The Suarez/Evra Racism Row

[i_rushie]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

@ Dantes, I agree that there was only one charge, with an aggravating circumstance. So much was clear from the verdict in December. Without taking the time to verify the different FA statement in October as you say, that the wording in October was tidied up by the time the verdict of the hearing came round suggests that Paul Goulding QC has done his job. You are also right in relation to the inconsistency with the Rooney ban, and the rules providing the FA the flexibility to impose and justify any length of ban they choose to impose.

I'm sure Goulding QC was well aware of these. If he hasn't come about his title unmeritoriously, then you can be sure he will only release a tightly written judgment, which only makes me wonder about the prospects of success in any appeal.

@ Doc Mac, if maintaining the good reputation of one man (Suarez) is the primary interest, then would it not be more conducive to launch a publicity offensive outlining how he honestly did not know what he said was offensive, explaining the cultural differences to the public rather than a FA panel of dubious authority, how contrite he is, blow up a few more pictures of him with underprivileged children etc etc. If he has to stay in the public eye, then make sure he's shown in a good light. But no, all we've done so far is to keep mum, save for a wordy indignant statement few other apart from Liverpool fans will read when the general public is not likely to go beyond the titular "RACIST" headline of an article in the Mirror. I very much doubt the club is interested in keeping intact Suarez's civil reputation from its (in)action.

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451768#msg1451768 date=1325240949]
I never mentioned the verdict, I used very specific language. The cultural differences thing would not have been taken into account in determining whether he was guilty or not because of the nature of the charges (strict liability), it could only be considered in relation to the punishment.
[/quote]

This is your mistake. And my mistake when I first read the charges and assumed they were copy pasted from the rules. Go and look at the rules again.

You cannot have strict liability for an offense of "insulting words". It's ridiculous and mutually exclusive. Unless you have a database of every single word you have arbitrarily defined as insulting (and supplied the said database as an appendix to the regulations). Otherwise the only legal way to judge whether the words are insulting is from their meaning. And guess what, their meaning is what you are calling "cultural bollocks".

 

[Rosco]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451772#msg1451772 date=1325241792]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451768#msg1451768 date=1325240949]
I never mentioned the verdict, I used very specific language. The cultural differences thing would not have been taken into account in determining whether he was guilty or not because of the nature of the charges (strict liability), it could only be considered in relation to the punishment.
[/quote]

This is your mistake. And my mistake when I first read the charges and assumed they were copy pasted from the rules. Go and look at the rules again.

You cannot have strict liability for an offense of "insulting words". It's ridiculous and mutually exclusive. Unless you have a database of every single word you have arbitrarily defined as insulting (and supplied the said database as an appendix to the regulations). Otherwise the only legal way to judge whether the words are insulting is from their meaning. And guess what, their meaning is what you are calling "cultural bollocks".
[/quote]

While you're there will you explain to me how Liverpool FC would have a defamation case against the FA - you're preferred option going forward ?

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451773#msg1451773 date=1325242028]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451772#msg1451772 date=1325241792]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451768#msg1451768 date=1325240949]
I never mentioned the verdict, I used very specific language. The cultural differences thing would not have been taken into account in determining whether he was guilty or not because of the nature of the charges (strict liability), it could only be considered in relation to the punishment.
[/quote]

This is your mistake. And my mistake when I first read the charges and assumed they were copy pasted from the rules. Go and look at the rules again.

You cannot have strict liability for an offense of "insulting words". It's ridiculous and mutually exclusive. Unless you have a database of every single word you have arbitrarily defined as insulting (and supplied the said database as an appendix to the regulations). Otherwise the only legal way to judge whether the words are insulting is from their meaning. And guess what, their meaning is what you are calling "cultural bollocks".
[/quote]

While you're there will you explain to me how Liverpool FC would have a defamation case against the FA - you're preferred option going forward ?
[/quote]

Sure. The FA released this written statement

1. Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
2. the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);

So they have presented untrue allegations as statements of fact. And as a result they have harmed the reputation of Suarez and the club. Whats the problem?

 

[Ryan]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

Edit.

 

[i_rushie]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

IMO strict liability applies for for the charge of "using insulting words". Insulting words are words of that import, which are capable of being construed as such to the recipient of the word. There is no mens rea on the part of the offender to be proved.

As for actus reus, the offender must be proved to have "used" certain words or behaviour.

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

Here's the statements they issued at the start, and at the end.

