Apoyamos a Luis Suarez.

If there's a lesson to be learned from recent events in England, it's that the truth will always out.

In a nation that has enjoyed the luxury of relative freedom for decades, it sometimes takes the right people and events to come along to administer a jolt of reminder as to what the value of truth really is. The right to defend oneself is all the more precious to those that have been forced to live without that right.

It could be said of Uruguay that in the decades approaching 1985, its culture had been shaped by a torrid history. It's equally true to say that in the years since then, its history has been formed by the vibrant culture of its people.
When Alex Ferguson ranted about the Uruguayan people at the 1986 World Cup, barely twelve months had passed in which they had been free from the dictatorial rule that had gripped their society since 1973. As Ferguson slandered the nation, it was only just beginning to put behind it a government that regularly used torture to silence voices of dissent, and its current President had been free from captivity for just a few short months.


That President is José Mujica, and when your character is endorsed by Mujica, it's the endorsement of a head of state who is also an experienced and principled man.
He's a leader that first rose to notoriety as a member of the armed Tupamaros National Liberation Movement, of which he later became the head, and he was active as a guerrilla fighter during the 1960s.
Following the 1973 military coup in Uruguay, Mujica spent long periods incarcerated, escaping on several occasions. By the time democracy was finally restored to the country in 1985, Mujica had spent a total of 13 years in military prisons and he'd been shot six times. Two years of the captivity he endured were famously spent in solitary confinement - at the bottom of a disused well.

José Mujica


High office has not tamed the freedom fighter in Mujica. He donates almost 90% of his state salary to causes that include the promotion of democratic representation, and the provision of housing for homeless people.
The man who holds the power to declare war on behalf of the Uruguayan people has dedicated an often-risked life to the pursuit of principles of fairness. Upon his election in 2010, he was required to provide detailed accounts of his finances. The audit revealed that his only asset is a 1987 VW Beetle. Also at this time, he waived his right to the presidential palace and Mujica, a vegetarian, lives on his wife's farm on the outskirts of Montevideo.
When José Mujica speaks of injustice and comments on character, people should take note.

"There is solidarity with Suarez."
José Mujica, speaking to Uruguay's M24 Radio station yesterday.

Those words will no doubt be a comfort to the man that the president also referred to as "humble". Suarez has maintained his innocence at all times since the accusation by Patrice Evra and throughout the often manic media fallout.
But despite Mujica's undoubted credentials and reputation for maintaining his integrity at heights which so often corrupt others, I find it significant to hear echoed in his words, the same sentiments I've been hearing for weeks while running this blog, in the messages I've received from many other Uruguayans..
Not one that I've conversed with, has been able to reconcile the reality of Uruguayan Spanish, with the interpretation of the language-related evidence at the FA hearing. And its on language more than any other aspect, that the case should have hinged.

Suarez's National team captain, Diego Lugano, also stated his belief in Suarez's innocence yesterday.

"Keep in mind that England is a country historically colonial and racism is very delicate, but we know that has nothing to do with the relationship between Luis and the United player"
 "(Suárez) has gone through a few months he did not deserve".
"All of us in football know it's a big circus. For what he did on Saturday Luis must have balls. He followed his convictions"
"We live in a democracy and if you do not want to greet someone, do not greet them."

No matter how determined an individual may be to ignore the collective voice of Uruguay, surely it's impossible to believe that any head of state - never mind one who spent over a decade in prison and two years at the bottom of a well for his beliefs about fair representation - would put their reputation behind a man, unless after investigation, they believed the man to be innocent of the charge of which he was accused?

Lugano, Mujica and the many Uruguayans I've spoken with about the case, all seem to base their assertions that Suarez is innocent, on a perception that there's been a failure to acknowledge or to understand their language.
Suarez himself alluded to this after the accusation was first levelled at him. He referred to the term that he used as being "...something that Evra's own team mates call him". It's a term that Suarez has never denied using, that seemingly every Uruguayan on Earth, including the President, is telling us is not an offensive or demeaning term.

Earlier in this blog, I included a report in which a Liverpool supporting Language Professor gave his own opinions on the analysis of the language evidence during the hearing.
This is a link to that section of the earlier report.

Indeed, contrary to seemingly popular belief, the experts used during the FA hearing didn't contradict the opinions of Uruguayans either. Below is the part of their reported findings that deal with Suarez's own testimony of the language he used on the day.

190. Given paragraphs 188 and 189, Mr Suarez would not have needed any further sense of familiarity to use the word "negro", which is to say how well Mr Suarez knew Mr Evra is not of particular importance; in Rioplatense Spanish the use of "negro" as described here by Mr Suarez would not be offensive. Indeed, it is possible that the term was intended as an attempt at conciliation and/or to establish rapport (see 175 above).  

191. The question "Por qué, negro?" as transcribed in Mr Suarez's interview sounded right linguistically and culturally and is in line with the use set out by Mr Suarez when referring to Glen Johnson; Mr Suarez was also correct in highlighting that "negro de mierda" would be a clear racial slur. 

194. 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 more generally; it is being used along the lines of paragraphs 172, 173 and 175 above.

In a case where there existed an unfeasible lack of any camera footage of what Evra claimed had been a sustained and prolonged abuse, the lower burden of proof required in FA hearings enabled the panel to reach a verdict, that was based only on one man's word against another's. For this reason, the FA asked the language experts to prepare two separate opinions; one based on each player's testimony.

In reaching their final judgement, the panel opted to accept the version that corresponded to the testimony of Evra. They made this decision, despite the FA experts telling them that the language that Evra attributed to Suarez did not match the Spanish used by people in Uruguay, and despite Evra relying on his own interpretation of a language foreign to him, which as a Frenchman, his limited knowledge of is based on the version of Spanish used in Europe.

