All Channels

Suarez Ban: written reasons, full report

The Independent Regulatory Commission release full written reasons for the Luis Suarez case including details of the conversation between Suarez, Evra and the Referee during the match.

This follows the Independent Regulatory Commission’s decision to suspend Luis Suarez for a period of eight matches and to fine him £40,000.

See the full written reasons in the PDF report hosted on the F.A's website. Click for the jump.

The story is too old to be commented.
zeddy1763d ago

The expert witnesses stated that the phrase "Dale, negro" can be understood as "Bring it on, blackie" or "do it, blackie" or "go ahead, blackie.

that racist bastard!

buddymagoo1763d ago

169 In Uruguay and other areas of Latin America, some people who self-identify as black
object to the use of the word "negro" as a term of address, as they say it highlights skin
colour when this should be irrelevant

From a south American linguistic expert. I guess that settles it.

NewMonday1761d ago

linguistic from the universality of Manchester, very very fair.

and they confirmed that its not the same "negro" from slave history used in North america.

and what sort of bastard would evra be since he persistently confronted Suarez and threatening him with physical violence and insulted his family, witch is the worst thing to do in south america. and evra even used a racial slur himself, but that is fair right mance's

Infernostew1761d ago

Keep making up excuses. I mean, that's all Liverpool supporters have been doing since the Premier League began anyway.


Holy shit it's worse than I thought, 115 pages aswell.
It's gona take a bunch of miracle lawyers for Liverpool to appeal that.

kane_lfc1762d ago

How? The reports based solely on assumptions and they both contradict each-other through out, no solid evidence.

CYBERSNAKE1762d ago (Edited 1762d ago )

Have you even read the report? Suarez admitted calling him a 'negro' but do you wanna know what his defence was?

"Mr Suarez maintained that when he said "Por que,negro?" to Mr Evra, it was intended in a conciliatory and friendly way."

... because we all know how Liverpool vs Man Utd matches are always a friendly occasion.

Also the report claims that there was video footgage that was not broadcast that shows the two exchanging words in the penalty area in the 63rd minute.

And yeah you're right there is no solid evidence of what was exactly said but Suarez's evidence was 'unreliable in matters of critical importance' and 'inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence, especially the video footage'.

NewMonday1761d ago (Edited 1761d ago )

Evra was all over Suarez flowing him around trying to stir something, he insulted his family and also used raciest language and threatening him , Suarez was basically saying "drop it".

and it was a corner, the DeGea, Valencia and Hernandez all Spanish, all were their, all ply for MU said they didn't hear anything directly, it was all a story from Evra's point that doesn't fit the character of Suarez who has a charity agenst racism in South Africa.

RedDevils1761d ago

Lol blind and ignorant 'pool fans alongside Queen Kenny and with Liverpool joke statement that sum it all, backing up a racist, people should know this is beyond club loyalty

vulcanproject1763d ago (Edited 1763d ago )

Its a lot to read. It is very complex. However the commission determined that:

In response to Evra's question- Why did you kick me?, Suarez said: "Because you are black."

When an angry Evra replied saying words to the effect- say that again and i'll punch you, Suarez said: "I don't speak to blacks" (as in reference to the skin colour and as a race)

In response to Evra saying: "okay, now I think I'm going to punch you" Suarez said: "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie"

The final conclusion from this is that Suarez used insulting language referencing Evra's skin colour. It does not accuse Suarez of being Racist.

The report finds Evra was a credible witness, and his claims were consistent. They find Suarez's evidence to be inconsistent on critical details.

The report also notes that arguing in Suarez's defence was the accusation against Evra he was using this as a way to exact revenge on Suarez for not apologising for the foul. The commission totally rejects this.

kane_lfc1762d ago

Yes and Suarez denied all them claims, funny no one heard them either not even De Gea.

vulcanproject1762d ago (Edited 1762d ago )

No he didn't deny them all. He said his use of the word was conciliatory toward Evra in his own statement. In other words trying to be friendly to Evra. Evra had every right to pursue this if he felt racially abused, don't blame him for the decision of the committee.

Suarez admitted using the word and also had to make a statement where he tried to alter what he said and kept towing the misunderstanding line which if you read it through properly, the FA has quite rightly decided was a load of nonsense and totally inconsistent.

Suarez's only half decent defence was the different use of the word but the F.A pointed out it does not hold weight in a conciliatory context as Suarez claimed. It clearly DOES NOT when the argument continued for some time after. This was not a friendly confrontation (if you need evidence of it the ref and other players confirm that much). Anyone that believes that is NAIVE and delusional to say the least.

The commission thus determined that Suarez's intentions were to cause offence. Their findings seem to be mostly based on what Suarez admitted to have said and what was seen rather than just what Evra said. Its more like Suarez's own statement against his defence, and it just doesn't hold up.

He has been punished on this basis, its not too different from someone threatening someone else with a gun. The person admits to pointing the gun- Just because they didn't pull the trigger so everyone else could see and their defence is that it was a 'friendly' gesture doesn't make it a believable excuse.....

I find it even more reprehensible that his defence would dare to accuse Evra of making it all up. Its a very sordid affair and does Suarez no favours at all. Liverpool need to move on quickly and cover this over because it has potentially damaged the reputation of the club somewhat.

CYBERSNAKE1762d ago (Edited 1762d ago )

De Gea doesn't need to be dragged into this because it clearly says in the FA report...

"We found it unsurprising that Mr De Gea did not hear any exchange. He appears from the video footage to be focused on the corner, and looking mainly in that direction."

NewMonday1761d ago (Edited 1761d ago )

they questioned Suarez in dutch, Spanish and English, what do you expect.

Evra was questioned while he was viewing the video, he explained his version clip by clip, Suarez wasn't aloud to see any footage.

also the referee notes from the game were destroyed by the FA, they contained detailed info of what the players said that day, thy alowd Evra to start over and get his story right, in the other hand comments were registered from Suarez that day.

very very fair.

some her say its right to ban him , but wrong to ban Evra for using racist language himself, also no ban for starting a confrontation?

biased hippocrates

Abdou231762d ago

Suarez should have been suspended at least for the rest of the season imo.

kane_lfc1762d ago (Edited 1762d ago )

So we have contradicting statements by Suarez and Evra, no evidence and yet he was charged.

"Mr De Gea, who is Spanish, said that he did not hear any exchange between Mr Evra and Mr Suarez" Even though he was around the area where it happened...yet he didnt hear one word.

Number 261 in the written evidence makes it clear to me that he shouldn't be found guilty of racial abuse.

Suarez says he said Negro once. Evra said he used it 5 times yet despite this no one, not even De Gea heard it once. Suarez, and experts, say it's not considered abusive.. am I missing something?

FA: "We found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened." - Would "probably" stand up in court?

LFC accepted in full the evidence provided by Hernandez who said he heard nothing racist said. The FA asked that parts of it be disregarded. The Commission went with the FA. Hmm...

So basically the reports what I predicted, we like Evra more so where going to charge you. NO SOLID EVIDENCE.

The FA act like there a court of law. Until it comes to the need for evidence, then they just fill the gap with assumptions.

TKCMuzzer1762d ago

I don't care, he admitted to saying it at least once, ban should stick. Same with Terry if he is found guilty. There is no place for it. Arguing about how many times he says it makes you sound like your condoning it so be careful.

Plus form what I have seen Gae seems to know very little about what's going on in the box.

Show all comments (30)
The story is too old to be commented.