Suarez: BANNED from all football for 4 months

You read your own posts?

Now valuing Sanchez at 40 million I see.

You might do well to try using google before accusing people of talking bollocks, something in which you are the acknowledged forum expert.

Hodgson’s glowing scouting report on the merits of signing Luis Suárez played a role in ensuring the South American arrived at Anfield.

It is a quirky fact for the current West Bromwich Albion manager, facing his old club at the Hawthorns on Saturday, that the most important fixture he attended during six months at Anfield did not involve Liverpool.

On Sept 28 last season, Hodgson diverted from his route to Utrecht, where Liverpool were playing in the Europa League, and headed to Amsterdam.

A 1-1 draw between Ajax and AC Milan in the Champions League was notable for an outstanding performance by Suárez.

Hodgson was dismissed three weeks before the striker arrived at Liverpool in January, and he was left to lament what might have been had his disintegrating reign staggered along until the injection of the dynamic Uruguayan.


Suárez was first pursued by Liverpool after the World Cup, with Hodgson newly appointed, but their dire financial situation made him unobtainable. They were quoted £23million by Ajax in August 2010.

By late September, knowing the possibility of fresh investment made a January deal possible, Hodgson travelled to Holland to satisfy himself Ajax’s valuation was justified.

Hodgson was certainly not the first Liverpool representative to assess the 23 year-old South American, and his critics will maintain whatever role he had in his capture was peripheral.

Kenny Dalglish and former Liverpool chief scout Eduardo Macia were also frequent visitors to the Amsterdam Arena as it became widely known one of the World Cup’s shining stars was available.

“Yes we looked at Suárez,” confirmed Hodgson. “Kenny also saw him play. Kenny was doing a lot of scouting alongside me.

“It was at a time the club was in the throes of a change of ownership. There was no question of making a bid and it was in between the two transfer windows. He was well researched. They took the plunge with Suárez and have been well rewarded.”

Current director of football Damien Comolli, appointed a month after Hodgson’s scouting trip, sealed the deal with fresh American dollars.

Dalglish gives most credit to Comolli’s “thorough due diligence” and admitted yesterday Suárez “was coming in, irrespective of anything else that happened in the transfer window”.

Hodgson’s (and Comolli’s) Anfield detractors will argue spotting the potential of World Cup semi-finalist was hardly visionary.

Given the sums spent since his departure it is also worth noting how Hodgson rated the second major signing last January, Andy Carroll.

Carroll was among those considered shortly after Hodgson’s arrival from Fulham, but not for anything more than £15million.

Hodgson preferred Bayern Munich’s Mario Gómez and a season-long loan deal was called off 24 hours before the striker was due arrive on Merseyside. While Gómez re-established himself in the Bundesliga - he finished top scorer with 28 last season - Liverpool turned back to Carroll for the somewhat extraordinary £35million.

As Hodgson considers his Anfield fate, the notion of him being the wrong man, in the wrong place at the wrong time has been even more apparent since his departure.

“The situation now is vastly different to the situation I had,” he said.

“I went in at a time of transition and the first job for the people who employed me was to make sure the club didn’t go into liquidation. It didn’t get close because of the great job Martin Broughton and Christian Purslow did. The new owners have invested in the squad but I realised when I went in there that there was going to be a change of ownership and that these things can always happen.”

Nevertheless, Hodgson will surely consider ‘what if’ given the £110 million spent at Anfield since he left. He is mocked for the transfers of Paul Konchesky and Christian Poulsen, lightweights whose combined fee was just £6 million, when the evidence is plentiful, as it was with his predecessor Rafa Benítez, that more desirable targets were beyond his budget.

Hodgson’s only expensive signing, Raul Meireles, was a success and sold for a profit to Chelsea last summer.

Had Hodgson survived long enough to manage Suárez, who faces a fitness test before Saturday's game, the best he could have hoped for was another six-month stay of execution before exiting with more dignity than he was granted.

Given his rehabilitation at West Brom and Liverpool’s progress under Dalglish, that would have done more harm than good to all concerned.

Liverpool and Hodgson evidently function more effectively away from each other.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8856426/West-Bromwich-Albion-manager-Roy-Hodgson-hopes-Liverpools-Luis-Suarez-doesnt-return-to-haunt-him.html

That took 2 seconds to find, and as usual is full of hodgsons favourite topic. Himself and how wonderful he is.

Ah okay.. this could have some truth to it to be honest. It is hard to know without being an insider.

Ah okay.. this could have some truth to it to be honest. It is hard to know without being an insider.

It was widely reported at the time.
Look around how many posters knew about it.
Hardly inside knowledge.

Any updates folks?

Sorry for any laziness but I had to come down London last minute so in a pub now and battery not too good to go trawling.

Any updates folks?

Sorry for any laziness but I had to come down London last minute so in a pub now and battery not too good to go trawling.

