The Suarez saga shows no sign of coming to an end, even with a seemingly watertight case - involving a 115-page report and a 5-day hearing - having been presented against the Liverpool striker. The club, with Kenny Dalglish acting as the ringleader, have put on such a uniform show of innocence and incredulity, sustaining, even escalating their support for Suarez as the issue has progressed, that it is hard to see how any of them can exit the situation diplomatically.
Maybe they deserve to be applauded on their solidarity. One thing is for sure, they didn’t throw Suarez to the lions, but instead the entire club decided to join him in the circus, teammates wearing shirts in support of their comrade, and manager Dalglish disputing much of the damning report.
An appeal against the decision might have cleared his name. An acceptance of guilt might have let him depart with some dignity intact. But Suarez and the club wanted to have their cake and eat it too, and instead went straight down the middle, not appealing the FA’s decision but still playing the victim and proclaiming his innocence and fury at the allegations.
This isn’t an issue of ‘player power,’ but one of ‘player petulance,’ Suarez having done his best to undermine the processes and judgements of both the independent regulatory commission and the FA at every opportunity. The club has even gone to the lengths of trying to justify their own behaviour by pointing out that Evra used similar language in a video recording.
Suarez's apology, if we can call it that, was the classic line of ‘regret if offence caused’ - a thinly-veiled and backhanded way of indicating that it was a matter of interpretation, and if Evra or anyone else was offended, it was because they chose to be, not because Suarez himself did anything wrong.
But this kind of statement is irrelevant given the conclusions that were drawn. The issue was never whether he said the offending word; he readily admitted that he had. The question was over intent, and since the ruling is that it was said with the express intent of offence, his statement of regret is pointless without admitting malicious intent.
Expecting the average supporter to believe that the word was said without malice, given the situation, is naïve. To rubbish the opinions of linguistic experts is even more incredible.
The defence is that the word is used without racist connotation in Uruguay. Unfortunately for Suarez, he is not in Uruguay. It is not the case that anyone entering Britain must immediately conform to all its idiosyncrasies, but a little sensitivity to cultural norms would not go amiss. It would surely be insulting the man’s intelligence to assume that he has not yet managed to learn which behaviours and language are considered acceptable.
At least the FA have finally managed to impose a ban that fits the alleged crime. In doing so they might have muddied Suarez’ name – completely unfairly as far as Suarez is concerned - but they may have also given Premier League football a little more credibility.
There is no way that the FA can claim to be saints on the issue of racism. There are still many instances of racial inequality in sport that are going to take a lot longer to tackle, the number of black managers being the most obvious. But, much as it would be unwise to rejoice in the decision and portray the FA as the heroic bearers of justice, it is another step, however small, in the right direction.
As pointed out by Simon Barnes in The Times yesterday, this seemingly trivial case comes in the shadow of that of Stephen Lawrence, giving it an added dimension of relevance and maybe, in some people’s minds, seriousness.
This issue is obviously not limited to the sports field, or even the sports world, and it should be considered in context of the kind of society we want to move towards, and what kind of behaviour we are going to have to consider acceptable if we ever want to reach our goals.
