Suarez handed eight-match FA ban - discuss

[silverfox]

When I was young and somebody called me names and upset me my mother used to say:

"Sticks and stones may hurt your bones but names will never hurt you"

Where have we gone wrong?

Also, given the commercial considerations, Manchester United must be thinking this is good for us.

Have we opened the floodgates to getting people 'sent off' for PC reasons?

(Please note the time of this post because I suspect this decision will be analysed to death)

[Undisputedtruth]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Where have we gone wrong?

>

No sure about the we, Silverfox. But the world has moved on while you're ponder your spent years when women were not allowed to vote, homosexuality was an hanging offence and ethnic minorites were treated as sub humans.

The Suarez's decision is a recognition that racism cannot and should not be tolerated even on a football pitch. Can you seriously say "sticks and stones" to someone whose love one had committed suicide over taunts just because his/her lifestyle/skin colour was different?

The 'opened the floodgates' is another silly red herring. The Football authorities have a responsibility to maintain professional standards throughout the game. Especially as there are young children watching the game. No football player has the right to racially abuse another player. Frankly Foxy, you don't understand racism at all.

[silverfox]

I was expecting this type of silly, ill-informed, knee-jerk response, hence my qualification about the time of my post.

I suppose Undisputedtruth, you're now going to pretend that prior to your post at 01.46AM GMT you have read the FA's judgement thorougly and have concluded Suarez is a rascist.

May I ask then, your views on Liverpool's retort that Evra himself should be charged given his testimony (which of course you will not have a clue about).

[Undisputedtruth]

I shall rise above your tantrums, Silverfox.

I can only think that you don't understand racism hence your poorly constructed response to my post.

What exactly I don't have a clue about, Silverfox? Oh, you don't think I know about Evra's comment when he said "Don't touch me, you South American." Sorry Silverfox, you really out of your depth if you think that is real racist language.

[silverfox]

That's better UDT, look what half-an-hour's research can achieve

[pk]

i'll be interested to see if the FA have the balls to give the same to JT

i can't see why they shouldn't but as they've had him act as England's captain since the Anton incident, i'd be surprised

[Loz]

I think this will either be a landmark case, or it will all come crashing down around the FA's ears. Such a large punishment for a mixed-race person's comment to a black person must be pretty ground-breaking.

It'll be interesting to see the full judgement. The evidence had better be solid - I reckon Liverpool can afford better lawyers than the FA.

[Otta]

The Suarez's decision is a recognition that

racism cannot and should not be tolerated

even on a football pitch. Can you seriously

say "sticks and stones" to someone whose

love one had committed suicide over

taunts just because his/her lifestyle/skin

colour was different?

On that, I agree 100% with UDT.

My only issue with this is that it just seems to be based on very little evidence.

Silverfox, you are surely just trolling here, no?

[Undisputedtruth]

Silverfox has been trolling for some time with his right agenda. ;-)

tbf he's no different to what Marmora Man does.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My only issue with this is that it just seems to

> be based on very little evidence.

Perhaps the real issues are that you're poorly informed and a lack of understanding to how legal decisions are made.

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's better UDT, look what half-an-hour's

> research can achieve.

More like 2 minutes and that was before I saw your question. Perhaps you should do some research yourself. More importantly, get with it to 21st Century values rather than your 19th Century values.

[Otta]

lack of understanding to how legal decisions are made.

This wasn't a legal decision. If it was, it probably would have been different.

[Loz]

UDT: really, how you can call someone else a troll? You and silverfox are cut from the same, albeit different patterned, cloth.

[Otta]

Also, why do you insiston being so rude and dismissive of people, like you are somehow way more clued up than the rest of us?

It's bloody tiresome!

[Undisputedtruth]

Otta, hearing your arguments is like watching a dog chasing his tail. Absolutely pointless and irrelevant. You cited lack of evidence yet you constantly ignore the players' statements and video of the incident. Also, the FA appointed person leading on the case is a QC. Do you know what a QC is, Otta?

[Otta]

Yes I do, but that doesn't make it a legal decision.

You're really not as bright as you think you are, are you.

[Undisputedtruth]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes I do, but that doesn't make it a legal

> decision.

>

> You're really not as bright as you think you are,

> are you.

I'm afraid it's you who is lacking in intelligence here and I haven't forgotten that you called me an idiot previously. I know I can be rude but I haven't shown that side yet as I tend to think you're someone who doesn't know any better.

