all trying to make sense of it. The FA and the panel even tried to guide us by releasing a 115 page document that justified their decision to find Suarez guilty.  It wasn't a verdict based on fact, but on probability. Rightly or wrongly, that is enough to convict a person. After all, as one of the spokesman for the FA stated "we judge football matters, we do not send people to prison"

I find that statement astonishing. What does he mean exactly? Football matters are not serious? If we get it wrong, we are not sending anyone to prison? Irrespective of what it means, it's clear that the FA are willing and very much able to use very questionable means in determining an outcome of a case. Also, and very importantly, the FA also state in their rules that they can use the high profile of the player and or club, to increase any sentence. In effect, the FA have the right to set examples. is that not astonishing? Is that not an open case of prejudice? Should the FA not be focused on fairness at all times?

In regards to Suarez/Evra, much has been made about certain aspects of the case.  I could go on for many pages in trying to address them all.  However, the main aspects seems to be that Suarez admitted using a word. The UK finds that word as racist. After all, this is the UK and all players must abide by the rules and laws of our society. Understandable really. However, this took place between two foreign players speaking a foreign language. Therefore, whatever they said to each other, does not apply to the UK. How can it if we cannot understand the meaning of the words they used?. We, as a society and the FA, as a governing body, cannot ignore this fact. We cannot simply say that based on our culture, what was said was racist or not racist.

The FA therefore brought in a host on experts to try and make sense of the language used. They couldn't make sense of it one way or another. With so many people involved and so many different accounts of exactly what was said, it was simply impossible to reach a clear conclusion.  Is it not fair to say that a great deal could have been lost in translation? And yet, the panel chose one way and not the other. In effect, the whole case was simply based on probability. Probability? Really, is that how you want to see any person judged? Would you or a loved one accept being judged in manner?

When it comes to a football incident we see a diverse reaction from fans. Everyone has an opinion. At the end of the day, the FA rule on the matter. The red or yellow card is either rescinded or not. The player gets one, two three or four game ban. Whatever, the FA make a judgment and very rare do we see any incident as clear. In effect, someone is right and someone is wrong. It's a matter of opinion but, who is right and who is wrong? Either way, the FA ruling stands and that is that.

The Suarez case, taking everything into consideration, has justice being done? Did the FA have an agenda? Was the verdict  fair considering there was so much of the case based on opinions?

If the FA really wanted any fairness in this case, then it would have looked to avoid filling in the blanks with opinions and probabilities. If they wanted the word used by Suarez to bee seen as racist, fine, then make a finding that leaves no doubt. After all, racism is a big issue. Thereofore, make it clear that such a word is unacceptable of a football pitch. However, to make such a ruling without a warning to players in advance is not the fair way. The argument that Suarez should have known, does not hold water. Why should he know when it's a commonly used in certain Spanish speaking countries? What other words are out there that could be seen as unacceptable? ? Who could look into the future and determine in advance which words from the many different cultures should not be used? Do we wait and see what develops and put our take on it? That's what happened in this case.

Looking at the broader picture of this case, the FA have a lot to answer for. In advance of the verdict, all parties concerned agreed that Suarez was not a racist. Yet, what do we see when the verdict comes out? RACIST, says the Mirror.  We are talking about a man who has black family, black friends, black teamamt etc. We are also talking about a word that is commonly used by Spanish speaking countries. Suarez used the same word to Yaya Toure last year. No one mentioned it to Suarez then that it could seen as a racist word.    

What the FA could have done was to make it clear that many words could have their meaning cast into doubt and that players need to be aware. They did not need to make an example of player in order to achieve this. They did not need to stir what could be an explosive situation. Kick out Racism deserves respect, it's the only way forward. However, there must be respect in the verdict and not a verdict filled with uncertainty and certainly not one based on probability. That is not the way forward.

Finally, what has the FA had to say since that verdict? NOTHING. Should they have not made some comment after the media came out calling Suarez a racist? The fact they have ignored this speaks volumes for this body. They are playing politics with game that I love and I hate them for it. They should exist to bring fairness to the game in all aspects. They do not do that and even admit to not doing that.  So why we do we need them?

Footnote. I used to take my daughter to matches until one day she didnt want to go anymore. She never told my why until last year. It came down to one fan who kept muttering racist remarks under his breath. I didnt hear him as he the other side of my daughter but, it seems that he was doing it to a member of his own team. Racism is pure ignorance and needs eradicating from society. I would suggest however that the FA needs to be carefull in the future and refer such cases to an authority better suited at handling them.  They cannot find guilt by probability in such a serious matter as this as this will undermine the work that all players and clubs are doing.

[sweet potata!]

