Luis Suarez has not found the net as frequently in England as he did in the Netherlands, but nobody can credibly doubt his ability. If the written judgment from the FA convincingly adds racism to the biting incident that left him kicking his heels at Ajax a year ago, then nobody will credibly be able to defend his current character. Liverpool may not have yet given up on that, but the FA have undoubtedly taken a firm stand on an issue from which UEFA and FIFA so regularly duck away.
The punishments handed down to national associations for racism by supporters and the defence of Luis Aragones after the then Spain coach talked about Thierry Henry in racially derogatory terms are reminders that the authorities combat prejudice with banners and words rather than action. Being fined £40,000 will trouble Suarez far less than the eight-game ban, but is still far in excess of the punishments levied on national associations (unless they breach rules on sponsorship deals).
Questions remain about how the FA handle their own, however. Bulgaria were rightly reported to UEFA and punished for the monkey chants aimed principally at Ashley Young in Sofia in September, yet the anti-gypsy chants by England supporters were not the subject of sanction. Second, should a high-profile charge of racism against an England player pass across the FA's desk - one complete with video evidence, say - then some will wish to compare and contrast the governing body's actions. Third, while the life of the out rugby player Gareth Thomas is to be made into a film, football's homophobia remains largely unchecked.
Leaving such concerns to one side, the sentence facing Suarez is what one could hope for. A purposeful precedent has been set, one that makes plain the unacceptability of racial abuse on the pitch. In 2003 John Mackie of Reading was banned for three games with five suspended after admitting racially abusing Sheffield United's Carl Asaba, but the story did not exactly dominate the headlines. You cannot legislate away prejudice but you can send the right message. The Suarez case is set to be a landmark.
That is to assume that the conviction stands. Liverpool's statement was forthright in its surprise: 'We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone when no one else on the field of play - including Evra's own Manchester United team-mates and all the match officials - heard the alleged conversation between the two players in a crowded Kop goalmouth while a corner kick was about to be taken.'
Earlier in the statement, though, Liverpool said: 'We will study the detailed reasons of the commission once they become available.' This may be crucial. The most tantalising nugget in the weeks of build-up was Suarez's claim in the Uruguayan media that he "called him [Evra] something his team-mates at Manchester call him". Is this were the case then why wouldn't the Liverpool player state plainly what exactly that was, so we could start to make a judgment?
Perhaps the answer is that he had already been advised that the nuances of South American Spanish might be lost on the English public. Perhaps there was little significant divergence between Suarez's story and Evra's - whatever the supposed potential benevolence of the term, if he said it ten times then the intent would be clear. If the full verdict and reasoning are made available - and it surely must be - then we will all be able to judge the credibility of Liverpool's defence of their player. We will also be able to judge Evra a little, too.
Reports suggest that the Manchester United defender said: "Don't touch me, you South American," immediately before Suarez's remarks, clearly talking of his opponent's origins in pejorative terms. The history of enslavement and oppression makes the use of terms of abuse of black people that much more reprehensible, but if this is Evra's evidence then he will not come out of the story too well, either.
That will not, whatever Liverpool think, be enough to absolve Suarez if the court of public opinion finds against him on the basis of the evidence; there remains the possibility, though, that if the evidence is seen to be wanting then the case could yet wind up in a court of law.
Kenny Dalglish has been asking for a quick resolution to this affair for a couple of months; now whether it drags on is partly in his hands. What one can say right now is that the Liverpool manager needs to be telling his player that the courting of controversy that has surrounded his career has to end if a flawed footballer is to fulfil his potential. A regrettable episode is not yet over; the triviality of the gesture at Fulham remains; but whatever the final outcomes, and even if he remains convinced he has been the victim of an injustice, these must be the last times Suarez makes headlines for the wrong reasons.
Philip Cornwall
