Suarezgate: Why FSG Finally Got Involved

The silence from Fenway Sports Group since the Suarez race row began has been deafening. Where did they stand on the scandal? Did they back Kenny, or were they embarrassed by the whole episode? As they never publicly commented on it, we will never know.

One thing we can be pretty sure of is that, in the hours following Suarez’s refusal to shake Evra’s hand, FSG finally said to the Liverpool management “enough is enough.”

Looking at the incident itself, Suarez’s refusal to shake Evra’s hand was not such a big deal. It was far less controversial than the racial abuse allegation which started it all. It was also less provocative than the T Shirts worn by the Liverpool players in support of Suarez. In many ways, it was a storm in a tea cup.

So why did that incident finally force FSG into action?

Firstly, there was the reaction of the players on the pitch, including their bust up at half time. The Manchester United players were in no mood to play the incident down and actively sought out a confrontation with the Liverpool players in the tunnel. The police got involved and the finger of blame was pointed at Suarez and his handshake snub.

All this occurred during the biggest game of the season, with a worldwide television audience of half a billion watching. Whoever was to blame, we did not portray the global image John W Henry had in mind for the club when he bought it.

Secondly, the media and social network sites turned the storm in a teacup into a hurricane. This lead to John W Henry’s Twitter feed getting completely bombarded by a general public who had been whipped into frenzy by Sky Sports. In simple terms, Henry will care more about the global image of the club than he will about a local rivalry. The feedback he was getting on Saturday night was that our global image was in tatters.

Thirdly, and crucially, the New York Times decided to have their say.

The New York Times owns 7% of FSG (until recently they owned 17.75%). Therefore, when they speak, Henry and Werner listen to what they have to say. In a direct challenge to their fellow board members, the Times position was as follows: “If the Fenway Sports Group is to be the responsible team owner in soccer that it has proved to be in baseball, it needs to get hold of Liverpool, its club in England's Premier League, and repair its global image fast.

"On Saturday, Liverpool lost at Manchester United, 2-1, allowing United to temporarily move into first place in the Premier League. There is no disgrace in such a loss; United, the defending English champion, is vying to keep that title this season, and it very rarely loses at home.

"But there was disgrace, witnessed by television viewers around the world, in the refusal of Liverpool's Luis Suarez to shake the hand of United's Patrice Evra before kick-off."

The article concluded by saying: "It is time for John Henry and Tom Werner, leaders of the Fenway Group that controls Liverpool, to state clearly the direction the team will take on this issue."

Within hours of this article being published, all the defiance in Liverpool’s dressing room had disappeared. Ian Ayre put a statement out which directly attacked Suarez. Kenny Dalglish sided with his managing director. Suarez fell into line, issuing his own unreserved apology.

It was a turn of events that demonstrated where the real power at Anfield lies: thousands of miles away in Boston. There is no doubt that FSG have the long term health of their global brand at heart, but their actions could have far reaching implications for Suarez and Dalglish. Serious questions are already being asked about what the future will hold for them.


It will be very interesting to see how events transpire.

 Follow me: www.twitter.com/joescouse_LFC

Through The Fog: What Makes Liverpool FC Unique

In the wake of weeks of PR turmoil for the Liverpool FC, with the Suarez race scandal and the abuse of a black player at Anfield confounded by a national press with an anti-Liverpool agenda, us fans did what we do best. We came together as one.

Anne Williams has been waiting 23 years for justice for her son, Kevin, who died needlessly at Hillsborough. The government’s e-petition scheme finally gave her the opportunity she needed to force those responsible for Kevin’s death to be held to account. Together, we have helped Anne take a big step along the road towards getting that justice.

The campaign started really slowly, with just a few thousand of the 100,000 signatures needed. Some notable journalists, like Tony Evans, were behind Anne’s quest for justice from the very start. However, the national media in general ignored it. Supporting Liverpool FC in the wake of all the scandal was not very fashionable on fleet street.

There are a lot of comments made mocking the so-called “LFC Family” on Twitter, but that is the best way to describe how thousands of Liverpool fans have united behind this common cause over the past week. Together, our voice was too loud to ignore and, slowly but surely, the mainstream media started to sit up and take notice.

Last night and this morning, watching as 60,000 names turned to 100,000 with breathtaking speed, I felt a sense of pride to be part of this family. When the chips are down, and the world is against us, we stand together as one. Bob Paisley, who knew the club and fans as well as anyone, summed it up perfectly when he said, “When you're lost in a fog you must stick together. Then you don't get lost. If there's one secret to Liverpool, that's it.”

