I think we can spend all day arguing about this, but the simple fact is that Suarez is guilty of some very unsubtle baiting, which has come back to bite him on the backside.



The way LFC fans are attempting to defend Suarez over his use of the term 'negro' is laughable.....I think the words 'clutching' and 'straws' spring to mind....

Was it the owners who issued the first, pulled statement?

Evra's evidence made sense, was consistent and fitted with the video evidence that was produced later. Suarez's didn't.



The only issues I have with the hearing is the fact that they repeatedly make the assessment that Suarez fouled Evra in the first place. IMO he was attempting to dribble past Evra, Evra tackled him and the ball was clearly going out of play, in the process of Evra tackling Suarez there was probably impact between the two players and that's why Evra went to ground holding his knee. There was no foul, it was simply a case of two players fighting for possession in a tight space and a coming together. There was no kicking of the knee by Suarez.



Another point is that in the initial arguments over what took place it wasn't mentioned that Evra started the confrontation with an aggressive comment with literally translated as "sister's cooch" but was quickly downplayed to an equivalent of "effing hell". That only emerged with the evidence of the experts in linguistics. It wasn't mentioned earlier than that and that was strange.



In a way I do have sympathy for Suarez in that Evra started the aggressive confrontation and he simply responded in kind. But the repeated racial comments and his later denial really screwed Suarez. For that it seems correct that he got done for 8 matches, however harsh that seems at first.



One thing that is encouraging is that fact that Evra was so surprised at Suarez's insults and insists that he has never suffered abuse like this in his career. That's a pleasant surprise to me and I think fantastic evidence that the campain to eradicate racism from football has largely worked.



I think Suarez should just take the ban, accept what he did was wrong, apologise for the incident and just move on. I do think his 8 match ban is punishment enough and it shouldn't be a cloud hanging over him for the rest of his career, but I doubt this will be the case.

Suarez could have avoided all this by just calling Evra an @rsehole like everyone else. (c) The Daily Mash

I never said I had a problem with it, it was my bird's dad that mentioned it. He seems to be in disbelief that someone can be found guilty of something in a word against word thing. I've said before, I've not read the full thing, nor do I know much about law, I was simply raising a point he'd made, something you seem to think is a problem I have.



I'll probably get to have a good read of it on Tuesday or maybe later on tonight.

Quote Roddy B="Roddy B"I never said I had a problem with it, it was my bird's dad that mentioned it. He seems to be in disbelief that someone can be found guilty of something in a word against word thing. I've said before, I've not read the full thing, nor do I know much about law, I was simply raising a point he'd made, something you seem to think is a problem I have. I'll probably get to have a good read of it on Tuesday or maybe later on tonight.'" You've made a few references to 'Evra's word against Suarez's' on this thread, that was what I was referring to. I don't know why your bird's dad is in disbelief. As I say, it's how disputes of facts are often settled. As an aside, (and what follows is NOT aimed at you Roddy), this is the guy who drafted the decision:- www.blackstonechambers.com/peopl ... ng_qc.html Now. It is possible that he hates Liverpool, scousers and is a massive United fan and has decided to stitch up Suarez to protect Evra. It's possible that he has risked his entire reputation, and a likely income of around £500k - £1m per annum - to do so. I suppose it's also feasible that he drafted a 115 page document to cover his tracks. Or, in the alternative, he may have listened to the evidence and used his knowledge and experience to prepare a perfectly crafted document (that will be very difficult to appeal) to set out the independant panel's views. Bit of a toss up I suppose. Either way, (and this IS aimed to you Roddy) I would refer you to earlier comments on this thread at how stupid Liverpool's initial statement was. It's looking more stupid by the second...

Quote Roddy B="Roddy B"I never said I had a problem with it, it was my bird's dad that mentioned it. He seems to be in disbelief that someone can be found guilty of something in a word against word thing. I've said before, I've not read the full thing, nor do I know much about law, I was simply raising a point he'd made, something you seem to think is a problem I have. I'll probably get to have a good read of it on Tuesday or maybe later on tonight.'" You've made a few references to 'Evra's word against Suarez's' on this thread, that was what I was referring to. I don't know why your bird's dad is in disbelief. As I say, it's how disputes of facts are often settled. As an aside, (and what follows is NOT aimed at you Roddy), this is the guy who drafted the decision:- www.blackstonechambers.com/peopl ... ng_qc.html Now. It is possible that he hates Liverpool, scousers and is a massive United fan and has decided to stitch up Suarez to protect Evra. It's possible that he has risked his entire reputation, and a likely income of around £500k - £1m per annum - to do so. I suppose it's also feasible that he drafted a 115 page document to cover his tracks. Or, in the alternative, he may have listened to the evidence and used his knowledge and experience to prepare a perfectly crafted document (that will be very difficult to appeal) to set out the independant panel's views. Bit of a toss up I suppose. Either way, (and this IS aimed to you Roddy) I would refer you to earlier comments on this thread at how stupid Liverpool's initial statement was. It's looking more stupid by the second...

Just accept it Rob. You're making yourself look as daft as your club.