Nah mate.  He's still banned for 4 months.

Any updates folks?

Sorry for any laziness but I had to come down London last minute so in a pub now and battery not too good to go trawling.

Bout same as yesterday, except for the Barca reps making statements right on cue about how it's so awesome how Luis apologized. Oh yea, and their new signing Rakitic saying the same thing.

He's off man, just a matter of time.

Nah mate.  He's still banned for 4 months.

Ha ha

Bout same as yesterday, except for the Barca reps making statements right on cue about how it's so awesome how Luis apologized. Oh yea, and their new signing Rakitic saying the same thing.

He's off man, just a matter of time.

Cheers dude.

Good luck tonight. Threw a fiver on your lot. Draw half time USA full time. Just for some interest although I want The US to win.

In Camden at the moment in a bar called The Cuban.  Bad choice. Lots of salsa dancing and no footy. Time to move.

Waffling on? One lonely place London when you're on your own.

In situations like this? Choose booze.

Ha ha

Cheers dude.

Good luck tonight. Threw a fiver on your lot. Draw half time USA full time. Just for some interest although I want The US to win.

In Camden at the moment in a bar called The Cuban.  Bad choice. Lots of salsa dancing and no footy. Time to move.

Waffling on? One lonely place London when you're on your own.

In situations like this? Choose booze.

That half time bet came good, hopefully Dempsey can win you the full time one too!

Cheers bro!

That half time bet came good, hopefully Dempsey can win you the full time one too!

Cheers bro!

You Yankee bas**rds

You Yankee bas**rds

Man, couldn't close the deal, well at least Suarez is staying..er.....whoops

A very interesting article.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but it's an interesting read.

From David Beckham’s infamous kick at France '98 to Luis Suárez chomping Giorgio Chiellini's shoulder in Brazil last week, the history of the World Cup is littered with moments of impulsive aggression that appear to defy all rational explanation.

The story of human impulsivity stretches back deep into our evolutionary past. By nature, we are all prone to making quick, rash decisions that may lead to regret, and in some cases a four-month ban from international football.

Impulsivity is actually a survival mechanism and was essential in the African savanna where our species evolved around a million and a half years ago. For our ancestors, the ability to make split-second decisions could make the difference between life and death.

All of us have deep primal instincts but over the several hundred million years of evolution separating our reptilian ancestors from the first mammals, and eventually primates, the cognitive ability to exercise self-restraint has increased.

While most living things make this decision purely as a trade-off between risk and reward, only humans can decide to exercise self-restraint on the basis of how they think they will be perceived by others – an ability that emerged some time in the past 100,000 years or so.

“We evolved to be very social animals, living in large groups, and so we have developed inhibitory mechanisms in the more recently evolved parts of the prefrontal cortex,” explains Michael Price of the School of Social Sciences at the University of Brunel. “This is the social centre of the brain. Our big reason not to be impulsive is because of your reputation and how other people are going to judge you and perhaps ostracise you as we saw with Beckham in the aftermath of France ’98.”

However, certain people find it more difficult to control their impulses than others, and this is partly determined by their genes. The first link between genetics and impulsivity was discovered in Finland in 2010. Individuals who carried variants of the gene HTR2B were found to be far more predisposed to violent crime when intoxicated than others.

Since then, a whole system of genes has been implicated in making a person susceptible to impulsive, aggressive behaviour. One which is of particular interest with regard to sportsmen and women who are prone to the "red mist" is called Monoamine Oxidase A. Different people express this gene to different extents, and the combination of low expression of Monoamine Oxidase A and high testosterone levels makes a person much more likely to lose control and become aggressive. This is especially true if the person had a difficult upbringing and suffered a lot of stress at an early age.

“From an evolutionary perspective, these genes govern the extent to which our mammalian brain can suppress the more ancient reptilian brain,” explains Professor David Goldman, chief of neurogenetics at the US National Institutes of Heath. “They alter the levels or the mechanisms of action of ancient chemicals called neurotransmitters which are involved in either the initiation or the inhibition of behaviour.”

The vast majority of people who are genetically susceptible to impulsive behaviour are able to suppress this behaviour. But being involved in a high-profile football match presents unique psychological challenges for such individuals. It’s one thing to retain self-control under ordinary circumstances and another with millions watching around the world as your tribe faces off against a rival tribe.

“All competitive team sports are effectively mimicking a very intense coalitional aggression situation,” Price says. “This is harking back to our ancestral environments when coalitional warfare between two tribes was fairly commonplace and your own fate was really wrapped up in how your coalition fared. We’re neurologically wired to be interested in the outcome, which is why so many people attach such incredible significance and importance to what’s going on between these two groups of men on a field.”

This intense, adrenaline-fuelled environment can result in deeply suppressed behavioural traits emerging that have not been seen before, despite the presence of officials and thousands of cameras poised to zoom in.