Many Uruguayans, and all of the football supporters that have bothered to look beyond the FA report and the superficial media interpretations of it, are bothered by what's perceived as hypocrisy on the part of the FA, the press and the various other organisations that have waged a campaign against Luis Suarez in the name of eradicating intolerance. What seems to irk football supporters in Uruguay, apart from the technical shortcomings of the case, is that the FA embarked on a quest against intolerance, whilst making a conscious decision to ignore Suarez's own cultural origin.
It's the ramifications of that hypocrisy which make me ashamed of our Football Association. Once again, an insular, xenophobic attitude to cultural diversity is costing us dear. In a grandstanded effort to appear to be more anti-racist than Sepp Blatter, the FA have ended up portraying this country as an arrogant, objectionable island full of spoiled cretins, to nations overseas.

The fight against intolerance in English football currently looks a hollow one from where I'm standing.
The FA, in the process of hearing a case of alleged racism, denied a man the right to reference his ethnicity and cultural background for the purposes of defending himself, purely because he was on English soil. They sent out a message to the world that as far as the governance of English football is concerned, what's foreign is irrelevant.
They rubbished the concept of multiculturalism, and in doing so they terminally undermined confidence in their ability to conduct the fight in the future using similar systems, personnel and structures.

What further unsettles those that have cast a critical eye over the proceedings and the resulting report, is the way that the unfair condemnation of the original verdict has been amplified by large sections of the domestic media.

There seems little doubt that if the player had been afforded the consideration that his nationality, and national language deserved, then a competent press would have been crawling all over things, asking questions on behalf of a public that needs effective methods of dealing with racism in every branch of society, including sport.

In pushing a politically correct ideal, for the purposes of a commercially obsessed agenda, the tabloid media have gotten things terribly wrong. In terms of how we're perceived as a nation, and how we exist as a nation. We're far worse off for that. 

Maybe it's too much to expect from the sensationalist elements of the press, and it's probably going too far to dream about a day when TalkSport gets off of its lobotomised high horse of headlines for long enough to do some actual journalism , but is it too much to ask that more than the very few that did, examine what's an extremely shaky FA system for discipline, and one that's definitely not fit for the purpose of dealing with serious issues?

The FA, the media and the organisations tasked with the eradication of racism from sport need to sort themselves, their systems and their targets out, because the public criticisms of a foreign head of state are infinitely more embarrassing and damaging to the image the UK, and to the image of football within the UK, than a fairer FA process and a measured, informed media response ever would have been.

Nacional supporters. The use of the word eggs, equates in slang terms, to the use of the English word "balls"


That's really where the axe fell. The verdict was based on the fact that the panel, in deciding to take Evra's word over Suarez, ignored the fact that in Uruguay and ergo in Suarez's dialect, what he said wasn't offensive.
It's primarily why the people of Uruguay don't accept the verdict, and why they believe that Suarez is not guilty.

Nacional players in Uruguay last night 


What the visual support in Uruguay seems to illustrate, is that its citizens feel that the language that Evra attributed to Suarez, was not the language a Uruguayan would ever use. The experts from the FA panel, and our own Uruguayan professor reinforce that view.
It seems to follow, that the solidarity declared by the President of Uruguay is also based on this rejection of Evra's testimony, and rooted in a belief in the legitimacy of Suarez's account.
Whilst the president stopped short of calling Evra a liar, or suggesting that his account might be fake, he did mention exaggeration and it's difficult for anyone to be able to believe, in finding Suarez's testimony to be the only one that makes sense, that Evra could have been accurate. That in turn leads a person to conclude that he either lied, or misunderstood and refused to retract his claim when that became apparent.

Nacional supporters at last night's match "Uruguay is with you, Suarez"

"Nacional is always with Luis"

The supporters of Nacional last night, amid full-blown displays of their belief that Suarez is innocent, appeared to offer none of that presidential pulling of punches. They clearly believe that Evra's account represents a very unlikely scenario. The message in many of the banners is that Manchester United, at the hands of Alex Ferguson and Evra, has reaped as much benefit from what are believed to be lies about a Uruguayan, as it possibly could.

Nacional supporters wearing Suarez masks, last night.

"Mr Ferguson, wash your mouth out before talking of Suarez"



The Uruguayan nation and the Uruguayan president, put the gravity of their support behind Luis Suarez this week.
Uruguayans know Uruguayan Spanish best. Presidents don't often commit in such plain terms without prior analysis.
Even for an FA panel so arrogant that it saw fit to discard the opinion of experts in South American Spanish and use one man's word against another for the purpose of forcing a politically pleasing verdict, that is one loud, collective Uruguayan voice and it must be hard to ignore.

(Lee)

Beyond Doubt, Beyond Divides.

The December of 2011 and the January of 2012 have turned into a bonafide Winter of footballing discontent. Allegation upon allegation and unsavoury events have overshadowed what's turning out to be a decent three-way battle at the top of the Premier League.
Amid fevered finger pointing and the constant, distracting hum of hundreds of holier-than-thou-hounds in every form of media, one thing has become painfully obvious - that the organisations that fight daily to rid the game of racially motivated abuse and discrimination are being let down by a weak FA.

To tackle racism in any form, you first need a clear, indisputable system for the implementation of carefully designed law and appropriately conceived regulation. When a footballer is accused of racism it's vital that the player is tried in a consistent way that affords them every right and process due, and that any subsequent verdict of guilt or of innocence is defined and reached by such terms. Otherwise, as we've seen in recent weeks, the underlying cause and the primary objective in the design and the execution of those laws will be undermined.
It will become an objective cheapened by ongoing debate and often baseless condemnation of the wrong parties, weakened by distractions and drawn out by arguments. Anything that falls short of clearly identifying culprits compromises a quest that if left unaddressed, or implemented badly, threatens to damage the game of football in this country.