Over the past week, we have shown that our spirit makes us truly unique. We’ve shown once again that together, Liverpool Football Club can achieve absolutely anything. Just like we did in Istanbul, just like we did in Rome. Just like we have done on countless occasions on the fields of Anfield Road. And just like we will do again.

For more information on why the fight for justice is so important, visit this website http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/ 

Twitter: www.twitter.com/joescouse_lfc

Suarez, Evra & Reliable Witnesses

The verdict in the Suarez case hung on the reliability of the witness testimony. In blunt summary, the FA decided that Evra was a more reliable witness and therefore found Suarez guilty. Here are the crucial parts of the testimony with some analysis...

Is the Word “Negro” Racially Offensive?

The panel of language experts used by the FA described the connotations of the word “negro” as follows:

 “It is important to grasp that the word "negro" is ambiguous in all countries and regions of Latin America. The word "negro" is by no means, however, always used offensively. The term can also be used as a friendly form of address to someone seen as somewhat brown-skinned or even just black-haired. It may be used affectionately between man and wife, or girlfriend/boyfriend, it may be used as a nickname in everyday speech, it may be used to identify in neutral and descriptive fashion someone of dark skin; several famous people in Uruguay are known as "el negro/la negra such-and-such".

The experts concluded that if the panel believed Evra’s version of events, they could assume the word "negro" was used in a racially offensive way. However, they say of Suarez’s version of events:

“The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez's account as follows. If Mr Suarez used the word "negro" as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America.”

The panel therefore needed to deem one of the accounts to be false in order to establish guilt, since Suarez’s defence was proved to be inoffensive in racial terms.

How Events Transpired

The conversation began with Evra saying "Concha de tu hermana" which translates as "your sister's pussy". Evra says he meant “fucking hell”. There is no dispute about who started the argument: it was Evra. There is no dispute about who threw the first insult: Evra. The dispute is whether Suarez’s reaction used racially offensive words. The FA ruled that it did.

So, how unreliable a witness was Suarez, and how reliable was Evra?

Immediately after Evra’s insult, the video evidence that can be lip-read shows Suarez saying "What did you say?" Suarez, before this video evidence came out, told the FA he said “What did you say?" That is a reliable statement.

They both agree that Evra then said "Why did you kick me?" What they dispute is the answer. Evra claims Suarez said "Because you are black". Suarez claims he said "it was just a normal foul" then shrugged his shoulders. The video evidence shows Suarez shrugging his shoulders, backing up his testimony. So far, the video evidence supports Suarez.

Next comes the crucial piece of Suarez evidence, the part the FA panel relied heavily on to find him guilty. Suarez said in his statement “I was trying to defuse the situation”. Under cross examination, Suarez more or less admitted that he was not trying to defuse the situation. The FA used this admission to discredit Suarez as a witness.

The really important thing he says comes just after this comment: “Under no circumstances was this action intended to be offensive and most certainly not racially offensive. It was not in any way a reference to the colour of PE's skin.” This, the FA deemed, was also untrue.

The other evidence the FA panel relied on was the fact that Suarez’s story changes slightly. However, all of the changes can be fully explained by the fact that the situation happened very quickly and the fallibility of memory means that the exact sequences of events often merge into one. The FA acknowledge this as a possibility but do not accept it as an excuse.

There are inconsistencies in Evra’s testimony. In his evidence, Evra states that he told the players after the game that Suarez said he kicked him "porque tu eres negro" (“because I am black”). None of the four Spanish speaking Manchester United players recalled Evra saying this in their witness testimonies. In the FA’s report, they confirm this is the case but state that it is possible the players simply forgot he said it. They do not point to the other possibility: that he did not say it. Under this scenario, it could be used as evidence that Evra is an unreliable witness.

There were four pieces of evidence presented by Suarez's lawyer to the FA that suggest Evra is an unreliable witness. The interesting one is the coin toss. Here is the transcript of that incident:

“Mr Marriner explained that he used a FIFA coin which is blue on one side and yellow on the other. He asked Mr Evra, as the visiting captain, to call the colour. Mr Marriner tossed the coin, it came down yellow, and he awarded it to Steven Gerrard who elected to stay in their current ends. Manchester United had kick off. Mr Evra remonstrated that he had called correctly but, Mr Marriner said, he had not. Mr Evra then spoke to Ryan Giggs about it, and Mr Marriner walked over to Mr Evra to assure him that he (Mr Marriner) had got it right. Mr Evra's evidence was that when such a coin was used, he always called yellow given that the alternative, blue, is a Manchester City colour, which he would never call. The toss came down yellow and so Mr Evra knew that he had won it. He particularly wanted to change ends at the start, he explained to the referee that he had called yellow, and why he had done so. Mr Evra was angry but the referee did not change his mind.”