“These unique stresses are what really leads people into trouble, even if you have a lot of experience,” Goldman says. “Remember Zinedine Zidane’s headbutt in the 2006 final? You may have walked the razor’s edge for years and years and never fallen off but suddenly you’re walking on that knife edge with a very high wind that you’ve never faced before.”

Actions made in the heat of the moment are a combination of genetic factors and, importantly, choice. Genetics may be a driving force but researchers agree that they should never be a reason to show someone leniency for breaking the rules of acceptable behaviour.

Intriguingly, the biological assets that make someone like Suárez such a feared striker – his rapid reactions and predatory goalscoring instinct – may also be behind his constant skirmishes with the rules.

“It’s kind of tragic,” Price says. “The same parts of his brain which allow him to make impulsive decisions and allow him to be a great player are also the things that cause him to sometimes cross the line and do these nutty things.”

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/jul/02/genes-luis-suarez-impulsive-footballer-world-cup

A very interesting article.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but it's an interesting read.

From David Beckham’s infamous kick at France '98 to Luis Suárez chomping Giorgio Chiellini's shoulder in Brazil last week, the history of the World Cup is littered with moments of impulsive aggression that appear to defy all rational explanation.

The story of human impulsivity stretches back deep into our evolutionary past. By nature, we are all prone to making quick, rash decisions that may lead to regret, and in some cases a four-month ban from international football.

Impulsivity is actually a survival mechanism and was essential in the African savanna where our species evolved around a million and a half years ago. For our ancestors, the ability to make split-second decisions could make the difference between life and death.

All of us have deep primal instincts but over the several hundred million years of evolution separating our reptilian ancestors from the first mammals, and eventually primates, the cognitive ability to exercise self-restraint has increased.

While most living things make this decision purely as a trade-off between risk and reward, only humans can decide to exercise self-restraint on the basis of how they think they will be perceived by others – an ability that emerged some time in the past 100,000 years or so.

“We evolved to be very social animals, living in large groups, and so we have developed inhibitory mechanisms in the more recently evolved parts of the prefrontal cortex,” explains Michael Price of the School of Social Sciences at the University of Brunel. “This is the social centre of the brain. Our big reason not to be impulsive is because of your reputation and how other people are going to judge you and perhaps ostracise you as we saw with Beckham in the aftermath of France ’98.”

However, certain people find it more difficult to control their impulses than others, and this is partly determined by their genes. The first link between genetics and impulsivity was discovered in Finland in 2010. Individuals who carried variants of the gene HTR2B were found to be far more predisposed to violent crime when intoxicated than others.

Since then, a whole system of genes has been implicated in making a person susceptible to impulsive, aggressive behaviour. One which is of particular interest with regard to sportsmen and women who are prone to the "red mist" is called Monoamine Oxidase A. Different people express this gene to different extents, and the combination of low expression of Monoamine Oxidase A and high testosterone levels makes a person much more likely to lose control and become aggressive. This is especially true if the person had a difficult upbringing and suffered a lot of stress at an early age.

“From an evolutionary perspective, these genes govern the extent to which our mammalian brain can suppress the more ancient reptilian brain,” explains Professor David Goldman, chief of neurogenetics at the US National Institutes of Heath. “They alter the levels or the mechanisms of action of ancient chemicals called neurotransmitters which are involved in either the initiation or the inhibition of behaviour.”

The vast majority of people who are genetically susceptible to impulsive behaviour are able to suppress this behaviour. But being involved in a high-profile football match presents unique psychological challenges for such individuals. It’s one thing to retain self-control under ordinary circumstances and another with millions watching around the world as your tribe faces off against a rival tribe.

“All competitive team sports are effectively mimicking a very intense coalitional aggression situation,” Price says. “This is harking back to our ancestral environments when coalitional warfare between two tribes was fairly commonplace and your own fate was really wrapped up in how your coalition fared. We’re neurologically wired to be interested in the outcome, which is why so many people attach such incredible significance and importance to what’s going on between these two groups of men on a field.”

This intense, adrenaline-fuelled environment can result in deeply suppressed behavioural traits emerging that have not been seen before, despite the presence of officials and thousands of cameras poised to zoom in.

“These unique stresses are what really leads people into trouble, even if you have a lot of experience,” Goldman says. “Remember Zinedine Zidane’s headbutt in the 2006 final? You may have walked the razor’s edge for years and years and never fallen off but suddenly you’re walking on that knife edge with a very high wind that you’ve never faced before.”

Actions made in the heat of the moment are a combination of genetic factors and, importantly, choice. Genetics may be a driving force but researchers agree that they should never be a reason to show someone leniency for breaking the rules of acceptable behaviour.

Intriguingly, the biological assets that make someone like Suárez such a feared striker – his rapid reactions and predatory goalscoring instinct – may also be behind his constant skirmishes with the rules.