Peter - Good post, did you pen that yourself?

I might use it on another forum but I might be questioned as to where it came from.

[Acidmouse]

I am no Costa at expressing my feelings but here goes.

I think most neutral football fans are not really concerned about if Suarez was guilty or not but the way manner in which Liverpool and for me the manager specifally have conducted themselves/behaved after the verdict is the key.

If you could have a plan on how I would expect Liverpool to play this it would be the exact opposite to what they did. From day one with the T-shirts, then the club insinuating they had firm proof he was Innocent (i guess not so much concrete evidence else they would have actually appealed right?), to the management rants, to the tarnishing of the victims character, the Oldham incident, its like a long list of how not to behave.

I wont even go on about the events at the weekend but lets just say it was only when the sponsors had meetings with the club and expressed concerns (along with the global press) have Liverpool decided to apologise. How anyone can defend Suarez is beyond blind loyalty, he along with the Manager has tarnished the club for a very long time.

Listening to Liverpool fans groups on sky and various radio stations it seems alot of them feel let down on the whole episode, i can see why.   I am fuming over it, Liverpool always had a soft spot for, not anymore.

[The Baron]

I am no Costa at expressing my feelings but here goes.

I think most neutral football fans are not really concerned about if Suarez was guilty or not but the way manner in which Liverpool and for me the manager specifally have conducted themselves/behaved after the verdict is the key.

If you could have a plan on how I would expect Liverpool to play this it would be the exact opposite to what they did. From day one with the T-shirts, then the club insinuating they had firm proof he was Innocent (i guess not so much concrete evidence else they would have actually appealed right?), to the management rants, to the tarnishing of the victims character, the Oldham incident, its like a long list of how not to behave.

I wont even go on about the events at the weekend but lets just say it was only when the sponsors had meetings with the club and expressed concerns (along with the global press) have Liverpool decided to apologise. How anyone can defend Suarez is beyond blind loyalty, he along with the Manager has tarnished the club for a very long time.

Listening to Liverpool fans groups on sky and various radio stations it seems alot of them feel let down on the whole episode, i can see why.   I am fuming over it, Liverpool always had a soft spot for, not anymore.

This post I can understand fully. I think a lot of Liverpool fans share these thoughts.

[MANTIS01]

I find it astonishing that have reached new depth in our game. Lets look at Suarez and his time here in the PL. Within two months and after a major impact on the game, he suddenly became the villain for opposition fans and media alike. Why? He dived, he cheated etc etc. Yes, he went down easy. Yes, he was petulant. Yes, he was animated and wore his heart of his sleeve. Is that a crime? For a lot of opposition fans, yes it was. And so we began a journey of hate towards one person. Not simply by what he did here in the PL, but he also had a history which included a bite and a handball.  Was he alone in such actions? No, of course not, but football fans in general find it much easier to hate than to appreciate. After all, they don't support a club in order to appreciate the opposition. Although understandable to some extent, fans are in general open to abuse from the media and  the FA. By that, I mean that both institutions are always looking to find a victim in either a player or club, because they know they would have the vast majority on their side and help with any agenda they have.

For the media, it's simply a case of doing their job. And by that, I don't mean reporting facts and issues. I mean it's their job to sell papers and drive traffic to their sites. If they distort the truth along the way or even ignore it, so much better for them. They exist to not only report the news, but to create the news. The bigger the controversy, the better.  The more they can fuel any situation, the better. It's to their benefit.  Lets be clear about this, the bigger the club, the bigger its history, the bigger player, the better the story.  All clubs and all players are potential targets. 

We then have the FA. who prior to the Suarez case, were a laughing stock to the football world. They showed inconsistencies in many aspects of the game and left many fans, managers, clubs and players, totally confused and angered by their decisions and actions. Also prior to the Suarez case, the FA had attacked FIFA of their handling on racism. To say that the FA had no agenda from this point is avoiding reality. What they now needed was to prove that point at the first opportunity.  Then out of the blue comes the Suarez /Evra incident. 

What an opportunity this was for the FA. Suarez admitted using a word that began with the letter N. Never mind what that word meant to the two players involved. - it began with that letter N and pronounced as close to the most vile word in racism as possible.  What followed, had us all trying to make sense of it. The FA and the panel even tried to guide us by releasing a 115 page document that justified their decision to find Suarez guilty.  It wasn't a verdict based on fact, but on probability. Rightly or wrongly, that is enough to convict a person. After all, as one of the spokesman for the FA stated "we judge football matters, we do not send people to prison"

I find that statement astonishing. What does he mean exactly? Football matters are not serious? If we get it wrong, we are not sending anyone to prison? Irrespective of what it means, it's clear that the FA are willing and very much able to use very questionable means in determining an outcome of a case. Also, and very importantly, the FA also state in their rules that they can use the high profile of the player and or club, to increase any sentence. In effect, the FA have the right to set examples. is that not astonishing? Is that not an open case of prejudice? Should the FA not be focused on fairness at all times?

