http://www.jjfootballtimes.com/luis-suarez-liverpool-should-accept-sanctions-yes-or-no/As suggested by the site information I am writing this piece because I am fed up of hearing the same repeated garbage from our national media which has then been repeated on many occasions, particularly via twitter, about whether the verdict by The FA was correct.
As with all cases of this type it is very sensitive due to the race element, however, it is intensified as it happened on a football field between two fierce rivals. The fan divide and fan loyalty mixed into an already difficult topic makes the conclusions and issues hard to draw.
In this article I am going to de-construct the report and its findings from the perspective of the law and try to highlight the holes in the report which will show why Liverpool Football Club feel so aggrieved, however, I shall also show the holes in the case for Suarez and attempt to explain how the decision was reached.
The aim of this article is to put some sense into an argument, where the mainstream writers (who are not experts in legal proceedings) have muddied the waters with their own agenda and lack of knowledge. There are two quotes that I have taken from twitter from two ‘respected’ journalists that should highlight the danger of believing all you read from these so-called experts.
I have read the 115 page verdict three times, on the first occasion I just read it and then the second and third time I made notes. “@Marcotti Can’t believe I spent most of the first hour of 2012 reading the 115 page explanation of the Suarez-Evra case” (Jan 1 2012) How is it possible to read a document at a rate quicker than a page a minute, digest it, understand it and then make a valid comment on it?
More frightening is “@OllieHoltMirror It was fun being lectured about ‘negrito’ by people saying it how was ridiculous it was to prejudge Suarez before the evidence was available” (Jan 1 2012). Here @OllieHoltMirror was referring to several statements he made where he was criticized for judging Suarez prior to any release of evidence that had been made and he is saying that he was right to prejudge without evidence. This shows how there is an agenda where press people make up their minds prior to any facts being researched. The report was used by some journalist to only highlight there prejudged views as and that is the quotes they printed.
The Report
The report itself was broken down into 10 parts:
Introduction
The Proceedings
The Relevant Rules
The Background Facts
The Expert Evidence
The Main Factual Disputes
The Charge
The Penalty
Summary
Conclusion
Starting with the Conclusion as a basis to breakdown the report I will make a direct quote:
Paragraph 454: “We conclude these Reasons with the following comment. The Charge against Mr Suarez was that he used insulting words which included a reference to Mr Evra’s colour. We have found that Charge proved on the evidence and arguments put before us. The FA made clear that it did not contend that Mr Suarez acted as he did because he is a racist. Mr Evra said in his evidence that he did not think Mr Suarez is a racist. Mr Suarez said in evidence that he will not use the word “negro” on a football pitch in England in the future, and we believe that is his genuine and firm intention.”
There is genuine belief from the ‘evidence and arguments’ that ‘The FA made clear that it did not content that Mr Suarez acted as he did because he is a racist. Mr Evra said in his evidence that he did not think Suarez is a racist.’ All football fans and The Mirror (with their headline) that states that Suarez is a racist and are trying to use the guilty verdict from The FA need to understand that very same report states clearly and unequivocally that neither The FA or Patrice Evra believe Suarez to be a racist and this is after hearing all the evidence. The vilifying of a man for being racist should stop since the evidence relied on to call him a racist actually states that he is not. Furthermore, ‘Mr Suarez was born in Salto, Uruguay as one of seven children. His Grandfather was black. He moved to Montevideo when he was seven years old There were many black people living where he grew up and he had many black friends.’ (Paragraph 339). If Suarez’s genes had inherited from his grandfather, his complexion would be darker and thus had he used the same words would they have been taken as offensive by Evra? I do not have an answer but it is a good question. Usually the bad use of the ‘N’ word is deemed satisfactory to used between the black community but not from another. Since Suarez, himself is in part from the black community given his grandfather’s ethnicity I think that should rest the racist issues if you are being sensible.