The FA has today charged Liverpool’s Luis Suarez following an incident that occurred during the Liverpool versus Manchester United fixture at Anfield on 15 October 2011.

It is alleged that Suarez used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Manchester United’s Patrice Evra contrary to FA rules.

It is further alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra.

The FA will issue no further comment at this time.

That charge conveniently implies that the reference to colour need not be an insult. They should have copy pasted the rules as they are written int he handbook, or else worded it more correctly as "included an insulting reference to the....colour"

An Independent Regulatory Commission has today [Tuesday 20 December 2011] found a charge of misconduct against Luis Suarez proven, and have issued a suspension for a period of eight matches as well as fining him £40,000, pending appeal.

On 16 November 2011, The Football Association charged Luis Suarez with misconduct contrary to FA Rule E3 in relation to the Liverpool FC versus Manchester United FC fixture on 15 October 2011.

A hearing took place from 14-20 December 2011 before an Independent Regulatory Commission of The FA to consider the charge.

The Independent Regulatory Commission announced its decision on 20 December 2011, which is as follows:

1. Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
2. the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);
3. Mr Suarez shall be warned as to his future conduct, be suspended for eight matches covering all first team competitive matches and fined the sum
of £40,000;
4. the [penalty] is suspended pending the outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Suarez against this decision.

The Independent Regulatory Commission will provide written reasons for its decision in due course setting out:

(a) the findings of fact made by it;
(b) the reasons for its decision finding the charge proved; and
(c) the reasons for the penalty.

Mr Suarez has the right to appeal the decision of the Independent Regulatory Commission to an Appeal Board. An appeal must be lodged within 14 days of the date of the written reasons for the decision.

The penalty is suspended until after the outcome of any appeal, or the time for appealing expires, or should Mr Suarez decide not to appeal. The reason for this is to ensure that the penalty does not take effect before any appeal so that Mr Suarez has an effective right of appeal.

Ah, so now they are working towards claiming the insulting words included a reference to colour. But still refuse to say it outright. "within the meaning of Rule E3(2).... well that means "an insulting reference to colour". Because as I say there was not comma. Their statement above is now half way between the charges, and the rules. You can sense the fear in the way it has been worded, because they've realised the problem they have on their hands. Negrito is not and insulting reference to colour.

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=48021.msg1451779#msg1451779 date=1325242805]
IMO strict liability applies for for the charge of "using insulting words". Insulting words are words of that import, which are capable of being construed as such to the recipient of the word. There is no mens rea on the part of the offender to be proved.

As for actus reus, the offender must be proved to have "used" certain words or behaviour.
[/quote]

See if that's true, I mean if your opinion there is supported by a previous judgment, then there is nothing we realistically can do about it. I don't want to waste time to look through hundreds and thousands of pages of english-cum-latin bullshit, this will be the right place I assume... “Insulting words or behaviour”: Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986??

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

Not from the actual act, but its a governemnt paper looking to reform it....the law of the land is not on your side rushie

1 What is the offence?

Section 5 makes it an offence to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
disorderly behaviour” or to display “any writing, sign or other visible representation which is
threatening, abusive or insulting” within the hearing or sight of a person “likely to be caused
harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. The offence does not depend on harassment, alarm
or distress actually having been caused in the particular case.

It is a defence for a person accused of this offence to prove that he had no reason to believe
that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment,
alarm or distress; that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words,
behaviour, writing, signs, or other visible representation would be heard or seen by a person
outside that or any other dwelling; or that his conduct was reasonable.

A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he intends his words or behaviour to
be threatening, abusive or insulting or is aware that it may be so, or if he intends his
behaviour to be, or is aware that it may be, disorderly.

The police can arrest a person without a warrant if he or she fails to heed a warning to stop
the conduct in question. The maximum penalty is a £1,000 fine.

 

[vantage]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451726#msg1451726 date=1325209857]
Think of how it will go in court. The first thing the judge will say is, what the fuck gives? You guys didn't translate the conversation from spanish into english?

FA: Uhmm, we, uhhm, we used a translator your honour, lol, uhmm haha......ha
Judge: Oh, so is he or she going to be called as a witness?
FA: uhhm, it, google translate.......... your honour
Judge: Are you fucking kidding me?
[/quote]

Coincidentally, said translator translates "sudaca" as "Greaser" which in itself is an insulting racial slur......

