The Curious Case of Luis Suarez . . . . . . .

While this case isn't quite the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four and it's unlikely Daniel Day Lewis will be claiming he is an innocent man in Rioplatense Spanish anytime soon, there are flaws in the decision which would render them a reasonable chance of success on appeal.  Although it's no longer of huge significance, this is a saga which is likely to rumble on and I thought it might be useful to examine the areas where the FA regulatory commission has erred so at least we have a flavour of from where Liverpool and Suarez's grievances emanate.

Since New Year's Eve, when a 115 page tome landed in our inboxes, many opinions have been expressed as to whether the FA Regulatory Commission has got it right or wrong. Most have jumped to the conclusion that since the report is well written, very long, detailed and presented in nicely worded legalese, that it must be correct.

The truth, like with many tribunal decisions and, indeed most likely the case itself, lies somewhere in-between. There is much to be admired in the manner in which the commission dissected very complex linguistic issues as well as the nuances of what was said and not said.  They have reported the facts in great detail and the result is that many of us are in a position to draw our conclusions.

That said, the report's findings are somewhat flawed and, in particular, the sanction meted out is completely out of line with the evidence and even the commission's own conclusions.

I should say, at this point, I am a Liverpool fan but also the solicitor for the PFAI, the League of Ireland's players' union. Although my allegiances are naturally with Luis Suarez, I'd like to think that I would take a similar view if a League of Ireland player asked me to represent them in similar circumstances. Indeed, I have defended an Irish player, Jason McGuinness, where allegations of insulting behaviour with racial overtones were made. He received a five match ban.

The Suarez case is unique in its complexity but in the end it comes down to some fairly basic questions.

1. What is the burden of proof?

2. Did Suarez use the word "negro" and, if so, how often?

3. If he did use this word, what should the punishment be?

The first question has been the subject of much debate and many commentators seem to believe that the "balance of probabilities" burden is too low. The implication is that the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" should apply.

I don't believe this is correct and instead a hybrid that is often used in tribunals where professional conduct is the subject of review is more appropriate.  It is usually expressed as "highly probable" and it appears that the commission have rather clumsily agreed to this level by stating that this was a serious allegation and the more serious the charge, the greater the burden. It is a great pity that they didn't express this in clearer terms but I think it is fair to say that the test of high probability is what was applied and if so, I believe this was correct.

However, it's one thing to select the right burden of proof and it's quite another to apply it. This is where the commission made its first mistake.  It's patently clear, and admitted by Suarez, that the word "negro" was used at least once. Whether it was used again is a matter of great debate and certainly could not be described as highly probable.

Quite simply, the only evidence that there was more than one use of the word comes from Evra himself and without independent corroboration, in addition to the inevitable linguistic confusion which is central to the whole case, it simply cannot even be described as probable, much less highly probable.

While the commission quite rightly point out inaccuracies in Suarez's evidence, they do not justify their quantum leap from this to believing everything Evra says without a scintilla of independent evidence.

Now, this is not to say Suarez is innocent.  He's not, he deserves a ban for the inappropriate use of the word "negro" that he has admitted but this needs to be proportionate to what can be legitimately proven and not the educated conjecture of the commission.

The range of sanctions available is effectively from two matches upwards. It is clear that he is in breach of regulations and must serve at least a two match ban.  Since there is a racial element, the entry point of four matches seems apposite.  However, the commission have erred by increasing it largely due to the extremely dubious finding that he said the offending word seven times.

However, even if you accept that reasoning, it is very difficult to understand how considering the guidelines recommend a doubling of the sanction for a first offence and trebling for second. The effective quadrupling of the two match standard ban suggests that the Suarez findings were even worse than a standard second offence.  This makes no sense whatsoever unless you reach the obvious conclusion that the commission were seeking to make an example of Suarez rather than employing the usual rules of natural justice.

An interesting example of how the commission glossed over certain inconsistencies while focussing on others is the manner in which it examines the motive for Suarez saying what Evra alleges he said. While agreeing that his upbringing, parentage and friends would militate against such behaviour, they can find no reason why he would engage in such behaviour and instead simply dismiss it as being out of character with no reason provided as to why he should suddenly remove himself from his normal characteristics.

This decision was driven by desire to believe either one party or the other, in the entirety.  This was the fatal mistake that the commission made because there was no need. It is perfectly feasible for any tribunal to decide that part of the charge was proven and the balance was not.  And quite simply, this is what they should have done.

So what could Suarez have done had he decided to take his medicine? In my humble opinion, Suarez should have appealed.  He should have admitted, on the one occasion which he accepts using the word, that he was wrong to do so. He could have argued that he did not use it on other occasions and such instances remain unproven in accordance with the burden of proof, but that he regretted the use of the word at all.  He could have apologized for this and agree to assist the anti-racism campaigns.  He could then have legitimately argued that the ban is excessive and should be reduced to the entry point of four matches.