When the FA choose, against good advice, to persist with a system reliant on process that employs methods open to the ravages of conjecture. When they continue to opt to convict without definitive proof, then the message they send out cannot convey a prioritisation of fairness or project values that judge only on merit, irrespective of a person's cultural background or appearance, and regardless of their reputation.
Ridding the game of the blight of racial and cultural bigotry is deserving of the same unquestionable systems for prosecuting offenders, as ridding the wider nation of racism is. Only when you start with a system where judgements are beyond reasonable doubt, and handed down only after proper process has been observed, will you end up with a situation where sanction is imposed within a climate where the ongoing primary objective and talking point will remain to be the fight against intolerance and the eradication of discrimination. Only when judgement is made to the best possible degree of accuracy will you banish the arguments and debates that so distract from the real task at hand.

It's not realistic to expect a club or a support to unite behind condemnation of a player that hasn't been proven to impede the pursuit of a tolerant game, and in turn, it's not fair or reasonable to expect unwavering and universal approval of a press that joins in that condemning, based on the same results of systematic failing. If from the outset, the process is tainted by doubt, then contamination is irreversible and the end product can only ever be one of confusion and confrontation. Only the concise is completely productive in the fight against racism, only a quest that is free from doubt from the start will result in a universal acceptance of decisions founded in its legislation, no matter how admirable the intentions behind that legislation are.

When you remove independent, measured governance and process, and introduce argument, you head down a road that is counter-productive and there's no turning back once that wrong turn is made.
Combine this with the tribalism and the one-upmanship present in football support, and the doubt in that authority becomes completely detrimental to its purpose. To forsake proper and indisputable governance, especially when fierce football rivalries are involved, is to banish the aim of racial equality in football to a wilderness of circular argument. One that sees the underlying message lost, the task hindered and that principle of equality cheapened.
No club will accept incomplete process in judgement on such damaging terms, and no football rival will settle for anything short of going for the throat. The Suarez issue hasn't been about racism for weeks; it's been a downward spiral of disrepute. The case and the way it was conducted has certainly not proven to be conducive to the eradication of racism from football, with seemingly more apparent instances of abuse being reported in the weeks following the judgement, than are evident in most full seasons in the top flight.

The fight against racism in the domestic leagues deserves more than a casual backing. It's not enough to talk the talk, it's important that in governance the FA also walks the walk in their implementing of policy and the enforcing of laws that are aimed at freeing football from racism in any form. The impassioned individuals that work solely to this end would do well to demand that no repeat of recent events takes place. The clear stance of those that fight so hard and so clearly for the cause of tolerance should be mirrored by those trusted with the enforcement of rule over the game.
Gone should be a system that brings judgement on fuzzy terms, and in its place should be a concise, final method of enforcement, free from the detrimental rot of second guessing, recrimination and doubts caused by conflicts of interest. And the system should be supported by proper avenues for defence and appeal on behalf of the accused.

This is a football league and a country enriched by varied cultural influences,  and so much brighter for the passions and flair of a myriad of influences that it encompasses.
Where there's a will to embrace those improvements on their own terms and see football as a world game, where barriers don't amount to devaluing difference and borders don't present impenetrable barriers to talent, dealing with anything that compromises that should be swift, final and unquestionable.

The way forward should be clear. It's only when you provide a fit for purpose system for the supporters of every football club to unite behind, that you'll succeed in conveying the right message. When your commitment to the fight is defined publicly by your freely choosing to leave your judgement more open to argument than it need be, then you weaken your hand, you weaken your authority and your perceived enthusiasm, and you leave the game susceptible to the damage and the influence that the racists wish to inflict - because you fail to present a united front.

There's an unsavoury element in society that seeks to exploit weaknesses in governance so that it can spread a message of hate. The last couple of weeks have seen a game that's turned on itself, dropped its guard and left exposed the front line in a constant battle to maintain a welcoming environment for all, and an arena that prizes talent without prejudice. Indecisive, watered down governance has led to instances of arrest at football grounds up and down the country, from London, to Liverpool and again today in Manchester. The infighting needs to stop. The inadequate mechanics of the current FA system and our reliance on it to protect the game against racism needs to go. Methods that drive football supporters apart are obviously not suitable. Collective focus needs to be restored or the cracks in our lines of defence will be exploited, and the problems of the past will return.
Not only do we need to continue to show that we will not abide by racial discrimination, we need to reinforce that commitment with a new system for its implementation. One that's beyond question, beyond argument and beyond reasonable doubt.

Currently it's as if we've lost sight as a collective, of the ultimate goal. The press and the organisations supporting change are working against the clubs, the supporters are working against the press and indignant about unfair criticism from the organisations. Yet the fact remains that the war won't ever be won, unless we're all fighting the spectre of racism - not against ourselves.
It matters not whether the reason for the divides are political, territorial or even editorial - It's all counter productive to the cause, and the cause should take priority.

If the last few weeks have taught us anything, it's that the threat of racism in football is still a very real one, that ignorance's ghouls and thugs never really went completely away. That any form of weakness in the stand against them will be exploited to the detriment of the game.
That if we forget the fight, people and football are at risk.
So let's use the second decade of the new century to take the fight to the racists with systems worthy of the aim, with processes mindful of the fact that we started the fight in the first place, for very good reason.
Unity, behind fair, consistent and balanced governance is the only path to the game we nearly all want, and the FA aren't currently providing that facility.

Policy alone isn't enough.
Be it in the courts or under a new FA system for discipline; swift, just and immaculately executed action, beyond even the slightest dispute, is also required.