Evra either could not remember what colour he chose or lied about it afterwards. This at best questions his reliability as a witness and at worst suggests he is willing to lie to gain an advantage. Crucially, he reacted outwardly far more to the coin toss than he did in the goalmouth when he claimed that Suarez used the word “negro” five times. Had that really been the case, surely Evra’s reaction would have been much stronger?

Another inconsistency is Evra's use of the term "ten times" to describe how many times Suarez allegedly said "negro". Evra has retracted this claim and said it was a "figure of speech". Really?

What about previous form? Suarez has no history of any form of racism and is an ambassador for racial equality. Evra, on the other hand, has been at the centre of a racism scandal in the recent past. It was alleged that ground staff at Chelsea racially abused Evra in 2008. The allegation was thrown out and here is how the panel described Evra's testimony:

"We find Mr Evra's description exaggerated... There was no good reason for Mr Evra to have run over and barged Mr Griffin as he did. It was unnecessarily and gratuitously aggressive of Mr Evra... Mr Evra's suggestion that he was concerned about Mr Strudwick's safety is farfetched. They were two grown men having an apparently strong verbal disagreement but no more than that. The clear implication by Mr Evra that Mr Griffin's pitchfork gave some reason for concern about Mr Strudwick's safety is ridiculous...We find Mr Evra's account exaggerated and unreliable. It is an attempt to justify a physical intervention by him which cannot reasonably be justified..."

Compare this to the conclusions drawn by the panel in the Suarez case:

"We considered it improbable that Mr Evra would act in such a dishonest way in order to damage the reputation of a fellow professional whose footballing skills he admires, with whom he had had no previous run-ins, and who he does not think is a racist."

There is therefore evidence to suggest that both Suarez and Evra made statements that were not 100% true during this case, and that Evra has a history of doing this. By using Evra’s account as “the truth”, the FA have concluded that Suarez’s entire evidence can be completely discredited whilst the inconsistencies in Evra’s testimony, and past, can be ignored.

Follow Me On Twitter

Legal Hypocrisy in the Terry & Suarez Race Rows

The two biggest football racism scandals in recent years have been, and will be, tried in very different ways.

First, there is the FA judicial process endured by Suarez. He was found guilty and banned for eight matches, a punishment which is almost certain to be challenged as to its legality by Liverpool FC. To get to the bottom of this legality, and the contrast to the Terry case, it is important to understand how guilt versus innocence is judged in the British system. There are two main processes. In the civil courts they refer to "the balance of probabilities". The winner of a civil case is the one who convinces the judge that their story is more than 50% likely to be true. In a criminal case, such as John Terry's, the crime must be proven "beyond reasonable doubt", or close to 100% certain, before the defendant can be found guilty. 

The FA have obviously gone down the civil law route with Suarez in coming to their judgement. Immediately you can see the unfairness in relation to how the Terry matter has been dealt with. 50.1% certainty to 99% certainty is a very big step indeed.

In any case, let's go down the civil route with Suarez and explore where the "balance of probabilities" lie. The alleged offence took place in a crowded goalmouth as a corner was being taken. It is reasonable to expect, therefore, that a conversation between the two players would have been overheard by at least one other person. All of the evidence we have heard suggests that it was not. Therefore, surely, the "balance of probabilities" is in favour of Luis Suarez.

Had the CPS looked at the Suarez case in the same manner that they have looked at Terry's, there is no way that they would have proceeded with a prosecution. There is not enough evidence for the case to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. As it stands, Suarez must fight through a civil judicial process which appears to make up its punishments as it goes along.

In terms of the next steps, Liverpool must lodge an appeal with the FA within 14 days. That appeal will be heard and, from the FA's perspective, the case will then be closed. However, there is a body that can overrule the FA's decision - the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The CAS may find this case hard to overrule, given its subjectivity. The CAS tend to look into whether the correct legal steps were taken and whether all processes and procedures are legally watertight. For example, in the recent case of Wen Tong, a Judo star who was stripped of a gold medal for doping, the CAS ruled in her favour because the anti-doping agency had violated certain articles of the Judo federation's rules and regulations during her initial prosecution.