In my opinion, if he had adopted such an approach, he would have succeeded in reducing the ban, maybe not to four matches but certainly to no more than six.

However, as we now know, he chose the worst of both worlds.  He chose take the ban on the chin and still proclaim his innocence.  He might well argue that he can't expect justice from a body he considered biased from the outset but it's difficult to expect public sympathy when you don't exhaust all of the procedures.  In a nutshell, football considerations intervened and, with Suarez initially unwilling to show any contrition at the time, Liverpool no doubt felt the chances of reducing the ban were slim.  His subsequent apology (of sorts) does beg the question as to why this wasn't possible earlier.

Of course, we will, most likely, never know what went on behind the scenes in this fiasco but it appears as though Liverpool and Suarez are the losers.  It didn't have to be that way.

Stuart Gilhooly is the solicitor for the Professional Footballers Association of Ireland and was also recently named Journalist of Year at the Irish Magazine Awards.

He can be followed on twitter @PFAISolicitor

The following players have contacted the PFAI with regard to their name appearing on the transfer list. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

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

Eamon Zayed was named as the Tissot PFAI Player of the Year for season 2011 at a packed awards ceremony on Saturday night held in the Burlington Hotel.

Players from the League of Ireland included Shamrock Rovers, Bohemians, St Patrick's Athletic, Sligo Rovers, Dundalk, Derry City, Shelbourne, Cork City and Limerick were also in attendance.

Eamon Zayed, Derry City

TISSOT PFAI Player of the Year 2011

The winners on the night were -

Eamon Zayed, Derry City - Player of the Year

Enda Stevens, Shamrock Rovers - Young Player of the Year

Graham Cummins, Cork City - First Division Player of the Year

Richard Dunne, Aston Villa and Ireland - Irish Overseas Player of the Year

Neil Doyle - Referee of the Year

Fray Ray, DDSL - Speical Merit Award

Andrea Buckley, Tissot, presents the Young Player of the Year award to Enda Stevens, Shamrock Rovers

Andrea Buckley, Tissot, presents Graham Cummins with the First Division Player of the Year award

Stuart Gilhooly presents Dick Dunne with the Irish Overseas Player of the Year award for his son, Aston Villa and Ireland defender Richard Dunne

Joe Corcoran presents Fran Ray, DDSL, with the Special Merit award

Lisa Freeman and Andrea Buckley, Tissot, with St Patrick's Athletic players

Lisa Freeman and Andrea Buckley, Tissot with Limerick players and representatives

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

The Irish Overseas Players of the Year award is also voted for by the League of Ireland players in both the premier and first divisions, with Republic of Ireland internationals Richard Dunne, Wes Hoolahan and Shane Long the three nominated players.  

Mr Justin Thompson, Country Manager, The Swatch Group Ireland, congratulated all of the nominees and also the players selected on both the Premier and First Division teams of the year.  "Tissot is delighted to be the new sponsor of the PFAI Awards and we are looking forward to working with the PFAI.  I would like to congratulate the nominees for the PFAI Players' Awards, the individuals named on the Premier and First Division teams of the season and also the Irish Overseas Player of the Year nominees."   

"We are delighted to have such a prestigious partner in Tissot to sponsor our awards.  The success of our clubs and players has enabled us to attract such a sponsor." Stephen McGuinness, PFAI General Secretary, said.

"We're looking forward to the biggest awards night in the Association's history and a great finale to a fantastic domestic season."

PFAI PLAYER OF THE YEAR AWARDS 2011 - NOMINATIONS

PLAYER OF THE YEAR NOMINEES

Eoin Doyle (Sligo Rovers)

Daryl Kavanagh (St Patrick's Athletic)

Mark Quigley (Dundalk)

Richie Ryan (Sligo Rovers)

Pat Sullivan (Shamrock Rovers)

Eamon Zayed (Derry City)

YOUNG PLAYER OF THE YEAR NOMINEES

Daniel Lafferty (Derry City)

James McClean (Derry City)

Enda Stevens (Shamrock Rovers)

FIRST DIVISION PLAYER OF THE YEAR NOMINEES

Sean Brennan (Monaghan United)

Graham Cummins (Cork City)

IRISH OVERSEAS PLAYER OF THE YEAR NOMINEES

Richard Dunne (Aston Villa)

Wes Hoolahan (Norwich City)

Shane Long (West Bromwich Albion)

REFEREE OF THE YEAR NOMINEES

Neil Doyle

Alan Kelly

Paul Tuite

PREMIER DIVISION TEAM OF THE YEAR

Ger Doherty (Derry City)

Pat Sullivan (Shamrock Rovers)

Stewart Greacen (Derry City)

Craig Sives (Shamrock Rovers)

Enda Stevens (Shamrock Rovers)