There has been a great deal made of the linguistic experts that have been quoted to be supporting the fact that the word ‘negro’ in the way used by Suarez would have been deemed offensive in Uruguay, however, this is where the journalist have decided to put their own ‘spin’ on things and leads onto a major area of concern for Liverpool Football Club. It is entirely true that in Paragraph 186 “The experts concluded their observations on Mr Evra’s account as follows. If Mr Suarez used the words “negro” and “negros” as described by Mr Evra, this would be understood as offensive and offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally. The physical gesture of touching Mr Evra’s arm would also, in the context of the phrases used, be interpreted as racist.”
The important part of this quote that has been missed by all journalists is the first line. The important part they have missed out is that the experts were asked to give their view on the use of the phrases by looking at both parties version of events. They read Evra’s statement and version of events with the video footage and this was their conclusion.
However, they also read Suarez’s statement along with the video footage and Paragraph 194 states “The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez’s account as follows. If Mr Suarez used the word “negro” as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally; it is being used along the lines of paragraphs 172, 173 and 175 above.”
Paragraph 172, 173 and 175 is a reference to where the experts state the different uses of the word ‘negro’ along with different phrases. When you look at the conclusion made by the very same experts, on Suarez’s account it totally supports what Suarez said from the very start.
The FA’s Independent Commission chose to apply the conclusion based on Evra’s version of events not the conclusion based on Suarez’s version of events.
The main crux for The Independent Commission was to examine and explore the issues at which Suarez and Evra had a different version/recollection. Paragraph 205 states “Do we accept Mr Suarez’s evidence that he used the word “negro” only once when he said to Mr Evra “Por que, negro?” (“Why, black?”), which was used in a conciliatory and friendly way that is customary in Uruguay? Or, do we accept Mr Evra’s evidence that Mr Suarez used the word “negro” five times in the goalmouth when he said to Mr Evra “Porque tu eres negro” (“Because you are black”), “No hablo con negros” (“I don’t speak with blacks”), and “Dale, negro, negro, negro” (“Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie)?”
If you place yourselves in the position of the Independent Commission members then you find yourself in a very awkward and difficult position. You have two completely different version of events to describe the same two minute period. How do you decide which one is telling the truth?
If this was a case similar to that of England Captain John Terry; which has been passed to the CPS who in turn decided there was enough evidence not only to charge Terry but for him to have a case to answer in the criminal court; then the case would have to be prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
In all criminal cases there are two areas that must be proved. The first, is called Actus Reus which is the physical act that breached the law. The second, is called Men Rea which is the mental intent. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (approximately 95%) that an act of crime took place and that the mental intent was present in committing that crime.
In a Civil Court where one person sues another person because they have been aggrieved someway where the remedy is always financially related or to put the person back in a position before the complaint took place then the law only requires the accuser to be proved guilty on the balance of probabilities (51%). This is where the case goes for The FA while at the same time goes against The FA and once again is an area were Liverpool Football Club can argue an error in the interpretation or application of the law/rules.
Paragraph 76 to 80 deals with the burden of proof and how they will be using the balance of probabilities, however, they acknowledge in Paragraph 79 “Regulation 7.3 includes an important reference to the civil standard of proof being flexible. This means, as the Regulation states, that the more serious the allegation, taking into account the nature of the Misconduct alleged and the context of the case, the greater the burden of evidence required to prove the matter. This is sometimes described in this way: the more serious the allegation, the less likely it is to have happened, and therefore the 25 greater the burden of evidence required to prove that it did. This does not set the standard any higher than the balance of probability. But, the more serious the allegation, the greater the burden of evidence required to prove the matter to that standard.”
The point that has been made here is although the balance of probability burden of proof applies, for more serious cases the evidence required to prove the case must be higher, so in other words instead of proving to 51% it will be to say 65%-70%.
The Independent Commission also acknowledge in Paragraph 80 “The FA accepts that the Charge against Mr Suarez is serious, as do we. It is for this reason that we have reminded ourselves that a greater burden of evidence is required to prove the Charge against Mr Suarez.”
At this point the Independent Commission have clearly written and stated that they will be looking for greater proof than the standard 51% that is common with balance of probability cases.
