Commission: Suarez and LFC should have slaughtered Evra's character in advance, not after the fact
There are a number of errors of logic and construction in the FA Commission's report on the Suarez guilty verdict.
But above all else, Liverpool fans (and perhaps Suarez's representatives and LFC itself) should appreciate the following about the Commission's detailed written finding:
1) The FA's case and Commission's finding hinges on Evra's testimony being held to be superior to Suarez's testimony: "the heart of this case is a dispute between Mr Evra and Mr Suarez as to what was said" (para 215)
2) The Commission's reasoning raises four factors relevant to resolving factual disputes: witness demeanor, inconsistency, probabability and credit. (para 209)
3) "Credit" would include acting "dishonestly or unreliably" in a situation other than that presently under consideration. (para 212)
4) A previous FA finding speaks directly to Evra's lack of "credit"; specifically, the FA itself has held their key witness to have previously provided "exaggerated and unreliable" testimony in another matter (the Stamford Bridge melee).
5) But the Commission performs a neat sidestep to avoid this: "our decision is based solely on the evidence and arguments presented to us at the hearing" (para 225).
6) As Suarez's defence did not specifically refer to the previous FA finding on Evra's testimony, the Commission has opted not to consider it.
In effect, the Commission avoids what surely would be a telling blow against Evra's credibility and the FA's case by saying to Suarez and LFC: you should have slaughtered Evra in your submission, not in your statement after the release of our verdict.
It may well be the case that the Suarez defence team believed it would be be "ungentlemanly" or "not the Liverpool way" to go in too hard on Evra, or that the Commission would necessarily consider the FA's own previous hearings. Were it the latter, it seems a reasonable presumption to make.
I'm no lawyer, but the Suarez Commission have chosen to ignore a finding of the previous FA investigation into the Stamford Bridge melee that speaks to a critical aspect of the current case.
On face value, this would appear a quite staggering failure of natural justice and jurisprudence, if not a result that is outright contrived.
Older/Newer
« Arise Sir Steven of Anfield | Two Statements Issued, But Both »
16 Comments
Latest Premier League video
Keep up to date
Liverpool Twitter
Follow me on Twitter
Technorati
Blogs that link here
Read the report, it is on the FA website. Why cherry pick so called facts.
Why do you conveniently choose to ignore Suarez's admission that he used the N word?
Suarez's use of the N Word and the context was deemed as inconsistent with the visibile aggravation between the two players during the game.
Discredit Evra.. I think one look at Suarez's history and you would understand that Suarez is definitely no angel and let's not forget the victim in this case was Evra.
You are damaging your club, it's reputation and above all you have become a laughing stock. Move on...
so suarez handballed in the area - he bit someone - so therefore he MUST be a racist
This is yawn-making in the extreme! Can we not get over and move on. Suarez will start his ban ( as was intended by LFC all along) after his appearance against Manchester City on Tuesday.
Let's put this to bed and move on to another and newer year hey?
at the end of the day even if he did call some one a name everyone should get a grip at the end of the day its only a word a word thats a discriptive word thats in the dictionary if a ginger person pisses u off u call him a bung if a blond person you call him a blonde cunt if a bald fella pissis you off you call him balldy and so on and if a black man pisses you off chances are your gonna call him.... at the end off the day all good liverpool fans need to remember YOU'LL NEVER WALL ALONE so why some of you letting him walk this one on his own!!!!!
Suarez should have called evra "whitey" because that's what he would have preferred. I'm sure suarez was playing with sunglasses. No more sunglasses for you suarez.
I agree with anonymous 25..I think evra would prefer being called "whitey"!..evra should just man up and get back to the game and as we liverpool supporters we would never walk alone!
NEGRO is not a racist word. The United States Census Bureau announced that "Negro" would be included on the 2010 United States Census alongside "Black" and "African-American" - does that mean the US government promotes and condones racism?
The trouble here is the judgement has been made by 3 individuals who probably have never experienced a second of true racism in their lives. They are a joke and disgrace to the United Kingdom.
THE FA OF ENGLAND IS THE RACIST PARTY HERE, NOT LUIS SUAREZ!
You miss out the key facts - Suarez's evidence changed between the times he was interviewed by the panel. He had to change it as the TV pictures showed his initial version of events to be incorrect. Someone at Liverpool obviously noticed this and possible coached him to give an account that matched the footage. This was only one of the factors in the decision but the truth is Evra's evidence never changed and was therefore more consistent than Suarez's. Any judge or lawyer will tell you that someone who changes their story is less credible than someone who doesn't. And anyway this had nothing to do with the previous incident and just like in a court case, it wouldn't be relevant to the current investigation. Suarez is guilty of making reference to someone's skin colour in a manner that was derogatory (the experts in the report said words like 'negro' can be friendly or malicious depending on how they are said.) People need to stop making excuses for him and the club needs to apologise to Evra.
@3PhDs...why are you disputing whether the word is racist? It's been stated a million times by now that the verdict comes under the umbrella of misconduct with an aggravating component of referring to Evra's COLOUR.
Luis admitted that reference by agreeing he used the word. His denial of racist intent matters not if the offence was COLOUR related.
I feel LFC have acted in a very bad and poorly advised way. I understand the loss of Suarez damages their push for a European spot but, to act in a way that only makes matters worse, i.e. Suarez T-shirts, FA witch hunt, Evra should be charged as well, is very sad to see. LFC should acknowledge Suarez is no angel or innocent party and start acting in a more professional manner. I think LFC as a club who stated they will support Suarez, even if found guilty, should be punished more as a club with a 2 points deduction, only fitting for they way LFC have acted in this sorry saga.
Evra is a c**t and I hope he breaks his leg.
Mark, witness credibility is always relevant. No court would disallow evidence of a witness's credibility unless the probative value of said evidence would be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the defendant. In this case, the defendant would be Suarez, so it would never be disallowed. Don't just make **** up and throw it out--you look like a fool. Evidence that is not relevant is evidence having no tendency to prove a fact of consequence more or less likely. Evra's credibility was obviously a fact of consequence and his past false statements before an FA commission tend to make him less credible. So shut up.
It's incredible that the commission acknowledged that Evra was the first to use racist language against Suarez.
LFC should have appealed.
It'll be interesting to see what the FA do about John Terrys' charge of racial abuse. My guess that the they will use some pathetic excuse not to charge him, when he should get a ban of at least 8 games.
Unparalleled accuracy, unequivocal clarity, and undeniable imptornace!
If your articles are awalys this helpful, "I'll be back."