(Lee)

The Bar Council; an example for FA disciplinary reform?

It's London 2005, and at the headquarters of two of England's regulatory bodies, events which will dictate the way the respective organisations are perceived in the future are occurring.
Separate as these entities may be, and presiding over completely different professions, some of their duties are very similar within their respective realms, and what's happening to them both in 2005 poses almost identical questions with regard to their common responsibility to govern fairly, and the comparable systems that each has in place for enforcing discipline.

In Holborn, the Bar Council is reeling from recommendations arising as a result of a disciplinary case that went to the Court of Appeal. The case prompts calls for widespread change to the way it handles disciplinary action, based on failings of law arising from conflicts of interest in the way it assembles panels for hearings.
Read more here <-----

Meanwhile, over in Soho square, the Football Association are being forced to consider the recommendations of a comprehensive report compiled by Lord Burns. The report highlights widespread problems with the basic mechanism of the FA's disciplinary process and the way in which hearings are carried out. It calls for changes to the way in which hearings are constructed, and warns of ongoing conflicts of interest if the facility for discipline is not changed to one that is free from interference by the FA board. The recommendations being made by Lord Burns to the FA, almost completely mirror the problems identified with the Bar Council disciplinary system.
Read the full 2005 Burns Report here <-----

"all the regulation and enforcement functions of The FA, ranging from on-field
discipline through to agents’ activities and clubs’ financial reporting obligations should
be carried out by a Regulation and Compliance Unit.  To strengthen the Unit and to
demonstrate its independence from conflicts of interest it is proposed that it should
be semi-autonomous and operate at arms-length, although subject to (published)
policy direction by the Board. It should publicly report its activities to the FA Board,
the FA Council and to stakeholders at large, in a way similar to many of the
independent regulatory organisations created by the government over the past two
decades or so.  Within the unit there should be clear separation between the
functions associated with “decisions to charge” and the convening of “judicial”
commissions to hear cases and appeals"
Lord Burns, from the 2005 Burns Report to the Football Association.

In 2012, I'm bringing both of these events and organisations together in this article, because the failings which existed in their structures and systems for discipline in 2005, were very similar indeed. As striking as the similarities in the failings of the two systems were back then however, it's the distinct difference in the way the two bodies reacted to those calls to reform that raises questions with relevance to the way in which they operate, and the efficacy with which they perform today.

This difference in approach can best be illustrated by looking briefly at how the Bar Council began in 2005, to adapt to the findings that set it at odds with fair process.
The Bar Council set out on a path that fundamentally changed its structure, breaking down the main parts of its fabric and ring-fencing the necessary sections required to provide fairness and independent operation, including the departments within the organisation charged with the implementation of disciplinary rules and regulations.

In January 2006, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) was created.
Outline here <-------
The BSB is the regulatory arm of the Bar Council, and whilst it's not a separate legal entity, it is free to operate without the main council's input and carries out its duties without interference from it.
The full Constitution of the BSB here <----

"A. The Bar Council is an approved regulator for the purposes of the Legal Services Act
2007.
B. The Bar Council has established the Bar Standards Board (“the BSB”) to exercise the
regulatory functions of the Bar Council.
C. The Bar Council wishes to have in place arrangements which observe and respect the
principle of regulatory independence (as defined in  rule 1 of the  Internal Governance
Rules 2009), i.e. the principle that structures or persons with representative  functions
must not exert, or be permitted to exert, undue influence or control over the performance
of regulatory functions, or any person(s) discharging those functions.
D. The Bar Council intends that it should at all times act in a way which is compatible with
the principle of regulatory independence and which it considers is most appropriate for
the purpose of meeting that principle.
E. Accordingly, and under paragraph 1(h) of the Constitution of the Bar Council, the Bar
Council makes the following Constitution for the BSB. "
From the BSB Constitution.

In 2007, the Legal Services Act was passed, which as well as other things, facilitated some of the changes being made at the Bar Council with regard to the separation of systems, and independence of control.
Also in 2007, the Bar Council created the Bar Quality Advisory Panel (BQAP). The role of the panel is non-regulatory, and seeks to promote excellence through education of the members of the Bar.
Outline of the BQAP here <--------

To fully appreciate however, the gulf in attitude toward urgent need for change between the FA and the Bar Council, you have to bear in mind whilst examining the constituent parts of the new Bar Council, and the swiftness with which they addressed failings, that the FA parked the Burns Report in 2005, and assembles its panels today in much the same way as it did back when the report was published. You need to compare the Bar Council's determination to create and uphold a fiercely independent system, with the FA's contrasting attitude in their ongoing practice of setting themselves up as judge, jury and executioner. It's about how each reacted once the flaws were identified to them.

The FA panel in the Suarez case, for example, was a three man one. Each of the representatives had direct or indirect links with the Football Association, or with a party connected to the case.
The lead QC, Paul Goulding, was appointed from the same Blackstone chambers that the FA used to defend Wayne Rooney against a charge of unsporting behaviour whilst on England duty. The first 'lay' representative, Brian Jones, is the FA regional chairman for Sheffield and Hallamshire. The other, Denis Smith, being a friend and self-proclaimed contributor to the career of one of the key protagonists behind the original accusation - Alex Ferguson, the Manchester United manager.  Smith currently works for Stoke City's academy.
There is no credible way that you can call these people 'independent' or avoid the question of whether a conflict of interest was an influencing factor. The legal benchmark has been set within the Bar Council case: it is a violation of human rights for a regulatory body to act as prosecution, judge and jury in disciplinary matters. This has long been known by the UK Government, which has been lobbying the FA to reform for a period of years.