 

[i_rushie]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

See Harvey v DPP [2011] EWHC Crim B1 @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/B1.html

It discusses Southard, R(R) and Taylor, and you'll see that a common recurring theme is that what's abusive, leaving aside an additional element of words "likely to cause harassment alarm or distress", is determined by the Court, by drawing an inference of the likely effect on persons who heard the words, with regard to circumstances that the offending occurred in. Not solely by evidence from the offender.

Much in the same way that "Fuck" these days have entered the vernacular of the man in the street. Does it still cause offence? Not to me. Not to most of us on the forum. Do the Courts deem it abusive? Yes. Are they going to find innocent a person charged on his evidence of: "well it is culturally acceptable these days"? No.

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=vantage link=topic=48021.msg1451789#msg1451789 date=1325245887]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451726#msg1451726 date=1325209857]
Think of how it will go in court. The first thing the judge will say is, what the fuck gives? You guys didn't translate the conversation from spanish into english?

FA: Uhmm, we, uhhm, we used a translator your honour, lol, uhmm haha......ha
Judge: Oh, so is he or she going to be called as a witness?
FA: uhhm, it, google translate.......... your honour
Judge: Are you fucking kidding me?
[/quote]

Coincidentally, said translator translates "sudaca" as "Greaser" which in itself is an insulting racial slur......
[/quote]

The FA have to charge someone within 2 or 3 working days of the incident. So much to their disappointment, unfortunately they can do nothing about Evra and Terry.

Judge: I get it I get it, this is one of those hidden camera pranks, right? HA HA HA very funny people. Court dismissed.

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=48021.msg1451790#msg1451790 date=1325246053]
See Harvey v DPP [2011] EWHC Crim B1 @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/B1.html

It discusses Southard, R(R) and Taylor, and you'll see that a common recurring theme is that what's abusive, leaving aside an additional element of words "likely to cause harassment alarm or distress", is determined by the Court, by drawing an inference of the likely effect on persons who heard the words, with regard to circumstances that the offending occurred in.Not by evidence from the offender.

Much in the same way that "Fuck" these days have entered the vernacular of the man in the street. Does it still cause offence? Not to me. Not to most of us on the forum. Do the Courts deem it abusive? Yes. Are they going to allow a person charged to say: "well it is culturally acceptable these days"? No, that remains the prerogative of the Court in the course of interpreting the legislation.
[/quote]

Those kids had no defense because the word "fuck" is well defined, and the facts of that incident make it clear they were aware it would cause offense and were told more than once that it would do so. The word negrito isn't simply unoffensive "these days". It is not offensive full stop. What you need to find an example of is a kid going up to a police officer and saying something more like

Kid: Alright, got the time?
Officer: Don't say alright to me, I'm left handed and I take great offense to that
Kid: Uhmm...Ok
Officer: What have you got against left handed people?
Officer: Can't you see I'm holding my batton in me left hand? I'm a left handed man!
Kid: Chill out dude, I just asked if you were alright
Officer: You're under arrest, you have the right to remain silent

 

[tombrown]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451822#msg1451822 date=1325248075]

Those kids had no defense because the word "fuck" is well defined, and the facts of that incident make it clear they were aware it would cause offense and were told more than once that it would do so. The word negrito isn't simply unoffensive "these days". It is not offensive full stop. What you need to find an example of is a kid going up to a police officer and saying something more like

Kid: Alright, got the time?
Officer: Don't say alright to me, I'm left handed and I take great offense to that
Kid: Uhmm...Ok
Officer: What have you got against left handed people?
Kid: Chill out dude, I just asked if you were alright
Officer: You're under arrest, you have the right to remain silent[/quote]

Where the bolded bit si the equivalent of Evra calling Suarez that word I forget (sudako??)

 

[Judge Jules]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=48021.msg1451790#msg1451790 date=1325246053]
See Harvey v DPP [2011] EWHC Crim B1 @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/B1.html

It discusses Southard, R(R) and Taylor, and you'll see that a common recurring theme is that what's abusive, leaving aside an additional element of words "likely to cause harassment alarm or distress", is determined by the Court, by drawing an inference of the likely effect on persons who heard the words, with regard to circumstances that the offending occurred in. Not solely by evidence from the offender.

Much in the same way that "Fuck" these days have entered the vernacular of the man in the street. Does it still cause offence? Not to me. Not to most of us on the forum. Do the Courts deem it abusive? Yes. Are they going to find innocent a person charged on his evidence of: "well it is culturally acceptable these days"? No.
[/quote]

Are they going to convict a person who says (and would have done so on oath, as Suarez will if we take this into court) "I honestly believed this word is culturally acceptable and hence not an insult"? Not unless they want to be overturned and criticised on appeal, which in my experience (my first job was as an officer of the County Court) - and years ago though that may be, I doubt things have changed - most judges don't.

