Watch Liverpool

Posts Tagged ‘decision’

• FA releases 115-page report on Patrice Evra racism hearing
• Liverpool striker banned for eight matches and fined £40,000

Luis Suárez called Patrice Evra “negro” seven times and gave “unreliable” and “inconsistent” evidence to the Football Association independent commission that banned the Liverpool striker for eight-matches and fined him £40,000.

The commission’s findings were contained in a 115-page document published by the FAon Saturday, Liverpool having received them before their match with Newcastle United on Friday.

Suárez, found guilty of making racist comments to the Manchester United defender during the 1-1 draw at Anfield in October, defended the charge based on a claim that the use of the word “negro” in his native Uruguay is inoffensive in certain situations – but the panel found that argument “unsustainable”.

Liverpool now have 14 days to decide whether to appeal against the punishment. The club said it would take “the necessary amount of time to read, digest and properly consider the contents of the 115-page judgment.”

But one legal expert suggested that Liverpool would be ill-advised to appeal given the level of detail in the report. Steven Friel, a lawyer for Brown Rudnick who specialise in complex disputes, said: “Paul Goulding QC didn’t draft a 115-page document for the love of writing. He did so because he wanted to ‘appeal-proof’ the decision, and he has done a very good job. Liverpool face an uphill struggle in overturning the decision, and the risks of trying, but failing to do so are huge. Of all the options that are open to him, an appeal should be far down the list.”

The report stated that after Evra asked Suárez during the game why he had been kicked, he replied in Spanish: “Porque tu eres negro,” which translates as “Because you are black”. Evra said he would punch Suárez if he repeated the comment to which Suárez said: “No hablo con los negros”: “I don’t speak to blacks.”

Linguistic experts assessed Suárez’s defence but determined that his language on the pitch “would be considered racially offensive” anywhere.

The report continued: “Mr Suárez said that he pinched Mr Evra’s skin in an attempt to defuse the situation, and that his employment of the word ‘negro’ to address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence.

“To describe his own behaviour in that way was unsustainable and simply incredible given that the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument. That this was put forward by Mr Suárez was surprising and seriously undermined the reliability of his evidence.”

The report also stated that Suárez failed to explain the inconsistencies in his evidence, but accepted the players denials that he is racist. It concluded by saying that Suárez pledged that “he will not use the word negro on a football pitch in England in the future, and we believe that is his genuine and firm intention.”

Luis SuárezLiverpoolManchester UnitedThe FAJamie Jacksonguardian.co.uk

Liverpool could seek arbitration, or go to the high court or even the European courts – but Luis Suárez may be better advised to try to put the racism furore behind him

Luis Suárez has 14 days to consider whether to appeal against his eight-match ban for racially abusing Patrice Evra from the date that Liverpool receive the written reasons of the Football Association’s regulatory commission, not from Tuesday, which was the date of the decision. It is important to note that Suárez can only appeal against the level of the sanction not the actual verdict.

I would expect Liverpool to receive the written reasons quite soon – they are usually provided within three working days of the decision being announced, although the Christmas period may slow this down. Giving two weeks to decide whether to lodge an appeal is unusual. The usual directions for appeals against the decisions of the regulatory commission provide for a much tighter timetable.

If Suárez decides not to appeal, the decision will become binding. If he decides to appeal, he must provide written submissions and there will be a hearing, at which he will be represented by lawyers. The appeal board can reduce the sanction, but it can also increase the sanction and its decision is stated to be final and binding. But if it goes against Suárez, he may be inclined to try a further challenge.

The additional options he may try to challenge the decision include the following:

• He could bring arbitration proceedings under rule K of the FA’s rules. Such an arbitration would be limited to a challenge to the validity of the decision on the grounds of ultra vires (including error of law), irrationality or procedural unfairness. An arbitration would likely take place behind closed doors before a three-person tribunal. The process would take months rather than weeks, and it is likely that the suspension and fine would take effect pending the arbitration.

• He could attempt to bring judicial review proceedings in the high court, but his chances of getting this type of action off the ground must be considered quite limited. In a challenge to the setting up of the Premier League in 1992, the high court decided that the FA was not subject to judicial review.

Regarding how the FA will have prepared for attempts at appeal, the regulatory commission will take great care in the drafting of its written decision. The commission will want to ensure, as far as possible, that the logic and the application of the FA rules are as watertight as possible, giving as little room as they can to routes of appeal.

One other option that may be considered relates to the statement released by Liverpool FC. I note it states that “the accusation by this particular player [Evra] was not credible – certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations”. Suárez, therefore, may consider suing Evra for defamation.

When decisions such as this come out, teams and players usually make a statement about “going all the way to Europe”. Yet such statements rarely, if ever, come to anything. Rights of access to both the European court of human rights and the court of arbitration for sport are strictly limited, and I would find it hard to believe that any such challenge would be made in the first place.

It also strikes me that any decision whether to appeal may be used tactically. Suárez has 14 days to either (i) accept the charge, (ii) lodge an appeal or (iii) do nothing. If he admits the charge the penalty will take effect from the date the charge is admitted. Should Suárez appeal, the penalty is suspended until after the outcome of the appeal. Alternatively, Suárez could do nothing and allow the penalty to begin at the expiry of the 14-day deadline. These options will determine which matches Suárez can play in over the coming weeks.

A final point: when I advise clients on whether to commence legal action, the legal merits of their case is only one of a number of factors that I take into account. In a case such as this, Suárez and Liverpool should think long and hard about whether they want this case dragged out. A sensible option may be a contrite statement from Suárez making clear that he is not a racist and that he is gravely sorry for any offence he has caused and that, notwithstanding that he does not agree with the decision, he wants to put the whole episode behind him. The risk for Suárez of taking this further is that he goes down in history as the case that got to grips with racism in high-level football.

Steven Friel is a lawyer for Brown Rudnick who specialises in complex disputes

Luis SuárezLiverpoolThe FAguardian.co.uk

Will Cole regret his decision not to join one of the Premier League clubs who expressed an interest?