In the case of Suarez, there is no evidential breach of procedure by the FA. What is being contested is a subjective judgement. Whether the CAS would get involved in such a case is questionable.

 

Meanwhile, the Terry case will be judged on whether it is beyond reasonable doubt that he abused Ferdinand racially. This is much harder to prove than his guilt on the balance of probabilities would be. So what happens next? Terry will appear in a Magistrates court to try to clear his name. If he succeeds, the FA is likely to side with the official judicial process. If he fails, he will get a £2,500 fine and the FA will have a political green light to hand him a similar punishment to that given to Suarez.

The key point of difference is that Suarez hasn't been given this opportunity to clear his name in a court of law.  The FA have played judge and jury and he will find the system incredibly difficult to break down. Put simply, the way both cases have been handled is completely unfair.

If any club know how to win a court battle, it is Liverpool FC. The club will stand shoulder to shoulder with Suarez and do absolutely everything to help him clear his name.

Follow me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/joescouse_lfc

More on criminal law vs. civil law: http://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/difference-between-civil-criminal-law.htm

Graft, Craft and How to Fill "The Lucas Role"

Getting the right mix of grafters and crafters is vital to a team's success. A grafter is the type of player who makes up for any failings in natural technical ability through sheer blood, guts and endeavour. Think Dirk Kuyt. On the opposite end of the scale you have crafters, players who have a very high level of technical ability but are are more tactile in their play. Jordan Henderson fits into this box.

Liverpool's squad has many players who immediately strike you as being on one end of the scale or the other. In the graft box I would place Lucas, Kuyt, Carroll, Carragher, Flanagan, Kelly, Bellamy, Spearing and Skrtel. In the craft box I would place Maxi, Adam, Henderson, Enrique, Auerlio, Johnson, Coates, Downing and Shelvey. Then you have the players who you can't really put in either box, since they excel in both areas: Suarez, Gerrard and Agger.

I have plotted the players dependant on how far towards one end of the scale I perceive them to be:

The higher up on the chart a player sits, the better (subjectively!) he is. The further to the left or right he sits, the more of a grafter or a crafter he is. Kuyt is on the far left, Henderson on the far right. At various positions along the top are the four truly world class players we have, the spine of our team. Lucas is the only world class player we have who is on one extremity of the scale, and the very nature of his position demands this. Like Mascherano, Gatusso and Makelele, Lucas is a world class grafter.

With this in mind, when looking for a direct replacement for Lucas you surely have to pick from the 'graft' box. This immediately discounts Shelvey, Adam and Henderson since the qualities these players possess are not applicable to the demands of the role. 

In working this through you get to two possible solutions for how to solve the problem of filling the "Lucas role". The first observation is that we have three players who are of high value and tick the "graft" box in central defence. We also have two players in the "craft" box who are our highest value full backs. This blend suits a 3-5-2 formation, with five from Adam, Henderson, Kuyt, Spearing, Bellamy, Maxi, Downing, Suarez, Carroll, Gerrard and Shelvey filling the other positions on the field. Who Kenny picks from that list depends on whether craft or graft is most suited to the occasion. Gerrard and Suarez are certain starters regardless of the opposition since they excel in both areas and are, at their best, world class. This system probably leaves no room for Spearing as his role will be covered off by the extra centre back. Here is how it could look whilst Gerrard is still out:

The second solution is to maintain the 4-4-2 / 4-2-3-1 formation and put in a direct replacement for Lucas. For this you need a player with high energy, good tackling ability and a cool head. Step forward Jay Spearing. He has all of these qualities in his game. The question is whether he can perform at a high enough level to be able to compensate for Lucas's loss.

The example I will draw on to answer this question is Lucas himself. The same questions being asked of him in replacing Mascherano are now being asked of Spearing in replacing Lucas. It is a classic case of apprentice turned master. Lucas stepped up to the plate, and so can Spearing. The dream scenario is for our future academy graduates, like Conor Coady, to look up to Spearing as a master of his art. If you think this sounds fanciful, read through the fans forum posts on Lucas from 2009. Only two years ago he was a figure of widespread ridicule. Here is the familiar looking shape with Spearing replacing Lucas:

Whichever way Kenny goes, the great thing is that he has options. There is a plan B if plan A fails. Plan A for me is for Spearing to come in and make the role his own. In that scenario, at least some good will have come from Lucas's poor fortune.