In regards to Suarez/Evra, much has been made about certain aspects of the case.  I could go on for many pages in trying to address them all.  However, the main aspects seems to be that Suarez admitted using a word. The UK finds that word as racist. After all, this is the UK and all players must abide by the rules and laws of our society. Understandable really. However, this took place between two foreign players speaking a foreign language. Therefore, whatever they said to each other, does not apply to the UK. How can it if we cannot understand the meaning of the words they used?. We, as a society and the FA, as a governing body, cannot ignore this fact. We cannot simply say that based on our culture, what was said was racist or not racist.

The FA therefore brought in a host on experts to try and make sense of the language used. They couldn't make sense of it one way or another. With so many people involved and so many different accounts of exactly what was said, it was simply impossible to reach a clear conclusion.  Is it not fair to say that a great deal could have been lost in translation? And yet, the panel chose one way and not the other. In effect, the whole case was simply based on probability. Probability? Really, is that how you want to see any person judged? Would you or a loved one accept being judged in manner?

When it comes to a football incident we see a diverse reaction from fans. Everyone has an opinion. At the end of the day, the FA rule on the matter. The red or yellow card is either rescinded or not. The player gets one, two three or four game ban. Whatever, the FA make a judgment and very rare do we see any incident as clear. In effect, someone is right and someone is wrong. It's a matter of opinion but, who is right and who is wrong? Either way, the FA ruling stands and that is that.

The Suarez case, taking everything into consideration, has justice being done? Did the FA have an agenda? Was the verdict  fair considering there was so much of the case based on opinions?

If the FA really wanted any fairness in this case, then it would have looked to avoid filling in the blanks with opinions and probabilities. If they wanted the word used by Suarez to bee seen as racist, fine, then make a finding that leaves no doubt. After all, racism is a big issue. Thereofore, make it clear that such a word is unacceptable of a football pitch. However, to make such a ruling without a warning to players in advance is not the fair way. The argument that Suarez should have known, does not hold water. Why should he know when it's a commonly used in certain Spanish speaking countries? What other words are out there that could be seen as unacceptable? ? Who could look into the future and determine in advance which words from the many different cultures should not be used? Do we wait and see what develops and put our take on it? That's what happened in this case.

Looking at the broader picture of this case, the FA have a lot to answer for. In advance of the verdict, all parties concerned agreed that Suarez was not a racist. Yet, what do we see when the verdict comes out? RACIST, says the Mirror.  We are talking about a man who has black family, black friends, black teamamt etc. We are also talking about a word that is commonly used by Spanish speaking countries. Suarez used the same word to Yaya Toure last year. No one mentioned it to Suarez then that it could seen as a racist word.   

What the FA could have done was to make it clear that many words could have their meaning cast into doubt and that players need to be aware. They did not need to make an example of player in order to achieve this. They did not need to stir what could be an explosive situation. Kick out Racism deserves respect, it's the only way forward. However, there must be respect in the verdict and not a verdict filled with uncertainty and certainly not one based on probability. That is not the way forward.

Finally, what has the FA had to say since that verdict? NOTHING. Should they have not made some comment after the media came out calling Suarez a racist? The fact they have ignored this speaks volumes for this body. They are playing politics with game that I love and I hate them for it. They should exist to bring fairness to the game in all aspects. They do not do that and even admit to not doing that.  So why we do we need them?

Footnote. I used to take my daughter to matches until one day she didnt want to go anymore. She never told my why until last year. It came down to one fan who kept muttering racist remarks under his breath. I didnt hear him as he the other side of my daughter but, it seems that he was doing it to a member of his own team. Racism is pure ignorance and needs eradicating from society. I would suggest however that the FA needs to be carefull in the future and refer such cases to an authority better suited at handling them.  They cannot find guilt by probability in such a serious matter as this as this will undermine the work that all players and clubs are doing.

I don't think Luis Suarez has suddenly become a villain because of media hype.

More realistic to say Suarez is a petulant character who's hard to manage...which previous manager Marco Van Basten testifies to. Telling Liverpool he was going to shake hands and then refusing to do so are the actions of an ungrateful petulant character. It's not the handball that makes him a villain to football fans but that he glorified the act when asked about it. What makes him a villain to football fans is when he sticks his middle finger up to them like he did at Fulham or when he bites another player like he did at Ajax. The media has nothing to do with these acts and the player is entirely responsible for how he chooses to behave.