The ramblings of a slurring woman on public transport disgusted the nation, but comments made on a football pitch should not be taken any less seriously simply because of their location and the wealth and celebrity of those involved.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
RobSiddall
said:
 |
... Your article does nothing more than demonstrate that you have not read the report. LFC's support of Suarez is completely understandable. Suggesting that LFC should have appealed the decision is absurd. They are claiming that the FA hearing was a sham, the body they would have to appeal to is the very same governing body that undertook the sham hearing. Are you seriously suggesting that the FA would have said "Yes, we did undertake a sham trial to suit our own agenda, we're awfully sorry". Get a grip. LFC have issue an extremely inflammatory statement declaring their belief that the trial was a sham and that Suarez is innocent. Whilst the FA does not charge LFC with bringing the game into disrepute they are accepting the statement as true. The reasons for believing Suarez to be innocent is because the report makes it plain that their decision is based solely on their belief that Evra was telling the truth and Suarez was lying. Evra's deposition, however, is demonstrably false. Allow me to explain;- The FA coached Evra for several hours showing him the video evidence prior to the hearing, a privilege they did not afford Suarez. Nor did they disclose the fact that they had done this to Suarez's legal representatives. Having spent several hours crafting Evra's version of events they STILL managed to screw it up. His deposition is about as watertight as a colander. Evra claimed he was called n****r and reported this to the match officials, not negro as he later declares. In his statement he says to the referee "He just called me a f***king black". The players were speaking Spanish to each other during the exchange. This demonstrates clearly that Evra understood the word "negro" (pronounced negg-ro not nee-gro) to mean black and that it was not a pejorative. Unless you assume that he only learn't sufficient Spanish to say "your sister's c**t" to Suarez but not enough to know the word for the colour black in Spanish. He claimed that he mistook the word for the Italian equivalent for the racial slur n****r but couldn't say n****r to the ref because he was unaccustomed to using that word. The problem with lying is that the whole world does not change its history to suit you, and sure enough a video of Evra saying "you mother-f***ing-n****rs" in a scripted performance has surfaced showing that he not only uses the word but endorses its use in public performances. Far from ignoring the testimony of the language experts, Evra knew the additional adjective "f***ing" was required to make the word black, or in Spanish "negro", into a racial slur. The experts made this perfectly plain in the FA's own report. Suarez claimed he used the word once and only once. The fact that Evra said to the ref that had "just been called a f***ing black" and not something like - he keeps calling me a f***ing black - shows that Suarez's assertion was precise and accurate. However, the number of the times Evra claims the word was used depends on which account you read, the one to the match officials, to the hearing panel or the French press which is 5, 7 or more than 10 times respectively. LFC rightly contest the panels decision and have suggested they go to independent arbitration but they will require the FA's consent to do this. Every real football fan wants racism kicked out of football but not at the expense of the innocent. So, NO, the strop wont stop. |
jackal
said:
|
... Rob, in brief: 1) It is very convenient that you read Liverpool not appealing as solely down to the FA being unfair. It might perhaps be because Saurez did exactly what he has been charged for - he used a racially offensive term in an argument and he did it to be offensive. The idea that the only reason behind the lack of appeal is the institutional corruption of the FA is, in short, mental. For one thing, if I were fixing a trial I wouldn't release 115 pages of evidence about the decision-making process. 2) It is interesting that you know about the video "coaching", when no one else seems to. Are you a privileged FA and Liverpool FC employee? I doubt it. 3) The word negro, in Spanish, does not need the word "f*cking" to be considered offensive. The experts said no such thing in the report. They were also explicit that it simply could not have been used in any sense except an inflammatory one in Saurez's exchanges. 4) You say "The fact that Evra said to the ref that had "just been called a f***ing black" and not something like - he keeps calling me a f***ing black - shows that Suarez's assertion was precise and accurate." This isn't true. It's just false. You cannot logically maintain that saying "I've just been called a f*cking black" rules out, conclusively, the idea that he was called it more than once. Even given Evra's inconsistency over the exact number of times he was called it, which is understandable given the elapsed time, the video evidence shows that he said it seven times. Saurez doesn't deny this. Why do you ignore this part of the report? You seem very keen to pick apart tiny sections of it, but you blatantly ignore inconvenient parts of it. 5) You also ignore the report's explicit claim that Saurez's story was inconsistent. It was, and so was the of Kuyt and a Liverpool official. Your man lied. I can accept that Saurez is not a racist. What I cannot accept is the idea that he a) didn't say a racially offensive word (he did); b) didn't mean it to be offensive (he did); and c) has been straightforward and honest (he hasn't). He made some cheap, offensive remarks and he got called on it. It is you that needs to "get a grip". |