I really wish I was, Mark, I really do. I can't seem to raise any question on here without it being shot down with some very odd stuff. Flipper even went as far to accuse Suarez of calling him a 'negritito', whatever that one is.



I've not read anywhere near enough on the thing but people I know have and they don't have opinions that match up to what the disciples on here have. I've not really taken any opinions on over this, and there's no reason I should do until I've formed my own, but the differences in opinion are polar opposites, so things don't seem as black and white as people on here seem to be making out. Or is that scousers at it again?

It can't be made any clearer than Ian made it Rob. You're making yourself out to be ignorant and very narrow minded which I know you aren't. The way the club and fans have reacted is truely embarassing.

www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... CMP=twt_gu

www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... CMP=twt_gu

CPS looking at it now apparently.

Mark, what point about forming my own opinion can't you grasp? Do you need an example of this or what? You're not a mug, so you're either trying to bait me, or trying to force me accept another person's account because you agree with it. Ian may well be spot on, but as I said, people I know have said otherwise, so I will try and make my own opinion up before running with somebody else's.

He's been banned, fined, and that should be the end of it. Hopefully he will change his attitude and focus on his football, but to be honest, I don't think he will. He's still got more controversy in him, and it wouldn't surprise me to see something else happen once his ban has been served.

he'll probably get hammered by the oppo fans every week

All part and parcel of football. I'd say something along the lines of "if he is the consummate professional, he will rise above it", but his actions over the past few months has made me realise that he is anything BUT a consummate professional. Anyway, he has brought it on himself, so the opposition fans have every right to let him know what they think of him.



Some people might find this strange coming from a LFC fan, but I have my own opinions, I'll make my own judgements and that's better than towing the party line like some people I know are doing or trying to score points with opposition fans. I don't give a rats about any of that and if people want to disagree with me, well that is up to them. Frankly, I don't like the guy.

Measured, reasoned, an all-round cracking couple of posts WFIII.

WFIII, I'm not trying to score points with oppo fans. If I wanted to score points, I could easily copy and paste the majority of stuff I've read on Twitter which is mostly dismissive of these 'findings', but why would I do that when I've not read the full thing myself? That's a mistake a lot of a people seem to be making at the moment. People are reading reports on either argument and making their own conclusions, without actually reading the findings. Take these two for example: thekop.liverpoolfc.tv/_Suarez-Wh ... 73471.html www.dailypost.co.uk/sport-news/l ... wDDM_ObFko They go completely against what's been said on here by (I think it's only Ian & LGJM who've actually said something noteworthy) Ian, but looking at the daily post piece and the length of it, it seems to be a short article intended to 'stoke the fire' more than inform or reason any sort of argument. I'm personally trying to read as much into it as possible, I've absolutely no problems holding my hands up and admitting previous arguments were wrong, I don't care about such minor things like that, but I'm not going to hold my hand up for the sake of holding it up, that would just be like dismissing Ian's view based on the two links above. I've read about half of the 'findings' tonight, what I find most 'odd' is that what Suarez 'probably' said only received eight matches. I said at the very start of it, if it was proved he'd just gone "n***er" ten times over or whatever, he'd probably do well to play before the end of the season, so eight games is actually quite a light punishment considering it's 'probably' true what he said. I've not got to the explanation of the ban or whatever, so maybe that will shed some light as to how they came up with eight games.

WFIII, I'm not trying to score points with oppo fans. If I wanted to score points, I could easily copy and paste the majority of stuff I've read on Twitter which is mostly dismissive of these 'findings', but why would I do that when I've not read the full thing myself? That's a mistake a lot of a people seem to be making at the moment. People are reading reports on either argument and making their own conclusions, without actually reading the findings. Take these two for example: thekop.liverpoolfc.tv/_Suarez-Wh ... 73471.html www.dailypost.co.uk/sport-news/l ... wDDM_ObFko They go completely against what's been said on here by (I think it's only Ian & LGJM who've actually said something noteworthy) Ian, but looking at the daily post piece and the length of it, it seems to be a short article intended to 'stoke the fire' more than inform or reason any sort of argument. I'm personally trying to read as much into it as possible, I've absolutely no problems holding my hands up and admitting previous arguments were wrong, I don't care about such minor things like that, but I'm not going to hold my hand up for the sake of holding it up, that would just be like dismissing Ian's view based on the two links above. I've read about half of the 'findings' tonight, what I find most 'odd' is that what Suarez 'probably' said only received eight matches. I said at the very start of it, if it was proved he'd just gone "n***er" ten times over or whatever, he'd probably do well to play before the end of the season, so eight games is actually quite a light punishment considering it's 'probably' true what he said. I've not got to the explanation of the ban or whatever, so maybe that will shed some light as to how they came up with eight games.

Thoughts are with the families of the sixty-six who went to watch a game of football and never came home. Tragic.

I didn't say you were mate, I meant it regarding myself in that just because I do not like Suarez, I'm not doing to to score points. It's just my own personal opinion. I have friends that worship the ground he walks on, and that he can do no wrong. Sometimes it's very hard to reason with them because they have blind loyalty to the guy.