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=48021.msg1451827#msg1451827 date=1325248611]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=48021.msg1451790#msg1451790 date=1325246053]
See Harvey v DPP [2011] EWHC Crim B1 @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/B1.html

It discusses Southard, R(R) and Taylor, and you'll see that a common recurring theme is that what's abusive, leaving aside an additional element of words "likely to cause harassment alarm or distress", is determined by the Court, by drawing an inference of the likely effect on persons who heard the words, with regard to circumstances that the offending occurred in. Not solely by evidence from the offender.

Much in the same way that "Fuck" these days have entered the vernacular of the man in the street. Does it still cause offence? Not to me. Not to most of us on the forum. Do the Courts deem it abusive? Yes. Are they going to find innocent a person charged on his evidence of: "well it is culturally acceptable these days"? No.
[/quote]

Are they going to convict a person who says (and would have done so on oath, as Suarez will if we take this into court) "I honestly believed this word is culturally acceptable and hence not an insult"? Not unless they want to be overturned and criticised on appeal, which in my experience (my first job was as an officer of the County Court) - and years ago though that may be, I doubt things have changed - most judges don't.
[/quote]

Precisely. The regulatory commission and the FA appeal board will convict him every day of the week. They just sit their with stupid blank expressions on their faces and follow a set of rules. They are the legal equivalent of an indian call centre worker. A judge on the other hand can't afford to act so dumb. Their job is to give their own judgment. So you can't sit there anymore and pretend you don't notice that massive great problem with the way the decision was arrived at.

 

[i_rushie]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

I don't have any aspirations of convincing you Dantes, or JJ. As I have stated in earlier responses to JJ, all of my input is me rationalizing the verdict. It's how I would have approached it had I been given the task of convicting Suarez. Based on an assumption that various common law principles apply. Again, it is a thankless and pointless task debating this until the statement of reasons have been released, as I wrote earlier today. The parameters of the debate we are having is a legal fiction defined only by the various assumptions various posters have made up until now.

I will readily concede that at various points I have been swayed by your arguments. So on that note, I will try to make this my last post on the topic until the release of the reasons. (Leaving aside that there is no identically worded offence in the criminal law framework and) Conceding that strict liability does not apply, conceding that intent does apply,

@ Dantes.

The guiding principle in Southard, and quoted affirmatively by Bean J in Harvey was:

It is in that context that Fulford J said at paragraph 19 that the expletives which Mr Southard had used were potentially abusive, and went on:

"Frequently though they may be used these days, we have not yet reached the stage where a court is required to conclude that those words are of such little significance that they no longer constitute abuse. Questions of context and circumstance may affect the court's ultimate conclusion as to whether, in an individual case, they are abusive,but on these facts, during an incident in which the appellant was strongly opposing the detention of his brother, they were delivered in a situation which sustainably led the court to conclude that they were abusive. I stress that the decision on an issue of this kind will always be fact dependent."

(my italics)

My take on this in my earlier post, if the rule was not simply a strict liability offence, was:

I also go as far as to suggest that even if it did, it was open to the Panel to infer that in the heat of the moment, Suarez would have been more likely to use a word or phrase pejoratively rather than benignly. And circumstantial inference such as that is perfectly valid.

I don't quite get why you insist "it is not offensive full stop", when Evra must have claimed otherwise in his complaint (whether in good faith or not). Again, evidence is king here, and we are all in the dark as to what the exact word or phrase used was, and as to the other findings of fact (as to circumstances) made by the Panel.

@ JJ.

To me, the question is not "Are they going to convict a person ....and hence not an insult' " as you say, but rather, on evaluating the whole of the evidence, is the conviction legally sound? In your career as an officer of the County Court, was it your experience that the Court always accepts the word of the offender? I suspect not. In the case of a heated match between eternal rivals, in response to an aggressive retort from an opponent with a protracted verbal exchange, the case was always going to turn on Suarez's admission, not a self serving statement made to Court. The afore circumstances are quite incompatible with Suarez using the word in a benign manner.



So that's it from me. In case anyone missed it, I'm saying I could be completely wrong.