RobSiddall
said:
|
... Excellent Jackal, I'm delighted that you have actually given this some thought. 1) Obviously I don't agree but here's why. The 115 page document takes several hours to read and requires considerable concentration as much of what is written is in summary and cross-referenced. The vast majority of people would be guaranteed to lose interest after a few minutes if they bothered at all. Thus most arguments given, which is plain from the accounts given by public figures in the press, demonstrate that they have most certainly not read the report. Which would mean public support would be assured. 2) No, this is based on the report itself. In paragraph 12 they state that Mr Evra on October 12th was given access to the footage to detail when he believed the incidents took place and identify when additional footage may be sought. At no point does the panel express my utter disbelief that none of the dozens of cameras or microphones can confirm any part of Evra's account of what was said. The ONLY assertion made by the panel is that they believe Evra's account to be correct, at no point do they say "listen to this recording here, it confirms blah, blah, blah" In addition in paragraph 308 the panel make it plain that Suarez had not seen all the footage they had. The FA then interviewed Evra on the 20th, paragraph 231. Mr Evra was then given several weeks before in paragraph 14 they state that they obtained signed witness statements from the ManU players including Evra and some officials in early November. So Evra was given plenty of time to ensure he didn't contradict himself which the panel made a massive deal of throughout the report to the point of suggesting that this was somehow "impressive". 3) Again the report does not support what you are saying, paragraph 172 states categorically that the negro can be used in a friendly way or as a nickname and not in a pejorative sense. There are other paragraphs that state that it can be used in a pejorative sense but for those arguments to be correct Evra's account would have to be true. Since the FA decided that Evra was telling the truth they could used the language experts witnesses' paragraphs that state that it can be used in a pejorative sense. But Evra's account is contradictory and inconsistent factually and logically, which they simply deny. One particularly damning point is the report states in paragraph 275 that Evra had tried to include the word again in his statement to the referee but they didn't believe him. I would say this shows precisely why LFC are so critical of the sham. The fact that the statement "ref, ref, he just called me a f***ing black", paragraph 106, shows clearly Evra heard the word once and only once. The fact that he realized he had to change his story to include the word again and the panel didn't believe him shows that although they didn't believe him they were still prepared to sweep it under the carpet despite it being pivotal to the case. Evra's account is not true OR logically consistent, the panel acknowledged this but still accepted it as 100% correct with all the implications of its validity. 4) The video evidence does not show anything of the sort and Suarez most certainly does deny it. It is precisely because the video evidence cannot confirm the truth of Evra's account that the panel's conclusion is questioned in the LFC statement. And further supports my refutation of what you claim in your first point. 5) I don't doubt for a minute that Suarez lied, but the only thing he was genuinely caught short on was the significance of a pinch, a pinch that Evra, by his own admission, didn't even know happened at the time. To the point where they include the transcript of the cross-examination. But the lies told by Evra are stark by any account, but these are portrayed as honest mistakes even when they a crucial to the final conclusions. I think the report alone is sufficient to damn the panel for a miscarriage of justice but there are suggestions from LFC that there is still more that the FA chose to leave out of the report. |
A
said:
|
... In a PC culture like Brtian, the moment Suarrz accepted using the word Negro or an equivalent term in Spanish his fate was sealed. It doesn't matter what his intentions were. As a foreigner living in England for many years i was shocked to see how people use so many ifs and buts and are rarely direct in their criticism. It took a while getting used to this culture of saying the wor se possible things about people without accepting you ever meant that. Suarez off course is a newbie in England. I am not interested in Suarez's punishment so much, if he racially abused Evra he should be fairly punished. Were the FA fair in dealing with him? Quite possibly not, the judgement reflects the attitude of a bunch of old style Englishmen wanting to set an example. Would Wayne Rooney be punished for such an offence? Most people know the answer |
Show/hide comment form
| Next > |
|---|
