Tomkin's Talks Suarez Case

The report seems extremely skewed to one side.

here is my view..

1. I don't like tomkins as i think he makes a lot of stuff up in terms of statistics to suit himself. I want to say that up front so everyone knows it,

2. I don't have a problem with a lot of what's in this article as it reflect largely what can be seen in the 115 page report as i read it also.

3. This is the part i would not agree with

"To conclude, to me, it’s clearly probable that Luis Suarez did not say the word "removed this for ja system" more than once, and that no ill meaning was intended. It’s probable, because he admitted to a single use of the word, when he could have denied it and gotten away with it. It’s probable, because he himself is from a x background, and – logically, at least – that makes it less likely, if not impossible, that he’d be racially offensive.

His innocence is probable, because no-one heard what he is alleged to have said, and no recording device, visual or audio, picked it up – and the chances of that happening, while not impossible, are less likely than if it was definitely said. (Some of the things you do might not get captured by a dozen cameras; but none of the things you don’t do can end up on tape.)"

...............................

This is in direct contravention with the FA's report. They reviewed the evidence of the goal mouth incident and could find absolutely no proof or support witness to substantiate evra HOWEVER.... both men were out to wind each other up and in the end I don't really agree that probability that suarez didn't say anything then is in his favour. The fact is something happened in that goal mouth so saying nothing happened because no camera caught it is wrong ans that's what this quote reads to me as.

I actually think the fa are probably right in concluding "something was said" in that goal mouth, and in the end its not a court, nothing like a court either and is not meant to be and they have the power to make their ruling.

This means i would not have an issue (having seen the evidence of what was admitted and the awful job comolli and dalglish in particular did in the refs report) with a 2 match ban which is then doubled to 4 by the clear an unambiguous rule on the statutes of the game.

4. What i felt should be said is the FA depart from a reasonable line after this point. they simply add up 5 occasions the word may have been said somehow (refs report and evra's testimony and get seven for some reason.

They have absolutely no evidence at all of seven words nor any backing or admission for it.

They then make up an arbitrary doubling of an already doubled sanction which by the by has no basis in the statutes and apply that well It is in my opinion the only way LFC should appeal... Having admitted to use of a word that in their testimony was not meant to be offensive they should take their punishment as their own statement claims to be good for the work for inclusion etc... but 8 matches is clearly OTT and motivated politically.

5. my final word on the matter is that the rose tinted glasses should come off.. The report does shows evra up to some extent but we all know everyone on a football field is at that sort of stuff the whole time and that goes on...

what suarez does... well having seen such things as his hair pull on rafael I would not put it past him to have fouled evra to wind him up nor would i put it past him to get evra to punch him on the goal line to get him sent off... on the same note i would not put it past evra to play this case up for all its worth after the fact, nor to have dropped like being shot if suarez had got in his face.

"but let’s have standards of evidence, so that the innocent, or misunderstood, aren’t caught in the crossfire." sorry but this doesn't wash with me.... I don't believe a lot of what was in the evidence and i think it was exaggerated by evra but innocent and misunderstood is being kind. 4 matches fair, 6 matches.. a stretch of the statute, 8 matches = political statement

Ahhh mito.

I've missed your snappy and to the point postings.

See N'Gog scored yesterday.

Good player.

We should sign him up

JA606 is very very annoying compared to not 606 for being able to post.. i typed this 6 times to find one word to try to post my thoughts... i used a phrase which would relect how a bag of potatoes might fall in reference to what would happen if either player had a chance and this was banned... stupid... you're not the beeb so loosen the strings and highlight the bloody banned words!

JA606 is very very annoying compared to not 606 for being able to post.. i typed this 6 times to find one word to try to post my thoughts... i used a phrase which would relect how a bag of potatoes might fall in reference to what would happen if either player had a chance and this was banned... stupid... you're not the beeb so loosen the strings and highlight the bloody banned words!

signing n'dog will get another manager sacked... playing him got hodgson the sack, it got rafa the sack and that'll be 3 managers sacked by association with the worst player in the history of time. bolton will get relegated as a result of signing that millstone.

The day we got shut was the day our club took giant strides forward

signing n'dog will get another manager sacked... playing him got hodgson the sack, it got rafa the sack and that'll be 3 managers sacked by association with the worst player in the history of time. bolton will get relegated as a result of signing that millstone.

The day we got shut was the day our club took giant strides forward