Well, well, well – a guilty verdict and a whopping 8 match ban.  I really didn’t see that coming on the 15^th October when, after I thought Liverpool slightly shaded a 1-1 draw with Man United, the Sky coverage post-match started to pick and run with a story claiming Suarez racially abused Patrice Evra.

On first hearing this story I dismissed it pretty quickly because Patrice Evra is a) a bit of nutter and b) in the confrontational Neviller-mould c) has past form for unfounded allegations and finally d) with no physical evidence and one man’s word against another the claim would fizzle out as un-provable. Consequently, I was genuinely amazed when on the 17th November, Luis Suarez was officially charged by the FA with, “(making) an abusive….reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra.”

My first reaction was that there had to be a smoking gun – some damning piece of evidence that wasn’t yet in the public domain. Was there an incriminating John Terry-esque video clip? Had the referee actually heard something? I hadn’t heard anything from the Liverpool end so I was straight onto @Us_Monster for a Man Utd perspective but there was nothing that end as well.  The conclusion that I came to was that the FA had made a huge mistake and opened a gargantuan can of worms. It seemed that they had started a policy of charging people based on hearsay and allegation alone. A policy that would encourage petty rivalries and recriminations, produce countless official charges but never any convictions.

From a selfish, Liverpool FC point of view I had absolutely no worries. There was no smoking gun evidence so the only way a charge would be coming Suarez’s way would be if he broke down Colonel Nathan R. Jessop style from A Few Good Men while some FA punk shouted ‘I want the truth’ at him!

Then my confidence was shattered last week when reports started to appear that Suarez had admitted to using the word ‘negro’ or some close derivation of it! Knights of Columbus, that hurt! The next 3 paragraphs are based on these reports being accurate obviously if they are materially not I reserve the right to change my conclusion!

‘I only said it once’

One pillar of Suarez’s reported defence and reason for entering a guilty plea was that he only said it once. To the first part of the defence and the amount of usage of the word is only relevant in determining the severity of the sanction not in the determination of guilt. If he used it hundred, ten or once – then he’s guilty. However, the frequency of usage should be taken into account in the punishment of this guilt. A ubiquitous use should attract a greater punishment than a one off usage.

‘It’s not offensive in Montevideo’

To the second part of the reported defence – the ‘cultural difference’ i.e. what’s inoffensive in Uruguay is offensive in England. My major rebuttal of this is, is that ignorance of the law is no defence. Imagine a moron bombs down your local high street at 40 m.p.h. and knocks down a kills a child crossing the road who he’d have missed if he was going at 30 m.p.h. Said moron tells the police that he thought that as there was no lamp posts it meant it was a 40 m.p.h. limit. The moron thought he was doing nothing illegal – does this make him innocent? No, however it potentially makes him ‘less’ guilty and the level of intent / awareness should be taken into account when determining the penalty for the crime. In the same way that if you kill somebody it can be classed as ‘Involuntary manslaughter’ i.e. you didn’t mean to do it and you would expect to serve less time if it was classed as ‘Murder’ i.e. you meant to do it.

‘I’m not a racist’

Liverpool FC’s fierce response to the verdict mentions Suarez mixed race heritage and quotes Evra’s assertion that he doesn’t believe Suarez is a racist. Again, this is not a defence of the crime because Suarez hasn’t been charged with being a racist but only with using a racist term. In the immediate aftermath of the alleged incident John Barnes intelligently and pertinently mentioned that racists don’t necessarily say racist things, and people who say racist things aren’t necessarily racists. Again I would take this into account in deciding the punishment. A racist using racist terms should be punished more heavily than a person using it ignorant of its meaning.

To conclude (again based on the confirmed use of the racist word) then

1. Patrice Evra was absolutely right and, I would go as far to say, duty bound to report to the FA
2. Based on Evra’s allegation the FA was absolutely right to start an investigation
3. If Suarez’s written submission contained an admission of using a close derivation of a recognised racist term then the FA were absolutely right to charge him and find him guilty

After determining guilt we then have to approach the more problematic issue of ‘valuing’ the crime, the appropriate method and level of punishment.

Crime ‘value’

You will no doubt have read and heard many people giving their opinion of racism so apologies for again repeating the obvious but racism (and racist terms) is odious, totally repugnant and has no place in any society. In terms of things to say I don’t think there would be anything spoken that could be more disgusting (there are, of course, things of equal despicability) and attracting the harshest of punishments.

Punishment Method

Fining millionaire footballers, for any discretion, is pointless so I am totally supportive that if a footballer is found guilty then you need to hit them where it hurts i.e. game suspension.

Punishment Level

I have taken the above alleged and confirmed defences into account but the abhorrent nature of the alleged term used and its underlying message I have to agree with the severity that the FA has chosen. I do think there is a bit of ‘shock and awe’ involved in the scale of the penalty but I think that is befitting the crime and wholly appropriate and necessary.

As a Liverpool FC fan this is a devastating outcome but ultimately some things are more important than club loyalty.

 @forcefrewgood