Fast-forward now to Autumn 2011, and the halls of these two regulatory bodies once again echo with discussions built around the same subject matter. This time it's 'Burden of proof'.
In Holborn, at the Bar Council, by now completely transformed in the way it addresses discipline, a disagreement has broken out between barristers and the relatively new BSB which centres around the BSB's plan to reduce the required level of proof in Bar disciplinary hearings to the civil standard of the 'Balance of Probabilities'. Barristers are offering fierce opposition to any reduction in the level from the current Criminal standard of 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt', and the proposed review by the Bar is called ridiculous by its members.
Outline of the dispute here <-----

Over in Soho square meanwhile, the same old FA is under severe criticism itself from some quarters, including but not limited to the manager of Liverpool Football Club, one Mr Kenneth Dalglish. The concerns are over the lack of fairness offered by the hearing that found Luis Suarez guilty on charges originating during the game against Manchester United. Troubling supporters of the club most is the way in which panels are assembled and the methods by which the verdict was arrived at. Liverpool supporters are up in arms about many factors of the case and hearing, but one of the issues which keeps coming up is the level of the burden of proof employed, and the fact that the FA requirement in condemning Suarez was the lower civil standard.

The arguments about Burden of Proof between the Rumpoles and the BSB rumbles on to this day, and it remains to be seen whether the Bar will cede to the objections of its members. However one thing made certain by the fierce opposition the barristers display to the lowering of the standards of proof in disciplinary matters, is the fact that for professionals employed in the business of upholding legal principles of fairness, and preoccupied with the mechanics of trial through fair process, the idea of subjecting their personal and professional reputations and their livelihoods to the same lower level of proof currently stipulated by the FA is both feared and deemed unacceptable.

And there, for the moment lies the limit to any common ground which may once have existed between the FA and the Bar Council in the way they handle discipline. Whilst the barristers' argument developed last year, the events that would ultimately lead to Luis Suarez being brought up on FA charges, were taking place on a football field in the North West.
The resulting hearing was a high-stakes, one-time exercise.
In the balance went a man's personal and professional reputation while a whole world watched.
With such a charge, and the resulting interest, never before had the problems the FA chose to ignore back in 2005 been applied to such an important, contested case. This wasn't about a three game suspension. Even the resulting eight game ban wasn't the most important issue in a hearing where the public's perception of an individual was what was primarily at stake. The principles of the process deemed so unfit for purpose by Burns seven years earlier were now being applied to a charge based on alleged racist comments and insults - an act deemed as criminal by the laws of this country, and not ordinarily a crime tried by a system that relies on the lower burden of proof to convict.

Never the less, the FA verdict was 'guilty'. The media descended, raised damning voices and printed angry lines to varying degrees to millions world wide. All of the headlines and commentaries were governed by differing levels of enlightenment with regard to the case. Some of the earlier headlines could have been based on at best, the briefest of consideration for the released reasons.
But it's safe to say that all of the articles written, every cry of disdain by the organisations and proponents of the fight against racism, every word of the pundits and the players that offered their views - were based on a 115 page report compiled by the FA, and based on the output of an FA system that has been known to be unfit for purpose since 2005. A system deemed unfair in that long-parked report by Lord Burns, on the strength of the basic failings of its mechanisms to adhere to fundamental principles of reasonable, good governance and independent judgement. Principles intrinsic to the way in which justice is carried out in this country and vital to the way in which reputations are protected.

In the final days of 2011, whilst the barristers and the Bar Council continued to debate a path of evolving, self-improving reform, the FA finished off a process that had tried a man for an alleged illegal act, using a system declared back in 2005 as being unfit for the purpose of handing down three game bans for straight red cards. In doing so, it subjected Luis Suarez and his reputation - not as a footballer, but as a man, to an ordeal and to a process that through its shortcomings, ignored rights afforded to him by a carefully evolved legal system. A system formed over time in this country to ensure the best possible level of the upholding of the law, and to provide the greatest possible chance that only the guilty should be declared as such.
In a society where judgement is naturally not limited to custodial process but also dealt via the way in which news is reported to an interested public. That dereliction and disregard for a man's constitutional and human rights was incorrect and improper.

The potential dangers associated with subjecting a man or a woman to a process capable of making or breaking their personal and professional reputation and fortunes, while unacceptable faults existed as to the fairness and independent integrity of the system, was why in 2005 the Bar Council undertook immediate and uncompromising action to reform.
And it's why in 2005, when the Burns report was published and the same concerns were levelled at the FA, their failure to act, their careless attitude to the business of providing fair disciplinary hearings, showed a disregard on their part to observe the duty they hold to the people that watch football, manage football and play football in England
It was a failure on the part of the Football Association in terms of its responsibility to respect the people they govern, and a drastic oversight in their duty to be just.

As a football supporter, I'd like to see some assurance from the FA in 2012 that the advice they ignored in 2005 will be revisited.
In the midst of ongoing and distinct pressure from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I want to know that reform will be far-reaching and sensible enough, so that although it won't bring Suarez back for the eight games he'll have missed, it will provide a new, fair disciplinary system. One that, should a player or employee of any football club be accused of a serious offence in the future, they'll receive an appropriately fair hearing, and be subject to a verdict reached by a process and a panel worthy of a power that's capable of destroying a reputation and throwing its subject to the waiting, baying hoardes.
Details of the DCMS call for reform here <------


As a supporter of football, I find myself unable to come to terms with a hearing and a governing body that produces a verdict in such a watered-down, weakened form, that it is accompanied by statements from both the FA and the original complainant in which they state that they do not think the accused is guilty. But a process that is none-the-less capable of resulting in a series of events which generates an environment that allows a football club, it's player and manager to be vilified in public.
It's a breakdown in the FA's own systems which has allowed this to happen without appropriate proof. Good, clear regulation is not possible in the absence of a strong, unquestionable process for discipline. And that breakdown was caused by failures in the mechanics of structures and systems that the Football Association knew about way back in 2005.