The other important point to note is that due to the race part of the case it could be argued that the test should be in line with the criminal burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, since a person’s reputation is at stake. If the same incident took place in the street or as John Terry realised in a public domain with cameras capturing the words then it would be a criminal case and thus the only burden of proof would have to be beyond a reasonable doubt. As it stands The FA rules do not distinguish between offensive language used and racial language and thus stick to their balance of probabilities test. In any case the standard or percentage of probability and evidence to prove Suarez guilt was already raised in Paragraph 80.
Back to the question then, how do we prove who is telling the truth and who is not? The starting point is to interview the accuser, which in this case is Evra and that was done on “Thursday 20 October” (Paragraph 11). You would then assess what has been told and if required interview Suarez (the accused), this was also done on “2 November” (Paragraph 13).
You would want to get hold of any witnesses and again these statements were taken, although there were no on-the-field witnesses that could corroborate either side’s version of events. As it stands we are still stuck with Suarez’s version against Evra’s version.
The next thing to do would be to look for any visual evidence and The Independent Commission looked at footage that was broadcast and footage that was not broadcast, again, the video “footage was not of any real direct assistance in terms of what was said by Mr Suarez in the goalmouth. It was not possible to try to lip-read what Mr Suarez said largely because his face was obscured at the crucial moments, either because his back was to the camera behind the goal, or because his face was obscured by a camera fixed to the back stanchion” (Paragraph 238). The footage did, however, show the physical exchanges along the goal line along with physical exchanges that took place in front of the referee and immediately after. The exchange is clearly open to an individual interpretation, the video footage of Suarez touching Evra’s head has Suarez smiling at the point at which he does that which backs up his initial statement of doing so in a reconciliatory manner, however, another interpretation is, which was the one applied that it was done to annoy Evra and heated. You can research Youtube or another manner of looking at that clip and make up your own interpretation.
The Independent Commission then relied on looking at statements taken in the immediate aftermath of the reporting of the incident and then revisited those statements during the hearing. There were words attributed to Suarez from Damien Commoli, Kenny Dalglish and Dirk Kuyt who all said that they were not one hundred percent accurate and the fact that it was third hand made these comments hearsay evidence. Within, all aspects of legal proceedings or any other type hearsay evidence is always inadmissible as evidence meaning you cannot use it during the hearing. However, the evidence was admitted and used to undermine Suarez’s case as he was judged on what somebody else had said about the situation. The reason for the Independent Commission doing this was because they had not managed to find evidence to support either party.
During the actual hearing both Suarez and Evra gave oral evidence which was cross examined. Evra “gave his evidence in English” (Paragraph 229) while Suarez gave his evidence “through an interpreter.” (Paragraph 236) Evra was given credit for giving his evidence “in a calm, composed and clear manner.” (Paragraph 231) yet Suarez was deemed unreliable as “His answers were not always clear or directly addressed to the question.” (Paragraph 237) The fact remains that Evra was the accuser and Suarez the accused so there was always going to be a difference in the manner the answers were given and the fact that The Independent Commission had to resort to looking at the demeanour of the two players, emphasises the absolute lack of evidence they had in order to come to a decision.
Everybody who watches football knows there are fouls in the game and those that would cause shock and those that do not. It is important to note the Independent Commission did have a football person on the panel Dennis Smith. Evra claimed he “was in shock (as he put it) and responding to Mr Suarez having fouled him five minutes previously.” (Paragraph 240) The question here is why would a player been in shock five minutes after a standard foul to the point to have the need to address the player who fouled you about it? When Evra asked Suarez why he had fouled him the answer was, according to Evra that Suarez said it was because Evra was black and it was during this exchange he stated to Evra he does not talk to blacks and the said ok blackie balckied blackie. Suarez says that he said to Evra stop moaning it was just a normal foul.
Looking at the incident from a football perspective which answer sounds more plausible to you bearing in mind it took place 5 minutes prior to the conversation? I will not answer the question rather I will leave it for you to decide what you would think is reply you think would be more obvious.