The FA were not responsible for the conclusions in the report. They selected independant panelists to make an independant judgement. So it's more reasonable to suggest Luis Suarez is just an awkward bastard than to think independent people are pressured into pursuiting hidden agendas on behalf of the FA. The panel published their conclusions so they were free to read to anybody wishing to know their thoughts. I read their report and thought their conclusions were reasonable. If some other people want to get their info from The Daily Star instead that isn't rightly the fault or the responsibility of the FA.

I think your views about the media are entirely accurate. So clubs should be shrewd when investing millions of pounds into new players. They should include a code of conduct expectation in the contract and invest coaching in foreign players about how to behave when representing their new club. Liverpool spent a lot of money on a proven questionable character and threw him into the English game hoping for the best. What they got was the very same controversy that follows Luis Suarez around. That is not the FA's fault. I'm sure the FA and football fans don't want this sort of shit to deal with. Yet straight after his comeback he had the opportunity to turn the media spotlight off by shaking Evra's hand and freely chose not to. Dude is clear villain. Booooooo.

[The Baron]

I'm struggling with the FA aren't responsible for the conclusions of the report. They are. I don't find anything in their verdict reasonable as Peter says its based on "probably" an awful lot. That's a hell of a way to judge someone with zero evidence, and not one I will ever agree with.

The biggest issue isn't that a verdict has gone against Suarez, it's that the FA are a law unto themselves and that people are offended when it suits their cause.

[MANTIS01]

I'm struggling with the FA aren't responsible for the conclusions of the report. They are. I don't find anything in their verdict reasonable as Peter says its based on "probably" an awful lot. That's a hell of a way to judge someone with zero evidence, and not one I will ever agree with.

The biggest issue isn't that a verdict has gone against Suarez, it's that the FA are a law unto themselves and that people are offended when it suits their cause.

Yah the FA are unpredictable, but like Peter says what crime has been committed here? Thus talking about somebody being judged, being the victim, and the quality of evidence makes it sound like a criminal trial. Suarez wasn't judged and condemned by the courts to a jail sentence. The people who run the game of football said they don't want Suarez saying the word negro on a football pitch and excluded him from some football games. Not really Nelson Mandela scale of injustice.

[Peter Costa]

Peter - Good post, did you pen that yourself?

I might use it on another forum but I might be questioned as to where it came from.

I can't affor a ghost writer lol - so yes In did

[The Baron]

I'm struggling with the FA aren't responsible for the conclusions of the report. They are. I don't find anything in their verdict reasonable as Peter says its based on "probably" an awful lot. That's a hell of a way to judge someone with zero evidence, and not one I will ever agree with.

The biggest issue isn't that a verdict has gone against Suarez, it's that the FA are a law unto themselves and that people are offended when it suits their cause.

Yah the FA are unpredictable, but like Peter says what crime has been committed here? Thus talking about somebody being judged, being the victim, and the quality of evidence makes it sound like a criminal trial. Suarez wasn't judged and condemned by the courts to a jail sentence. The people who run the game of football said they don't want Suarez saying the word negro on a football pitch and excluded him from some football games. Not really Nelson Mandela scale of injustice.

That would be fine but the 8 game ban was based on his repetition of the word 7 times (no evidence of this) and because he plays for a big club (see Peter's argument above)

Thats still an injustice to some

To condemn me to this fate I'd want slightly more evidence than the FA have served up here.

[MANTIS01]

I'm struggling with the FA aren't responsible for the conclusions of the report. They are. I don't find anything in their verdict reasonable as Peter says its based on "probably" an awful lot. That's a hell of a way to judge someone with zero evidence, and not one I will ever agree with.

The biggest issue isn't that a verdict has gone against Suarez, it's that the FA are a law unto themselves and that people are offended when it suits their cause.

Yah the FA are unpredictable, but like Peter says what crime has been committed here? Thus talking about somebody being judged, being the victim, and the quality of evidence makes it sound like a criminal trial. Suarez wasn't judged and condemned by the courts to a jail sentence. The people who run the game of football said they don't want Suarez saying the word negro on a football pitch and excluded him from some football games. Not really Nelson Mandela scale of injustice.

That would be fine but the 8 game ban was based on his repetition of the word 7 times (no evidence of this) and because he plays for a big club (see Peter's argument above)

Thats still an injustice to some

To condemn me to this fate I'd want slightly more evidence than the FA have served up here.

Think the length of the ban is an overall judgement of the situation. How the case was vigorously contested, the manner in which people gave evidence and how believable, and yes perhaps to set an example. It's a judgement call as opposed to a science as it often will be in football matters, and especially with the FA.