(Lee)

Existing Process, isn't Fair Process.

Yesterday, we received a letter from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that we believe vindicates Kenny Dalglish's and Liverpool Football Club's stance during the Luis Suarez episode.

In the immediate aftermath of Luis Suarez being branded as guilty last month, the Media and even the PFA were quick to criticise strongly any public defence of the player by both his club and its support.
Within minutes of the lengthy and detailed report being released publicly, the media pounced to cast damning judgement on the player.
When soon after, the club released a statement detailing their objections to the methods employed by the judging panel, large sections of the media ignored the intricacies of the case and tore into the club, condemning its reasoned criticisms and real concerns as arrogant and departed from reality.
Any arguments against the witch hunt, or dissection of the FA case, were met by feverish responses, aggressive derision, declarations of disgrace and even predictions of decline and untimely doom from various washed up and wheeled out pundits and hangers on.

In reality, the issue was never about the charge. The actions of the club that stood firm by the man they felt a duty of loyalty to, were never detrimental to the fight against racial intolerance and bigotry in the sport. Liverpool supporters merely analysed all the available information and concluded that the judgement was faulty, that is was without basis in established fact, without evidence that supported the original complaint
For Luis Suarez - a man who actively promotes an approach to football that prioritises equality and tolerance, derision for accepting the backing of his team mates must have been bewildering. He seemed to face it with a dignified, if astonished resignation, but there must have been times when that gave way to despair, as his reputation was torn to pieces by a whipped up public that are largely reliant on a gutter-based tabloid press, and predominantly revenue driven phone-in-and-rant radio and TV based media.
Within the club and within the player, there must have been an overwhelming feeling of injustice and an agonising realisation that there had occurred a massive failure of fair process.

Racism exists in Britain and in British football, but the Luis Suarez case and the aftermath of it in the press wasn't about that. This was always about an inability and an unwillingness on the part of the FA, to enforce discipline within the game by fair means. It was about the structure in place being one that the FA used to pass judgement without fear of reprisal by, or accountability to, the people they exist to serve. A mechanism evolved and operated without thought for the pursuit of establishing, developing and conserving the backbone of a game in this country, that should be sport in the truest sense of the word.
As it is, in a fog of political agendas, somewhere along the line, the FA has lost sight of the importance of being a fair and open governing body. In the fug of a politically motivated determination to appear to be acting in the best interests of political correctness, it's forgotten what sport is, and discarded the values, based on independent judgement, that allow sport to exist.

It was against this backdrop of hostility, that we decided to question the way in which the Luis Suarez verdict was reached. This blog is full of the arguments against the hearing and it's chock-a-block with examples of the holes in the methods of the FA, just in case you've been living under a rock for several weeks and need to have a read, but it's all pretty much summed up anyway, in the email we sent to the FA.

Email to the FA <------ Link

We found that the FA had such faith in the structure of its systems for governance, that it sent a detailed response back.

The FA Response <--------- Link

Undeterred and determined to try to get a response that in some way attempted to address the points we'd made in the email, we then decided to turn to the government Department for Culture, Media and Sport. You may already know that this department have been actively seeking for some time, via the CMS select committee, to encourage dramatic changes in the structure of the FA and its board, and that they've set a deadline in February of this year for the organisation to come to terms with, and address practically those needs for change.
In their reply however, dated 20th January 2012, they went a step further.

Ministerial Support Unit
2-4 Cockspur Street
London SW1Y 5DH
www.culture.gov.uk
Tel 0207 *** ****
Fax
Mr ****** ********
** ******** **
*********
**** ***
Email: ******************

Dear Mr ******,
Thank you for your email to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport enclosing correspondence from the FA regarding the on-going governance reform process. I am replying on behalf of the Department.

The Department is pleased with the responses it has received from members of the House, the media, and the wider public at large at the Government’s response to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee football governance Inquiry. The Department recognise there are issues and related concerns over the FA’s dual role in handling disciplinary matters. In our response to the Select Committee report into football governance we recommended significant reform of the FA’s Board and Council; the introduction of a club licensing system where financial sustainability and robust checks on club owners and directors is included, and for greater supporter representation at football clubs. We have also recommended that the FA considers a review of the disciplinary process that currently operates within football.

At the moment the policy-making, charging and decision-making all sit with the FA. However, we believe there is a good case for this to be modernised with the FA continuing to set the rules and regulation in consultation with all those with an interest, but the charging and decision-making process handled outside of the FA, by an accountable, but independent and separate organisation. We believe this would provide more clarity and enable the football authorities to address disciplinary matters fairly.

The authorities have until the end of February to inform the public about their proposals to make these improvements that will benefit the long-term interests of grassroots football, professional clubs and the national team.

The Department continue to meet with the football authorities to hear what progress they are making. It is our belief that it is for the football authorities to determine the best way of achieving the right changes, but Government will be a key partner in those discussions.
Thank you once again for taking the time to write to the Department.

Yours sincerely,
Charles Tetteh
Ministerial Support Unit

In stating clearly that they consider the current system for disciplinary action against players to be unsuitable and unfair, the DCMS have confirmed what a  lot of football supporters suspected all along about the suspiciously timed FA report, which was released late on New Year's Eve of last year.

.......but the charging and decision-making process handled outside of the FA, by an accountable, but independent and separate organisation. We believe this would provide more clarity and enable the football authorities to address disciplinary matters fairly.

In clearly qualifying that their belief in a need for change in the FA disciplinary process, is based on a requirement for a new, fair method, the DCMS have well and truly set out their stall.
Let's be clear here; the letter doesn't speak of a fairer process - it speaks of the requirement for a new, fair one.