 

[i_rushie]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451839#msg1451839 date=1325249655]

Precisely. The regulatory commission and the FA appeal board will convict him every day of the week. They just sit their with stupid blank expressions on their faces and follow a set of rules. They are the legal equivalent of an indian call centre worker. A judge on the other hand can't afford to act so dumb. Their job is to give their own judgment. So you can't sit there anymore and pretend you don't notice that massive great problem with the way the decision was arrived at.
[/quote]

You might be doing Paul Goulding QC a disservice if you think he is has, in drafting a public statement of reasons for the FA that will undoubtedly be subject to intense scrutiny, do no more than act like the legal equivalent of an indian call centre worker.

You might argue all you like about him then interpreting or following a set of rules to suit his or his paymaster's agenda, but it's no more than judges have done for centuries. You'd be naive to think otherwise. Judges all over the common law world have done so, judges in the apartheid regime in SA have, judges in Australia dealing with the native title to land have, etc. But the judicial activism debate is another topic I'd best leave untouched.

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

In arriving at his decision I don't think I am. But when he drafts the reasons we'll have to see when they are released. I don't think they will say anything more than the judgment says already. As in I'd wager it will be the equivalent of "suarez was found guilty because he is guilty".

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=48021.msg1451865#msg1451865 date=1325251621]
My take on this in my earlier post, if the rule was not simply a strict liability offence, was:

I also go as far as to suggest that even if it did, it was open to the Panel to infer that in the heat of the moment, Suarez would have been more likely to use a word or phrase pejoratively rather than benignly. And circumstantial inference such as that is perfectly valid.

I don't quite get why you insist "it is not offensive full stop", when Evra must have claimed otherwise in his complaint (whether in good faith or not). Again, evidence is king here, and we are all in the dark as to what the exact word or phrase used was, and as to the other findings of fact (as to circumstances) made by the Panel.
[/quote]

But from the clubs statement, it seems he has denied using that word in the goal mouth which was when the heated exchange took place. And given noone else heard it even though they were in earshot.. the evidence backs him up there. He must have admitted saying negro/negrito at some other time, maybe before he patted him on the head. So there are two possibilities....

1.The FA have applied rule E3(1) to the goalmouth (selectively to suarez, whilst ignoring that Evra was an equal partner in what happened)
Then the FA have applied rule E3(2) to something that happened later on, and treated it as an aggravating factor (and again selectively ignoring the sudaca insult from Evra).
.....in this situation they are fucked for perverting the meaning of rules/or mistaking a speck of dirt for a comma.

or 2.They are accusing Suarez of being making reference to Evra's colour in the penalty box as part of his insulting words
.....in this situation they need to explain how noone else heard it, and why they are taking Evra's word over Suarez' word. And even if this were the case and kuyt did hear the word negrita but is staying quite...in the real world we now know that Suarez was not being racist but rather calling Evra a pussy, so I have no problem at all with him deciding to deny it and say "go on prove it then, you cunt"

In both possibilities the FA simply have to lose.

 

[Hansern]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

Actually read an article were it said the club belives the heated exchange of words and the alledged Negrito calling were to different incidents. When the ref is about to book both players, Suarez patts him on the head, Evra says get your hands off me Sudaca and Luis replies porque negrito.

 

[bkwitche2]

The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

So when is this explanation due? Taking quite a long time to write down this info...

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

Wow. This now sounds like if we lose the appeal (which we will) and the ban kicks in, there's nothing anyone can do from that point on. Even if Suarez takes the case to court and is vindicated, then the FA will claim we "illegitimately" tried to get around their sanctions and dock us 3 points for every game Suarez plays in. It doesn't matter cos no court will reach a verdict within the time frame of 8 league games anyway. But still, the principle stinks. I hope we leave the FA on the verge of bankruptcy. They can have their precious little ban upheld. It's ok, you can have that, poor baby, we don't mind. We'll just, you know take this millions of pounds in cash from you instead. Thank you bye.

FC Sion 36-point penalty ends Man Utd hopes of European reprieve

FC Sion have been deducted 36 points by the Swiss Football Association (SFV) for fielding ineligible players. The club had been adjudged to have fielded six ineligible players signed during a transfer embargo. Subsequently, Fifa had threatened to suspend the Swiss national side and the country's club sides from all competitions if Sion were not punished. This could have meant FC Basel being ejected from the Champions League and Manchester United reinstated. The Swiss champions knocked Sir Alex Ferguson's side out of European football's elite competition and into the Europa League, but could have fallen foul of Fifa's sanction had the SFV not moved to punish Sion.