Suarez, however, did admit to using the phrase “Por que, negro?” at the point when the referee first blew his whistle just as Gerrard took the corner after Evra had first said “Don’t touch me you South American” (Paragraph 104). Again, it is important to note the experts points above stating that the use of the word negro by Suarez in the manner in which he says he used it was not racist or abusive. It is also important to note the conversation was in Spanish so the fact it was in England does not come into it since the conversation was said in Spanish. To put this point into context, if you translate something in German for instance to say can you complete this task by the end of the month. If it was a direct translation it would be something like this task can you complete until the end of the month. Therefore, a direct translation cannot be relied on nor can a conversation in another language be said in a manner where the construction would be in English as it would not make sense.
Also Evra “believed, from the moment he heard Mr Suarez use the word “negro”, that this meant nigger. The Commission asked Mr Evra why, then, did he not tell the referee that he had been called nigger, as opposed to black. Mr Evra’s answer was that even when he pronounced the word “niggers”, it was not a word he liked to use”. (Paragraph 271) Evra, interpreted the word incorrect for starters and then said he did not use the word as he does not like to repeat it but could repeat other profanities as he did so in his statement and complaint to the referee. That does not seem totally viable but it was believed by the commission.
Suarez, was shown video footage and questioned and he got confused through questioning, perhaps nerves and muddled himself as to where he said what he said but at no time did he change the statement of what he had said to Evra, only where it was said due being shown and questioned on different parts of the footage. This went against Suarez to show him as an unreliable witness.
Another, consideration taken by the Independent Commission was the number of times the word was used. Because a Liverpool employee, overheard Sir Alex Ferguson tell the referee Suarez used the word five times “In our judgment, this lent some weight to the credibility of Mr
Evra’s evidence that Mr Suarez used the word five times in the goalmouth.” (Paragraph 278) To break this down they mean that when Evra went with his manager to the referee and said we want to complain because Evra has been called a racist word 5 times, this complaint was heard by a Liverpool employee and thus means it strengthens the Evra’s claim to be correct. How is that possible? IF, Evra was exaggerating his recollection of the event then he would of course had said to the referee that his complaint was to report the use of a racist word 5 times. If somebody hears a potential false claim does that mean that false claim is more credible? This is another bone for contention for Liverpool Football Club but also shows how little evidence was actually available that the Independent Commission were relying on hearsay evidence from an Liverpool employee overhearing a complaint being made by the accuser and his manager.
Evra also came on Canal+ TV and said that Suarez had used the phrase 10 times yet when questioned he said it was a figure of speech used in the French language and not meant as an actual figure. The Independent Commission said “We find that Mr Evra’s use of the phrase “ten times” was a figure of speech and not meant to be taken literally. In circumstances where he was angry and upset after the game, he had only spoken to Canal+ about this topic off the record, they had nevertheless asked him about it when filming (contrary to his request that they not do so), and he was using what appears to be a common figure of speech in France, there is nothing in the Canal+ interview which materially undermines Mr Evra’s evidence.” (Paragraph 281) So it was ok to accept Evra’s account that this is a figure of speech in this type of conversation without an official interpreter stating this to be the fact, especially as when the asked Comolli he said it was not a figure of speech in French in this type of circumstance. This is another inconsistency in handling of the two players by the Independent Commission that Liverpool Football Club would argue.
The fact Evra came off the field and into the changing room and said to four Manchester United team mates that Suarez had racially abused him, there is no way Liverpool Football Club could challenge whether this conversation took place so had to accept he told four team mates he was abused racially with Suarez saying he doesn’t talk to Blacks.
The Independent Commission used the fact that Evra told HIS teammates what happened as a way of establishing that he must have been telling the truth to his teammates and that it then lends more credibility to his story (see Paragraph 324).
The Independent Commission went on to say that the question was that if Evra had made this all up how did he so quickly after the game and why would he? (see Paragraph 325) Liverpool Football Club tried to show how Evra was wound up during the game from the coin toss where he disagreed with the referee, calling him a liar, to three other incidents during the game (see paragraph 329 – 332) all of which was rejected out of hand by the Independent Commission.