When you start to appreciate the view of the DCMS, in terms of what it indicates with regard to the system currently in place at the FA for carrying out disciplinary hearings, then everything changes with regard to there being any justification available to those that overlooked the evidence.
The absence of any navigable avenue of recourse that was capable of overturning a verdict or challenging the findings of that inadequate and unfair report, and the resulting decision by the football club to waive the right to an appeal, which instead could only offer a change in the duration of the already imposed ban, further reinforces the DCMS's concerns over the unfit for purpose systems in place at the FA. The nature of a system condemned in the wake of a government select committee, certainly explains why the club may have felt that there was a greater likelihood that the term would be increased, than decreased if an appeal was pursued.

For a club that have been branded as arrogant and inappropriate by an over zealous media, the unmistakable view of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will feel a lot like redemption.
If the case were to be heard in front of a committee assembled under the recommendations of the forthcoming reforms, how many reasonable people could say with even the smallest amount of confidence, that on the basis of the 'evidence' detailed in the New Year's Eve report, the verdict would have been guilty?

The most important question that the media and the PFA failed to ask is; was the player given a fair hearing, when the conflicting interests and agendas of the FA were an influencing factor in the disciplinary process?

Because if the answer to that is No, then there is no way that the verdict can be just, or as the DCMS have put it - fair. And it's no wonder therefore that the Government department concerned with sport and the overseeing of the regulation of domestic football have stated so clearly that the systems that are currently in place, require replacing with a system that is fair.
No surprise either, that with the consequences of such ineptitude so apparent in the wake of the Suarez case, they've been active in forcing the FA to adhere to a finite schedule, in an effort to get the changes made as soon as is possible.

If the opinions of football supporters are not enough for a national media, which shows headlong determination to disregard the good reputations of great institutions in pursuit of that next, sensational titbit, then maybe they'll take note whilst confirmation is issued by parliamentary process and authority - declared by the highest house in the land.

Supporters are angry because they were ignored on the basis of scant, ill founded claims.
Supporters are dissatisfied because good progress has been impeded by an inadequate and unfair system for the regulation of domestic football.
That's a feeling that in the DCMS, has been echoed by the weightiest of assessors.
And it's a position on fairness that has today been reiterated by the Government body responsible for FA reform.


(Lee)

EPPP: The end of lower-league football as we know it?

December the 20th, 2011 was a day to savour for 16-year-old Jordon Ibe. The youngster who came through Wycombe Wanderers' youth academy had just signed a contract with Liverpool. A month earlier, 14-year-old Seyi Ojo did the same thing, signing with the Reds after being scouted at his then-club MK Dons. Big clubs signing prodigious youth talent is nothing new - but in all likelihood Ibe and Ojo are the first two in an exodus of youth prospects moving from lower-league clubs to the big time. The reason? In October, the 72 Football League clubs voted - reluctantly - to allow the EPPP (Elite Player Performance Plan) to come into effect from the start of the 2012-2013 season. That vote potentially opens up the biggest gap between top-flight and lower-league clubs since the advent of the Premiership.

So what is the EPPP? In layman's terms, the EPPP sets out to ensure that top quality youth players across England get scouted, identified and are allowed access to the finest coaching and training to achieve optimum development at England's elite clubs. This, the FA say, will ensure that England's youth prospects flourish in the coming years, allowing us to dominate the world to the sounds of "INGERLUND" while we all get misty-eyed watching Jack Wilshere lift the World Cup in 2018. Sounds great on paper, right?

Wrong.

There are downsides - and in this case they're absolutely massive ones. As mentioned, one of the tenets of the EPPP is that the best youth talent get developed at the best teams - who obviously play in the Premier League. The Premier League, in all their compassionate wisdom, threatened to withhold funding (estimated at over £6m a year) for youth development at lower league clubs if they didn't accept the terms of the EPPP. The EPPP was also drawn up solely by Premier League members, even though it influences and affects the entire Football League.

The EPPP champions a four-tier academy system; the best club academies are level one, and the worst (not worst per se, but roll with me) are level four. The FA estimates a level one academy will cost around £2.5m a year to run; in short, only the big clubs will be able to afford them. However, a club with a level one academy will also get financial rewards from the FA for HAVING such a great academy - rewards that they don't need, due to being a club that can already afford such an academy! Baffling logic, but then again it IS the FA we're talking about here.

It gets worse, though. Clubs with category three or four academies (i.e the majority of League One and Two clubs) won't be allowed to sign players until they're 12-years-old. Currently they're allowed to sign players at nine - enabling them to pick-up undiscovered talent ready for developing. The EPPP will remove that three-year cushion, ensuring that the best talent will have been snapped up by the clubs with the top academies by the time the lower-league clubs are allowed to sign any players.

Another major change that the EPPP is set to bring in is the end of tribunals. A tribunal is called when clubs can't agree a reasonable transfer fee for a youth player - such as in the transfer of Crystal Palace teenager John Bostock to Tottenham. Crystal Palace said they wanted a certain amount for Bostock. Tottenham said he was worth less. They couldn't agree, so a tribunal said "right Tottenham, this is how much you have to pay Palace." Not ideal, but certainly better than the ruling EPPP will bring in. With no more tribunals, the club that's selling the player (almost always a lower-league club) will receive a flat fee based on every year the player has spent at the club's academy - which is almost comically low (we're talking hundreds of thousands of pounds (and in some cases millions) less).

So what to do? As we've seen in the cases of Ibe and Ojo, lower-league clubs are now pressured into selling their best prospects before EPPP comes in. Wait until after it's introduced? Sorry mate, that's millions of pounds less you'll be getting.

