COMMENT: Liverpool FC striker Luis Suarez's name smeared on a hunch
By Ben ThornleyJan 1 2012

IF you have neither the time nor inclination to read the Football Association’s hefty report on their investigation into the Luis Suarez/ Patrice Evra racism row, let me save you the trouble.

After two months and 115-pages, the entire case came down to one man’s word against another’s.

There was no evidence nor supporting witnesses to back up either player’s version of the events.

And in the end, the much discussed linguistic nuances of the word “negro” and its use in South American Spanish mattered little.

Language experts brought in by the FA concluded that what Suarez admits to having said – “what, negro?” – wouldn’t be considered offensive in his native Uruguay, but what Evra says he hurled at him would be.

So it all came down to who the three-man panel believed.

They decided Evra was the more credible witness, chiefly because his version of events tallied closer to the television footage of the incident than Suarez’s

It is worth noting, however, that while the Frenchman was allowed to give his evidence while watching the video of the confrontation, Suarez was not.

The FA report also claimed that the Manchester United player’s testimony was preferred because he remained calm throughout – importantly, though, he was not the one on trial.

As a result of the report’s publication, most media outlets are now presenting Evra’s claim to have been racially abused “seven times in two minutes” as fact when that is far from the case.

Unlike in a court of law, the panel did not need to be satisfied that Suarez was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, working instead to a balance of probability rule. And the word “probably” can be found in plentiful supply in the report.

Essentially the Liverpool striker has been convicted on the hunch of three men.

Is that acceptable when a man’s reputation is on the line?

If Suarez used the word negro with the frequency and in the manner in which Evra alleges, he deserves every game of his eight-match suspension.

But that hasn't been proven, with only the two players aware of the truth. And try as the FA might to suggest otherwise, the report hasn’t changed that.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/spo...unch-55578-30044683/