The Independent Commission then took Suarez’s background hereditary, social and professional and concluded “Bearing these considerations in mind, whilst we were initially doubtful that Mr Suarez would make the comments alleged by Mr Evra, we proceeded on the basis that the factors
relied on in relation to Mr Suarez’s background and experiences did not mean that he could not or would not act in this way. We weighed these considerations together with all the evidence when asking ourselves whose account was more probable.” (Paragraph 345)
“Mr Evra denied using the words “South American” when speaking to Mr Suarez. When it was put to him that he had done so, he seemed genuinely bemused. He said to address someone as “South American” in this way is not something he would do. He said “What’s the sense? What’s the point?”. There was no evidence of Mr Evra using this phrase on any other occasions.” (Paragraph 363)
The Independent Commission then stated “We found that Mr Evra did not use the words “South American” when speaking to Mr Suarez. The language experts were not familiar with its use as an insult, Mr Evra’s denial of his alleged use of it was plausible, we found Mr Suarez’s evidence unreliable in many respects, and we found Mr Evra generally to be a credible witness.” (Paragraph 364) There was absolutely no investigation using video or otherwise to establish whether Evra had or had not called Suarez South American but instead took his word for it.
The conclusions from this point forward are not based on any evidence but only based on Evra’s account of what actually happened. The fact that the Independent Commission and journalist are stating Suarez used the phrased or word 7 times in nothing to do with fact but based only on Evra’s statement or view point. Again, bear in mind that the burden of proof as agreed and stated by the Independent Commission was supposed to be above normal due to the serious nature of the case do you think there is enough evidence to say we will go with Evra’s word?
What are the faults from Suarez, firstly, the fact he became muddled and his statement when translated into Spanish then English, then Spanish for verification and then English means there was room for some mistranslation or error. However, if you as a club are defending a player’s dignity then greater care should have been taken the legal team in preparing Suarez’s case file. There were a number of inconsistencies relating to the reasons why Suarez made a physical gesture to Evra and then from Suarez himself he became confused as to where he said what he said. This would not lend itself in a good light in any court at any standard as it does demonstrate a lack of coherence.
However, the biggest question to ask is whether the fact that somebody who cannot fully communicate in the language of trail (English) speaking via an interpreter and not explaining in enough detail why he made physical gestures can be deemed enough evidence to state he is in the wrong on the whole incident. Suarez admitted to using the word when he did in the sentence that he did, yet he at no stage admitted using the word more than once. There was no witness evidence, audio evidence or video evidence to say he used the word more than once. Therefore, it was impossible to corroborate that he had indeed used the word more than once.
The only possible outcome here could and perhaps should have been that the overwhelming evidence did not support either party. It is clear that Suarez has admitted using a word the Evra admitted to incorrectly interpreting and therefore took offence to it. Language experts state that the way Suarez used the word would not have been offensive or racist in his native tongue (the language the conversation took place in) or area he was from.
Clearly, there is not enough evidence to demonstrate whether the word was repeated but it is also clear that Evra has been hurt and offended by a word that is not familiar to him. The fact that Evra does not believe Suarez to be a racist, given the fact his own grandfather was black then the finding should have been no further action but a warning to Liverpool Football Club and Suarez that he cannot use his native tongue with opponents on the field of play and the conversation should remain in English. Liverpool should have been fined for not educating their player correctly. That is all the evidence and facts allowed as a conclusion, not for the over the top total acceptance of Evra’s version of events.
Liverpool Football Club have no alternative but to fight to clear their player’s name along with their own, however, how many people in all honesty would just take punishment if they were judged like that in your workplace. Would you not want to take your employer to an employment tribunal to ask for a fair trial or conclusion if your employer found you guilty of racists words or actions without any obvious evidence and just said that your accuser just performed better as a witness therefore they must be telling the truth? I cannot think of anybody who would take punishment which has such far reaching consequences for the rest of their lives based on somebody else’s word over yours.