Stephen Bradley (St Patrick's Athletic)

Daryl Kavanagh (St Patrick's Athletic)

Richie Ryan (Sligo Rovers)

Mark Quigley (Dundalk)

Eamon Zayed (Derry City)

Eoin Doyle (Sligo Rovers)

FIRST DIVISION TEAM OF THE YEAR

Mark McNulty (Cork City)

Danny Murphy (Cork City)

Stephen Paisley (Shelbourne)

Pat Purcell (Limerick)

Lorcan Fitzgerald (Shelbourne)

Sean Brennan (Monaghan United)

Gearoid Morrissey (Cork City)

David Cassidy (Shelbourne)

Shane Duggan (Cork City)

Graham Cummins (Cork City)

Philip Hughes (Shelbourne)

IT'S NOT BLACK AND WHITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Just how did we get here? Last time I looked, we were well ensconced in a 21st century where all creeds and colours mixed together without rancour or recrimination.

In Britain, most teams have a large contingent of black players and here, it's becoming increasingly normal for league of Ireland teams to have at least one or two. Go down the age groups at junior level and you see certain teams where more than half of the team is comprised of black players.

It's no surprise given the increasingly multicultural nature of our society and, by and large, we have embraced it.  However, every now and again, a player's colour becomes an issue when it is invoked in vain.

On two occasions in the last few seasons, players in the league of Ireland have been accused of making racist remarks.  And, of course, across the water, we now have two serious allegations made against two of the world's most famous players, John Terry and Luis Suarez.

What we have seen with the players here, and will become clear in England, is that this issue is delicate, complicated and very difficult to prove.

The two cases in Ireland involved Jason McGuinness (then playing with Bohemians) who was alleged to have made a racist remark to Romuald Boco, then playing with Sligo and a spat between Chris Turner and Eamon Zayed in which the former was accused of making comments relating to the Libyan international's race.

In the McGuinness case, the player very honestly conceded that a comment was made which was unacceptable and which he regretted.  As a result, he was subjected to the mandatory minimum five match ban which follows from this.  He voluntarily engaged in service to the community and became involved in the PFAI Show Racism the Red Card" campaign.  In fact, for a short period last year, he and Boco were at the same club together and relations between them appeared well and truly mended.

The Turner case, however, is an example of how difficult these cases can be.  Turner denied making comments of a racist nature while Zayed was adamant that he had.  In the end, it appears that it could not be proven that such comments were made, presumably due to lack of independent evidence, and he was found to merely have made "offensive" comments but without any racist element.  This attracted a three match ban.

The reality is that the only two people who know what was said were the two players.  And this is where this whole issue becomes clouded in controversy and innuendo.

The two English cases are interesting for the same reason in that both players completely deny making the comments.  It would appear that, again, there are no independent witnesses but a key difference here is video evidence.  At premier league grounds, there are so many cameras that every nuance and gesture tends to be picked up.  It has been suggested that no video evidence of the words alleged to have been uttered by Suarez "at least ten times" exists but on the other hand, not only is there a video of John Terry making a comment to Anton Ferdinand but is available for all to view on YouTube!

Now I am not an accomplished lip reader so I don't know whether this video proves the allegation or not and only time will tell whether it does but it goes to prove how difficult this issue is without either independent evidence or the player admitting the offence.

The real question though is why this incredibly divisive problem is raising its ugly head now and what can we do about it.  Never has more of an effort been made by players organizations, football federations and different players to stamp racism out of the game. Yet, the harder we try, the more it won't go away.

What is even more incomprehensible is that, whatever any of these players actually said, you may be sure none of them are actually racist within the meaning that most of us associate with the word. All have black team mates and friends who would be shocked to think they have racist tendencies and I would think simply don't believe they are.  We have even seen following the shocking remarks that quite rightly ended the television career of Ron Atkinson, that many of his former black players were very quick to defend him.

So why does it happen? The heat and passion of the game is usually the answer given.  Arsene Wenger, somewhat surprisingly, cited this as a mitigating circumstance last week when asked about the situation. And maybe he is right.  That doesn't excuse it by any means but maybe it provides some form of explanation.

The case has been made that all sorts of names and comments are made during a game and some are far worse than the alleged racist remarks.  Indeed, Wenger himself has been the subject of many vile comments by fans.

There are differences, however.  First, we cannot control what fans say, short of banning them from the ground. If a player or other manager was to make such disgusting comments to Wenger, they would swiftly investigated.  Secondly, players are role models.  Fans react to players and how they behave. The alleged behaviour of Chelsea fans on Tuesday night are good example of how an incident involving a player, even if untrue, can escalate tensions between fans.

Finally, though, and most importantly, history plays a huge role in differentiating vulgar and racist abuse.  The past contains too many examples of slavery, outrageous discrimination and partition for us to excuse such behaviour by referring to the cauldron of passion in the heat of the match.