A worrying effect of the EPPP is the simple fact that many lower-league clubs may simply abandon their youth system altogether. What's the point in spending money that these teams can ill afford to waste on running a youth system if the bigger clubs will simply swoop in and poach them for pennies? What does an extra £500,000 or couple of million matter to the biggest clubs in the land? Nothing. What does the same money matter to a club like Leyton Orient, Hereford or Plymouth? Everything. That additional money could mean the difference between survival and administration, but a negligible initial transfer fee means that the top clubs have barely any risk in signing the hottest prospects from other academies. No fee, no risk. No risk, no hesitation.

As MK Dons boss Karl Robinson says: "If we lose our youth players for nominal fees, how are we going to survive? I don't think it's fair. Kids develop at a phenomenal rate at the highest level, but are these kids going to play in people's first teams at the age of 16 or 17?"

Whether you support Liverpool or Morecambe, the feelings should be the same. Yet again the big teams are screwing over the little ones. Capitalism at its finest, ladies and gentlemen.

(Contributor: Kriz)

The Unfair Application of Inconsistent Standards

Being a mixed race person myself, this Suarez issue has generated conflicting thoughts at times in my mind.
Even now, in checking the after-match reports from the Oldham FA Cup game earlier this evening, I find myself reading about another 'possibly racially related' incident that may, or may not have happened during the game. I'll state this now : too many people of all origins are too quick to play the race card. It is something I'd be extremely careful about, and even reluctant to do personally, but so often it seems - that for some, especially among those who are not intelligent, playing the race card can be an easy way out of having to deal with their own problems and faults.

Now dont get me wrong; I know that. racism still exists; It can occur in explicit ways. For example, recently at a night club, just as I was going in, a white dude who wasn't let in by the bouncers exclaimed ''Why cant I get in? Even black people are getting in!''. For me that incident felt more insulting than if someone had called me a n****r, and i wanted to start a fight, but the bouncers held me back.
But also racism occurs institutionally; via non-vocal but more powerful and often sinister or covert means.
However much the issue of race may or may not confer on the black person an advantage, it is usually assumed that the black person wont be racist or cant be racist to a white or Asian person - which in my opinion is untrue.

In this recent case, it seems evident that Evra should have been taken to task over his offensive initial comments with regard to Suarez's ethnic origin - and he wasnt. At the same time however, during the same disciplinary procedure, comments made by Suarez were deemed offensive using the 'balance of probability' as a standard for establishing guilt.
It seems unfair and inconsistent that Evra's comments were not handled in, or assessed in the same way as Suarez's.

I personally believe that Suarez might have been trying to wind Evra up, but that he didn't intend any racial slur at all, in any way.
The way the FA handled the case, suggests that they wanted a scapegoat in the political aftermath of the comments made by Blatter on the subject of racism in football, and that their final verdict wasnt the most objective at all, being based instead on a desire to react politically to that.

It's in that regard, that I feel suarez and LFC have been treated very unfairly.

(Contributor: Samuel, Westmeath, Ireland)

The Blog, The Hearing, The FA and the Following Media Free For All.

This blog is primarily intended to be a few different things;

A sounding board for those that wish to comment on, and/or discuss issues surrounding the charge, the hearing, the verdict and the coverage connected with the recent 8 game ban handed down to Luis Suarez, following the game against Manchester United in October last year.

A response to what was largely perceived by Liverpool supporters to be a very partisan FA disciplinary procedure. And to what is felt to have been an extremely sensationalised and biased coverage in the media, since the verdict was announced.

This is also the place to air views about the possible motives for a decision by the FA, that was widely viewed by the supporters of Liverpool Football Club to have been made whilst ignoring a lot of the evidence presented to it during the hearing.
And to consider seemingly unfair access to video evidence with regard to the two parties involved seeing different parts of the available evidence at differing stages of the process, in a way that can easily be judged to be very unfair.

This is a blog on which to discuss the way in which football is regulated domestically, be that applied to this particular case, or to the general frameworks and practices connected to FA disciplinary procedures.
The processes by which personel are selected and deemed suitable to take part in hearing individual cases, and the systems in place for appeals and the manner of the standards of proof by which guilty verdicts are reached.

This blog is also about the way the subject has been processed by some of the press and the wider media. It's about standards of journalism and punditry, and the absence of balance in reporting, that has often seemed loaded in the pursuit of the sensational.
Coverage that's often appeared to be an exercise in shifting copy and nothing more. And about the absence of proper analysis of all the evidence available, when writing the headlines and the stories that don't always add up to the truth about the verdict, the procedure or about the man that's been branded a racist by some.

I'd suggest that the FA may be able to silence the clubs and the players with veiled threats and a media frenzy, but it's harder to silence the supporters of football. Because it's the supporters that it's all really about.
It's the views and the earnest enthusiasm and love for the game and the teams that allows the leagues and the association to exist.
It's the pursuit of truth and of accurate, complete and balanced reporting - to the people, that makes a free and honest press an essential part of society. And it's that society the media must answer to when those standards are absent.

This blog is not intended to push any particular agenda, it's merely an outlet for the frustrations of football supporters that want to have their own say in the face of a tidal wave of misinformation, poor commentary and a domestic regulatory football body that appears to have lost it's way.

You may think we're raging against the machine because we're angry, you may think we're standing by our man and being loyal to our club.
And we are.
But this isn't just a soap box for voicing disappointment and an unwavering and unconditional support - it's a collection of heartfelt anaylsis, based on a lengthy and detailed, balanced assessment of the facts and the events that constitute the current situation and the processes that brought us here.
Engage us by all means, but listen to what we say and ask yourself 'What if this happens to my club next?'"

The views contained are not the views of one man or woman, they're the views and the concerns of many, about the direction that the game is heading, and the way in which the media and the FA have behaved.

(Lee)