clearly a pen, but it happens every corner in every game, consistency etc

I've spent quite a long time reading a lot of that case and I've still not finished reading it all, it's quite odd though. Things like "Evra was a more impressive witness". And completely accepting Evra's lie to a French journalist as a 'figure of speech', yet every slight flaw in the argument of Suarez was viewed as a weakness to his case. Should be intriguing seeing the various holes that will be picked from it. Not an expert in law so I can't be sure of what the club will do after reading that, but I can't see them taking it on the chin.

Really? Blackburn are the worst side i've seen come to OT for a long time, they played with one man up front and still scored more than us. 3 shots on target = 3 goals = questions must be asked. Lindergard has started 5 games and not conceided and i'm certian he'd have caught not flapped (if you can call it a flap) at the 3rd goal

Quote Roddy B="Roddy B"I've spent quite a long time reading a lot of that case and I've still not finished reading it all, it's quite odd though. Things like "Evra was a more impressive witness". And completely accepting Evra's lie to a French journalist as a 'figure of speech', yet every slight flaw in the argument of Suarez was viewed as a weakness to his case. Should be intriguing seeing the various holes that will be picked from it. Not an expert in law so I can't be sure of what the club will do after reading that, but I can't see them taking it on the chin.'" not taking it on the chin would apparently be in keeping with a catalogue of PR disasters by the club and all who sail in her www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... sm-verdict But one legal expert suggested that Liverpool would be ill-advised to appeal given the level of detail in the report. Steven Friel, a lawyer for Brown Rudnick who specialise in complex disputes, said: "Paul Goulding QC didn't draft a 115-page document for the love of writing. He did so because he wanted to 'appeal-proof' the decision, and he has done a very good job. Liverpool face an uphill struggle in overturning the decision, and the risks of trying, but failing to do so are huge. Of all the options that are open to him, an appeal should be far down the list."

Quote Roddy B="Roddy B"I've spent quite a long time reading a lot of that case and I've still not finished reading it all, it's quite odd though. Things like "Evra was a more impressive witness". And completely accepting Evra's lie to a French journalist as a 'figure of speech', yet every slight flaw in the argument of Suarez was viewed as a weakness to his case. Should be intriguing seeing the various holes that will be picked from it. Not an expert in law so I can't be sure of what the club will do after reading that, but I can't see them taking it on the chin.'" not taking it on the chin would apparently be in keeping with a catalogue of PR disasters by the club and all who sail in her www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... sm-verdict But one legal expert suggested that Liverpool would be ill-advised to appeal given the level of detail in the report. Steven Friel, a lawyer for Brown Rudnick who specialise in complex disputes, said: "Paul Goulding QC didn't draft a 115-page document for the love of writing. He did so because he wanted to 'appeal-proof' the decision, and he has done a very good job. Liverpool face an uphill struggle in overturning the decision, and the risks of trying, but failing to do so are huge. Of all the options that are open to him, an appeal should be far down the list."

Linguistic experts assessed Suárez's defence but determined that his language on the pitch "would be considered racially offensive" anywhere.



The report continued: "Mr Suárez said that he pinched Mr Evra's skin in an attempt to defuse the situation, and that his employment of the word 'negro' to address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence.

It's not odd that they say which evidence they prefer. It's why witnessess are used.

I'll tell you what is odd. The fact that you are still defending a racist even after the reasons behind the decision have been released.



The report shows it was even worse than the use of one word and was clearly racist.



I'm appalled but not surprised that you and LFC still take this victim mentality approach to everything. He should be sacked by Liverpool and the 8 games is very lenient. Surely you can see that?

How you jump to your conclusions completely baffles me, it really does. Where do I defend Suarez in that post at all?



The report (up to where I've read) doesn't show anything to convince me that Suarez is guilty. That doesn't mean I'm defending him, it's just my opinion on the report up to where I've read. All I have read so far is Evra's case and Suarez's case, how on earth am I supposed to come to a conclusion from two opposing opinions on something?



My comment about Evra's ten times being accepted as a 'figure of speech', was simply highlighting what I felt was a flaw. How can somebody's lie just be accepted as a figure of speech in an argument where every single thing matters, let alone a clear lie? I'll make my full judgement when I've read the full thing, but just because three men at the FA have found him guilty, doesn't mean he is. Like anything in life, innocent people can be put away for things they haven't done, I've had people close to me take the same treatment so I simply won't accept you trying to put me down for having an opinion different to yours.

so the 'negrito' thing and its nuances was a load of tosh too?

It's quite incredible really. LFC fans seem to think Suarez can only be guilty if he explicitly says he was. Which he has. Yet apparently it's still a witch hunt

you've mentioned the 10 times thing millions of times robbie, figure of speech



'The impression created by these inconsistencies was that Mr Suarez's evidence was not, on the whole, reliable. He had put forward an interpretation of events which was inconsistent with the contemporaneous video evidence. He had changed his account in a number of important respects without satisfactory explanation. As a result, we were hesitant about accepting Mr Suarez's account of events where it was disputed by other credible witnesses unless there was solid evidence to support it.'