Also, it seems you're confusing a legal decision to that from a Court. In order for the QC to arrive at his decision he would have to consider all the arguments in a legal framework.

[silverfox]

The case may have been decided within a legal framework but there are no precedents here to follow.

Rooney physically assaults (kicks) a player and gets a three match ban (reduced to two on appeal). Suarez has admitted to calling Evra "little black man" (Negrito) and gets an eight match ban and a ?40,000 fine.

In short, he upset Evra's feelings. Should Evra man-up?

I suspect this decision is to make an example and also to show Fifa this is the way we deal with it here.

However, has this got more to do with our guilt over our shameful racialist past rather than what went on on the field?

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> However, has this got more to do with our guilt

> over our shameful racialist past rather than what went on on the field?

Depends what you mean by 'our'. If you mean 'football', then yes.

[Undisputedtruth]

Evra had every right to stand up against racism. Just because the incident happened on a football pitc does not make the behaviour acceptable.

[Loz]

OK, this is going to be interesting... with John Terry being charged by the CPS, will someone make a similar complaint against Suarez now? Will the CPS investigate/charge him as well?

[DaveR]

The FA's disciplinary procedures are based on its own rules and regulations, and the system is separate and distinct from the legal system, so I wouldn't characterise their findings as legal decisions. You join a club, the club has rules, you break the rules and you suffer whatever consequence the rules provide for. If you don't like it, you leave the club. None of this has legal effect in the way most people understand it. There are a couple of cases that establish that sporting disciplinary proceedings are not reviewable by courts or subject to the HRA.

As I've said before on another thread, I see this as essentially an employment matter. If you racially abuse people at work (and that's where Suarez and Evra were) you should expect to get sacked.

[Otta]

The FA's disciplinary procedures are based

on its own rules and regulations, and the

system is separate and distinct from the

legal system, so I wouldn't characterise

their findings as legal decisions.

Exactly!

And yes UDT, I remember calling you an idiot, and I'm pleased it sunk in.

[Undisputedtruth]

@DaveR

I do recognised there are rules and regulations in place but I would expect the QC to take them into account for his decision making in any case. I made a distinction between a legal decision and a court decision. Not many employers have the luxury in using a QC. Even if the case went to court the legal argument would not be about who is right but whether the process and decision making was fair to Suarez. For many, this concept would be difficult to understand. Furthermore, the decision making would be weighing up the evidence on the balance of probability. So the decision could be as tight as 49 to 51.

Even if employees have broken the rules it doesn't mean someone gets sacked automatically. Ultimately, it's always been the employer's decision to whether they would be willing to dismiss someone from their job.

@Otta,

Pretty much pointless in calling me an idiot as it seems you don't what the word means. The definition of an idiot is someone who does not know any better.

[Otta]

Is that taken from the UDT Dictionary?

[DaveR]

Actually UDT, this is what you said:

"Also, it seems you're confusing a legal decision to that from a Court. In order for the QC to arrive at his decision he would have to consider all the arguments in a legal framework."

The framework is not one of law but of rules, and there is a difference. As you say, any court would be confined to reviewing the process and even there it would depend on whether either a contractual or other private law cause of action could be identified. The disciplinary tribunal's finding involves a determination of whether, on the evidence, a breach of the rules is made out, which is wholly outside the scope of the 'law'. The fact that a QC was involved just means (unsurprisingly) that a lot of money got thrown at it.

If you're going to patronise people, get it right.

I'm a bit surprised that everyone is banging on about no proof, one man's word against another etc. etc. Lots of court cases are decided on the basis of one man's word against another - you listen to the evidence and decide who you believe. And that is with a higher standard of proof.

[Undisputedtruth]

DaveR - but you're wrong on the legal framework argument.

Here's an excerpt from a Union website:

"From 6 April 2009 the Employment Act 2008 will come into force and remove the procedures from law, to be replaced by the code.

While the code does encourage employers and employees to resolve workplace issues informally, its enactment means there will be a new legal framework for dealing with grievances and disciplinary issues at work where informal remedies fail."

Hey DaveR, I bolded the relevant bits just for you. Looks like I'm right again. Damn you, Undisputedtruth.

However there may be times when I'm wrong which usually results in some of my best ideas after a period of reflection.

I think I'm going to take a break from the Suarez discussions since there is nothing for me to gain here. It's Xmas and I want to have fun.