I've actually had my support of LFC called into question by some people solely because I've not been backing Suarez and towing the "oh no, he's completely innocent" line.

Quote Roddy B="Roddy B"WFIII, I'm not trying to score points with oppo fans. If I wanted to score points, I could easily copy and paste the majority of stuff I've read on Twitter which is mostly dismissive of these 'findings', but why would I do that when I've not read the full thing myself? That's a mistake a lot of a people seem to be making at the moment. People are reading reports on either argument and making their own conclusions, without actually reading the findings. Take these two for example: thekop.liverpoolfc.tv/_Suarez-Wh ... 73471.html www.dailypost.co.uk/sport-news/l ... wDDM_ObFko They go completely against what's been said on here by (I think it's only Ian & LGJM who've actually said something noteworthy) Ian, but looking at the daily post piece and the length of it, it seems to be a short article intended to 'stoke the fire' more than inform or reason any sort of argument. I'm personally trying to read as much into it as possible, I've absolutely no problems holding my hands up and admitting previous arguments were wrong, I don't care about such minor things like that, but I'm not going to hold my hand up for the sake of holding it up, that would just be like dismissing Ian's view based on the two links above. I've read about half of the 'findings' tonight, what I find most 'odd' is that what Suarez 'probably' said only received eight matches. I said at the very start of it, if it was proved he'd just gone "n***er" ten times over or whatever, he'd probably do well to play before the end of the season, so eight games is actually quite a light punishment considering it's 'probably' true what he said. I've not got to the explanation of the ban or whatever, so maybe that will shed some light as to how they came up with eight games.'" Apparently the FA suggested to the panel that the starting point for a ban for abusive language should be 2 matches. That was doubled to 4 because it was racially aggravated. That was doubled to 8 because the panel accepted that Suarez used the term several times. I still think that if, once Suarez had admitted to using the term, he and LFC had publicly apologised to Evra he would only have received 2-4 matches. There doesnt seem much independent evidence that he used the phrase several times. The FA would have have jumped at the chance to resolve the issue without a full blown enquiry and would probably have given him more credit for "cultural differences" than the panel did.

Quote Roddy B="Roddy B"WFIII, I'm not trying to score points with oppo fans. If I wanted to score points, I could easily copy and paste the majority of stuff I've read on Twitter which is mostly dismissive of these 'findings', but why would I do that when I've not read the full thing myself? That's a mistake a lot of a people seem to be making at the moment. People are reading reports on either argument and making their own conclusions, without actually reading the findings. Take these two for example: thekop.liverpoolfc.tv/_Suarez-Wh ... 73471.html www.dailypost.co.uk/sport-news/l ... wDDM_ObFko They go completely against what's been said on here by (I think it's only Ian & LGJM who've actually said something noteworthy) Ian, but looking at the daily post piece and the length of it, it seems to be a short article intended to 'stoke the fire' more than inform or reason any sort of argument. I'm personally trying to read as much into it as possible, I've absolutely no problems holding my hands up and admitting previous arguments were wrong, I don't care about such minor things like that, but I'm not going to hold my hand up for the sake of holding it up, that would just be like dismissing Ian's view based on the two links above. I've read about half of the 'findings' tonight, what I find most 'odd' is that what Suarez 'probably' said only received eight matches. I said at the very start of it, if it was proved he'd just gone "n***er" ten times over or whatever, he'd probably do well to play before the end of the season, so eight games is actually quite a light punishment considering it's 'probably' true what he said. I've not got to the explanation of the ban or whatever, so maybe that will shed some light as to how they came up with eight games.'" Apparently the FA suggested to the panel that the starting point for a ban for abusive language should be 2 matches. That was doubled to 4 because it was racially aggravated. That was doubled to 8 because the panel accepted that Suarez used the term several times. I still think that if, once Suarez had admitted to using the term, he and LFC had publicly apologised to Evra he would only have received 2-4 matches. There doesnt seem much independent evidence that he used the phrase several times. The FA would have have jumped at the chance to resolve the issue without a full blown enquiry and would probably have given him more credit for "cultural differences" than the panel did.

In hindsight, that probably makes more sense. I think if you look at it from Liverpool's perspective, they've argued all along that Suarez used the term once in a non-racial way. So maybe they weren't satisfied with 'apologising then hoping for the best', maybe they wanted to completely clear his name as it isn't really the kind of thing you want sticking to a player or your club, although the club will probably now have a harder time clearing his name after this than they would have if they made an early public apology.



Think I was listening to a podcast/radio station where they were talking about this, I'm sure someone mentioned on there that Liverpool/Suarez weren't supposed to say anything on the matter whilst the investigation was going on, but then that wouldn't make sense because Suarez was interviewed in his native Uruguay, where he said "I only called him what his team mates call him".

RIP Gary Ablett.

Another taken so young. He was such a nice bloke, always had time for everyone.

Which is a lie.

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... gures.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... gures.html

ken barlow wades in viva ken barlow https://twitter.com/#!/Bill_Roache

ken barlow wades in viva ken barlow https://twitter.com/#!/Bill_Roache