Sion had been placed under a Fifa transfer embargo after football's world governing body ruled the club had been guilty of inducing Egypt goalkeeper Essam El-Hadary to break his contract with Cairo-based club Al Ahly in 2008. However, the Swiss club proceeded to sign six players in the summer. Those six players took their case to a civil court in the canton of Valais, which ruled they could play, and Sion subsequently fielded them in the Swiss league. Sion then fielded five of the six players during the Europa League play-off tie against Celtic and were kicked out of the Uefa competition as a result, but had not hitherto been punished by their national FA. The Swiss side have now been docked three points for each of the 12 league and cup matches in which one or more of the six ineligible players appeared. The SFV confirmed that Sion have the right to appeal to Court of Arbitration for Sport against the points deduction, while Fifa said an emergency committee would study the SFV documents relating to the sanction early next month.

 

[Judge Jules]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

Cool your jets a little there, dantes. For one thing FIFA aren't involved in the Suarez fracas. For another, if we take the FA to court and win (I agree with you that the further appeal to the FA will almost certainly be a waste of time and effort) and the FA were then daft enough to try and undermine a court judgment against them in the way you describe, (a) we would drag their @rses straight back into court with a big fat damages claim and (b) they'd be in danger of being had up for contempt.

 

[Jack D Rips]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

Presumably if we appeal, it will be heard by a different committee. Whilst I would not hold out much hope of having the verdict changed, will we have a veto on who sits on that committee.

from what I've read we did have the right to veto the original one but apparently didnt take that option.

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

Possibly, but it sounds like that is exactly what's happened to these swiss players. The point about going through the appeal is purely to tick boxes that we have exhausted all other options before taking legal action. I don't think the appeal is hopeless though. If I was involved I'm pretty sure I'd win it.

The first thing I would do before the appeal hearing is send out a request to all the members for it to be tape recorded. Then for the deliberations, I will request an independent secretary to take the minutes in a word-for-word fashion. Totally reasonable things to request and something they can have no reason to refuse if there was nothing to hide. But they will refuse. And it will create exactly the right impression about what they are all about, and what they have to hide.

Meanwhile I'll plant my own recording equipment secretly, in order to upload it to wikileaks years later like a boss.

 

[Insignificance]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451923#msg1451923 date=1325261811]
Possibly, but it sounds like that is exactly what's happened to these swiss players. The point about going through the appeal is purely to tick boxes that we have exhausted all other options before taking legal action. I don't think the appeal is hopeless though. If I was involved I'm pretty sure I'd win it.

The first thing I would do before the appeal hearing is send out a request to all the members for it to be tape recorded. Then for the deliberations, I will request an independent secretary to take the minutes in a word-for-word fashion. Totally reasonable things to request and something they can have no reason to refuse if there was nothing to hide. But they will refuse. And it will create exactly the right impression about what they are all about, and what they have to hide.

Meanwhile I'll plant my own recording equipment secretly, in order to upload it to wikileaks years later like a boss.
[/quote]

Wow. Where were you when we tried to get rid of H and G????

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

Oh I was busy dealing with the hearings and appeals, and formal complaints against my university. On behalf of probably the best scientist I've known. And occasionally posting on here about the death of lucas.

 

[i_rushie]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

I'm not only certain the FA would be able to penalize the club (whether by way of points deduction or otherwise) in accordance with its Rules, I'll also be well surprised if any Court, save the CAS, entertained a suit from the club. On what grounds would the club pursue a civil suit against the FA for a sanction levelled against an individual? Zilch. The right of action for a wrong accrues to the individual, not the club.

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=48021.msg1451938#msg1451938 date=1325263201]
I'm not only certain the FA would be able to penalize the club (whether by way of points deduction or otherwise) in accordance with its Rules, I'll also be well surprised if any Court, save the CAS, entertained a suit from the club. On what grounds would the club pursue a civil suit against the FA for a sanction levelled against an individual? Zilch. The right of action for a wrong accrues to the individual, not the club.
[/quote]

Sorry I ignored that when rosco mentioned it earlier. Yeah I've been using Suarez/LFC interchangeably here. But for luis it is straighforward that he can pursue an action. For LFC it is a company, the FA is a company, and the FA have acted negligently and caused one of LFC's assets (suarez) to be devalued. So they can pursue legal action on those grounds. Suarez is nothing but a number on our balance sheet. And if you fuck with that number then you have to pay.

In fact I'd go get a quantitative analyst in right away to calculate the asset value of suarez before and after being branded a racist. The damage is in the millions.