“It’s kind of tragic,” Price says. “The same parts of his brain which allow him to make impulsive decisions and allow him to be a great player are also the things that cause him to sometimes cross the line and do these nutty things.”

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/jul/02/genes-luis-suarez-impulsive-footballer-world-cup

So that's why I'm a sh*t footballer, genetics! Mmm, I'll ponder that over an Earl Grey tea, with lemon of course, no milk, if I get milk I'll kill you.

Still don't get his action though, the play was no where near him. There was no threat. I just think his inner child is still ruling the roust and he can't handle ant negative situations. As with a 3 year old child, he turns to violence to get what he wants, but as he's an adult he's accountable for his actions.

So that's why I'm a sh*t footballer, genetics! Mmm, I'll ponder that over an Earl Grey tea, with lemon of course, no milk, if I get milk I'll kill you.

Still don't get his action though, the play was no where near him. There was no threat. I just think his inner child is still ruling the roust and he can't handle ant negative situations. As with a 3 year old child, he turns to violence to get what he wants, but as he's an adult he's accountable for his actions.

My understanding is that it's a trait which comes out under extreme pressure, at least according to the article.
I'm not quite sure what the extreme pressure was when he bit Ivanovich, but I'm probably missing something.

Luis Suarez looks set to have club ban lifted by FIFA, say Uruguay press
Posted by SPORT WITNESS on July 2, 2014 at 12:34 in Sport Witness Football

Liverpool's Luis Suarez could find that his apology gets him more than just the interest of Barcelona and bordering cringe worthy flattery from Josep Maria Bartomeu. Uruguay have notified FIFA that they plan to appeal on behalf of their man against the sanctions handed down to him for biting at the World Cup.

Given that Suarez has now apologised the grounds of his defence will have to move from an insistence that the bite never happened. Suarez's apology is not as frank as it may have been and therefore it presents room for manoeuvre, he can claim it was an intentional bite but a lesser act of aggression. Something along the lines of it being his fault but not his intention.

From getting the decision reversed from guilty to innocent, Uruguay have now moved to having Suarez's ban reduced. El Pais say 'there is optimism that the penalty is reduced or, at least, that they will remove the ban on playing with his team, which at this point it is not known whether it will be Liverpool or Barcelona.'

The optimism comes from previous FIFA cases where bans which initially look harsh to some have been reduced after much appeal and journeys down the legal route. El Pais point to the recent transfer ban on Barcelona and how that has been suspended on appeal is likely to end up less than what it originally was.

Liverpool fans could be forgiven for feeling that Barcelona seem to get treated favourably on these things and that could help Suarez.

   

The whole press drama re Luis biting was really lame.
It was all a big smokescreen to cover England's worst ever WC performance.

And Fenway jumped on it as an extra excuse to cash in. Even tho they'd been negotiating a sell on for years.

The thought of the next Carroll, Ozil, Soldado or Assgas in our number 7 shirt will be enought to make ME bite someone on the shoulder. So I'll stay away.

The whole press drama re Luis biting was really lame.
It was all a big smokescreen to cover England's worst ever WC performance.

And Fenway jumped on it as an extra excuse to cash in. Even tho they'd been negotiating a sell on for years.

The thought of the next Carroll, Ozil, Soldado or Assgas in our number 7 shirt will be enought to make ME bite someone on the shoulder. So I'll stay away.

He's only been here 3 1/2 years, so in effect, what you're saying is that FSG have a time machine and can see into the future, so they bought Suarez 3 1/2 years ago, knowing that in that space of time his value would increase to 80 million and they could then make a tidy profit.
It kind of begs the question of why they didn't just buy back copies of the Wall Street Journal whilst they were in the future, and corner the markets in whatever looked best, rather than go to all the trouble of buying Suarez, putting up with his antics, getting in a new manager who built the team around him, telling him he was going nowhere in 2013, giving him a new contract worth 200+ thousand a week and inserting various clauses into his contract.

The whole press drama re Luis biting was really lame.
It was all a big smokescreen to cover England's worst ever WC performance.

And Fenway jumped on it as an extra excuse to cash in. Even tho they'd been negotiating a sell on for years.

The thought of the next Carroll, Ozil, Soldado or Assgas in our number 7 shirt will be enought to make ME bite someone on the shoulder. So I'll stay away.

You really do talk a load of BS don't you? Are your eyes brown by chance?

You really do talk a load of BS don't you? Are your eyes brown by chance?

WTF does that mean? 

You really do talk a load of BS don't you? Are your eyes brown by chance?

What a peculiar comment? 

What a peculiar comment? 

It's because he's full of sh*t up to his eyeballs.

it means that's how full of sh*t he is, as in "you're so full of sh*t it's a wonder your eyes aren't brown".

At least that's what it means where I come from