I mention it now because it seems to be accepted as a figure of speech, despite somebody French saying something so serious can't be dismissed as a figure of speech. Surely you get why a lie, in a case where they're arguing how 'truthful' somebody is being, is so important?



It's not my job to argue the pros and cons of each side's argument, but I find it odd that somebody lying or 'exaggerating' can happily use the 'figure of speech excuse'. I just find it odd that it didn't effect his credibility.

What I don't get is the fact that we were told that 'negrito' was a term of endearment and that it was all jokey and matey unlike 'negro', which was highly offensive.



[iThe report added: "After the referee Andre Marriner separated them, Mr Suarez said that he turned to Mr Evra and said, 'Por que, negro?'[/i



So Suarez has admitted calling Evra a 'negro', which is a highly offensive term.

have you heard the transcripts being read 'bl&ckie, bl&ckie , bl&ckie'? its not negrito, its not once, i am struggling to see where on earth you are finding his guilt doubtful



apparently the owners are less than thrilled about kkken's stance, and the subsequent findings

Aparently there was a couple thousand sweds in the Kop said he didn't do it FACT

The gist of it appears to be that the commission concluded that he used the term negro in circumstances when it would be very unlikely to have been affectionate or neutral.



But I'll have to read it again when sober.

I really don't know what you're on about. The 'negrito' stuff, as I said at the time, was based on the media reports that, as I said at the time, were allegedly accurate. It turns out it isn't negrito and it's negro, OK, I will read the full thing to find out exactly what's gone on.



However, quoting the ", , " stuff is you just driving Evra's version of events home, something I've already read. The case has been a case of opinion against opinion, one man's word against another. With there being no audio or video evidence showing either player saying what's been alleged, it's come down to which 'side' has proven their 'opinion' better. The FA have decided that Evra did, we'll see what Liverpool do about it. If they accept it then I'll happily accept Suarez's ban and wouldn't complain if the club punished him as well. However, if you want me to say I'm wrong for debating and defending someone based on media reports that, IMO, didn't paint things to be so black and white, you'll be waiting a long time as I won't apologise for arguing for 'fairness'.

from what i can gather the footage that wasn't broadcast doesn't corroborate suarez's version of events, which he also changed along the way, which doesn't enhance his credibility ,and kuyt is largely to blame for some of the allegations levelled at Evra

Yes, they are quite clear on those two points:-



1 - Suaraez changed his story.

2 - His witness evidence contradicted the video evidence.



Those are two quite large reasons why they preferred Evras evidence and found him more believable. They also found Suarez's claim that it was all in jest 'incredible'. I would think that even Dalglish will be able to get his head round that.



I predict Liverpool will issue a statement defending Suarez but saying that they don't want to appeal because they want to 'move on'. Let's be honest, their stance has been about keeping Suarez a Liverpool player, no more, no less. Certainly it has not been about Justice (c).

you'd have thunk so, but spoke to someone in the week who is closer to it than most, and he insisted kkken would take it to the highest court in the universe

Just debating this with my bird's dad just now (a United fan). He seems bemused that someone can be found guilty of something without any evidence to prove it. Considering I've not read the full thing and most on here seem to already have, is it actually proven that Suarez said it, or have they taken the decision based on the accuracy/inaccuracy/consistency of statements?

he admitted (belatedly) to negretito, after at first denying saying anything , this presumably has turned out to be 'negro' & and 'i don't speak to negros' along with pinching Evra in a 'conciliatory' sort of way, it sounds as though skys footage / audio is pretty damning, you have to remember how many mics and cameras there are, whenever there is and unsavoury chant in the football or rugby the producer drops the levels pretty quickly

From reading the report (albeit after a few drinks) it seems Suarez at one point admits to calling Evra a negro (in a "friendly" way), but then later denies calling him a negro at any point of the exchange.



It's hardly a surprise he is seen as an unreliable witness is it?



Also it seems he gave his evidence in Spanish - no doubt there'll be Liverpool fans will be claiming this conflict is due to the Spanish of the person asking the question being South West Central South American Spanish as opposed to Suarez's Rioplatense Spanish. I believe that can cause a lot of confusion.

I don't know what your problem is with relying on witness evidence. That's how lots of disputes of fact are decided. They did use witness evidence but the fact that Suarez's evidence contradicted the video and audio didn't help.



He's bang to rights. If he has the cheek to appeal that should double the ban.

Its difficult to see how he could appeal on the basis that he was entirely blameless. If he'd initially accepted that he'd used the phrase inappropriately, but disputed repeating it several times, he might have escaped with a 2 match ban. There doesnt seem that much evidence that he used the phrase repeatedly, but by contradicting his initial statement it appears that the panel simply accepted Evra's version of events in its entirety.



It does appear that he's been very badly advised by the club. As soon as he admitted using the term the club should have issued an apology on behalf of him and the club. The owners must surely be bitterly regretting issuing that statement.