The message has to be that yes, we are all big boys and comments will be made but all players have to remember that they have a responsibility to society and simply to remove a player's colour from their thought processes.

The fight must go on and maybe if a high profile player is found guilty, then it will be the impetus that the game needs to stamp it out completely.  You can expect a very hefty ban if one or both of Terry or Suarez is proved to have said what was alleged.

Equally, players are entitled to their good name if nothing is proven.  That is the point of evidence. It's either proven or it's not. If not, then the player is innocent. Simple as that.  No whispering, no counter allegations. Not guilty equals innocent in this issue.  Sometimes, there is smoke without fire.

The aim must be educate players that racist comments are unacceptable and cannot be excused. Otherwise, it won't be long before the horrible stench of apartheid, partition and racial stereotyping will creep into our nostrils. And it's a smell that lingers and ultimately pervades.  We just can't go back there.

Stuart Gilhooly is the solicitor for the PFAI. He has recently changed his twitter username to @PFAISolicitor and may be followed on www.twitter.com/PFAISolicitor. He has recently been shortlisted for the 2nd consecutive year as journalist of the year at the Magazine Ireland awards.

White Hart Lane was buzzing.  The green and white juggernaut had arrived in North London and the Spurs fans were getting a lesson about what supporting your team really means.  From the first minute to the last, the Hoops sang their hearts out and embarrassed the sizeable but largely inaudible Tottenham support.

It has been some year for the League of Ireland.  Apart from Shamrock Rovers' almost incredible exploits, the performance of St Pats in Europe and a nail-biting title race has pushed the League of Ireland to the forefront of Irish sport.

It is, of course though, the success of Rovers that has captured the imagination of the generic sports fan.  The same people who will jump on the Irish rugby and the Dublin football bandwagons will also be happy to share in the remarkable story of the rise and rise of Michael O'Neill's green and white army.

And therein lies a dilemma for some League of Ireland fans.  Let's call them the diehards.  There is a relatively small coterie of loyal supporters who go only to League of Ireland games to support their teams, be it Rovers, Pats, Bray, etc. They don't follow English teams, have no interest in rugby and couldn't distinguish Bernard Brogan from Stephen Cluxton.

They have been there from the start.  Good times and bad times but definitely more bad than good.  When Rovers were in examinership, when Drogheda were nearly finished and when Bohs couldn't pay their bills, they were there, helping out, keeping the show on the road.

And now, the new kids on the block want to join in the fun. Without doing their time, without suffering the pain.  And most gallingly, while watching United and Liverpool in the pub.  Because, let's call a spade a spade, that's the biggest sin of all.

Nothing will rile a diehard more than the revelation that you support an English team, particularly one of the big six.  Scottish teams seem a little more acceptable but only because they're not much good anymore.

So what has happened is that as more and more fair weather supporters show an interest in the game, by equal measure the resentment to these Johnny-Come-Latelys has spiralled among through core support.

But what they miss is that every League of Ireland team needs new fans and you have start sometime.  And where is the rule that you can only follow one team in one league?  Why not support whoever you like whenever you like?  Everyone pays the same amount to go through the gate and God knows the League of Ireland needs as much support as it can get.

An interesting tale is told by 18 year old law student Amy Eustace, who blogs regularly on all matters football, and who is a fairly recent convert to the Shamrock Rovers cause (check out her story at http://www.thefootyblog.net/2011/09/29/my-team-i-shamrock-rovers/).  Like many youngsters, she was brought up on a diet of Premiership football and fell in love with Liverpool Football Club.  So far so  normal.

However, when Rovers moved to Tallaght, a new dynamic entered her life and she fell head over heels for the Hoops.  Again, not so strange.  But here's the thing.  She still loves Liverpool as much as ever (and Stewart Downing in a weirdly obsessive way but the less said about that the better!) and far more bizarrely, follows Wolfsburg and Udinese.  In other words, one for each league (though I don't know what La Liga has done to be dismissed so callously).

So, here we have a fanatical football follower who loves her local team and goes to watch them when she can.  And is just back from White Hart Lane.  She also goes to Anfield and watches the German and Italian leagues regularly. She is just as important as the diehard.  Maybe not as loyal, maybe not as long suffering as the diehard but the money paid through the gate is the same.

Every League of Ireland team needs an Amy and many more of her.  Because that is the only way the league can ever reach its true potential.  It's okay to support whoever else you like as long as you show up on a Friday night and shout them home. And do you know what? It's okay if you only show up once in a while as well because that's better than not coming at all.

Last week, there were quite a few supporters in the stadium who didn't know who to shout for.  They loved both teams.  But at least they were there.

Stuart Gilhooly is the solicitor to the PFAI and can be followed on Twitter at www.twitter.com/DSBAPresident.