[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=47188.msg1454534#msg1454534 date=1325580636]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1454392#msg1454392 date=1325542178]
Even our own representation admitted the stupidity of the argument you're using there Dantes
Mr Suarez sought to persuade us that when he used the word "negro" to speak to Mr Evra
he was acting in a conciliatory and friendly way, without intent to offend and in a way
that would not be seen as offensive in Uruguay. He also said that when he pinched Mr
Evra's skin he was trying to defuse the situation.
355. We rejected the evidence of Mr Suarez on these points. The pinching of the skin, and Mr
Suarez's admitted use of the word "negro" when speaking to Mr Evra, took place in the
context of heated exchanges between the players. Mr Suarez had fouled Mr Evra in the
58th minute. Mr Evra confronted Mr Suarez in the 63rd minute and complained forcefully
about the foul. Their facial expressions, gesturing and physical movement showed their
mutual animosity throughout these exchanges.
356. Mr Suarez's pinching of Mr Evra's skin was not an attempt to defuse the situation. On the
contrary, it was an attempt to aggravate Mr Evra and to inflame the situation. Mr Suarez's
admitted use of the word "negro" when speaking to Mr Evra was not conciliatory and
friendly. It was unfriendly and was used as part of Mr Suarez's attempt to wind up Mr
Evra. The whole tenor of the exchanges was confrontational and argumentative. Adopting
the words used by the Spanish language experts, Mr Suarez did not use "negro" with any
sense of rapport or in an attempt to create such rapport.
357. Not only did we reject this evidence of Mr Suarez, but we found it remarkable that he
sought to advance a case that was so clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of
what happened. Even Mr McCormick accepted in his closing submissions that the
pinching could not reasonably be described as an attempt to defuse the situation. To
suggest otherwise, as Mr Suarez did, was unarguable. Mr Suarez's evidence on these
topics, which was shown to be flawed, profoundly undermined our confidence in the
reliability of his evidence.
[/quote]
Not quite sure what credence you're giving that Ross, it's all a load of assumption built on what Evra has said. How is it proven beyond any doubt that:
1 The argument was heated.
2 Suarez's intent in 'pinching' Evra's face was meant to deliberately antagonise the situation?
Neither can be proven beyond reasonable doubt unless the referee has suggested such, other witnesses have or Suarez himself has said as such. As it is, Suarez has tried to clarify his intent (whether he's lying is besides the point) and they've given it no credibility because, as said a million times throughout the thread (and again, the main point of unrest), they'd already made up their mind.
McCormick saying it was hardly likely to diffuse things is just admitting that it wouldn't have helped the situation, he's not saying that Suarez's argument is 'stupid' as such, that's just your interpretation of it, he's saying in the context of exchange it might not have been interpreted the way Suarez says he intended it to be.
There's nothing in the evidence to confirm the FA's 'assumptions' within that part of the report, so I'm not really sure why you're giving it any kind of hard evidence credibility.
[/quote]
Firstly nothing has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, this isn't a criminal trial. And what most people want is absolute proof, which is not the standard in any court around the world. If you read the report you'll clearly see why Suarez was not believed, and to say whether Suarez lying or not is besides the point is totally wrong. It's the main problem for Suarez.
in relation to one of the incidents:
Initially Suarez reported to Comolli and Kuyt what he had said to Evra, they gave evidence to that effect. That evidence partially corroborated Evra's testimony. The video evidence also corroborates Evra's testimony.
Suarez changed his version of events at the hearing and gave evidence that was inconsistent with the statement of Comolli and Kuyt, inconsistent with Evra's testimony and inconsistent with the video.
So on one side you've got Evra's testimony with 3 pieces of evidence to corroborate it (as well as the Suarez admission), and on the other Suarez with absolutely no supporting evidence and a story which changes each time he tells it. The independent panel were entirely correct to find Suarez's evidence as not credible, it is the only logical conclusion you can draw.
In relation to the other incident the independent panel went too far for me - Suarez's evidence again was not credible, Evra's evidence and video evidence were against him. And some United players evidence was used as corroboration, but that corroboration consisted of hearsay so arguably should not be relied upon. IMO there was no need for them to make any call at all on this - the charge was already proven on the other incident.
I believe there may be the possibility of challenging the length of the ban on the basis of the hearsay evidence being relied upon in the second incident but there is not a doubt in my mind that the independent panel got the finding right.
Suarez was found guilty because he was guilty. He was found to lack credibility because he wasn't credible - take a look at his version of events - does it sound like a conversation anybody on the planet would have ?
