Liverpool's blind loyalty to Luis Suárez leaves no room for contrition
Liverpool looked to have seen the light in not appealing against the verdict but club and player still refuse to accept they are in the wrong
At last Liverpool have seen sense. At least that was the initial reaction when news broke that the club would not be appealing against the eight-match ban and £40,000 fine imposed on Luis Suárez for racially abusing Patrice Evra. What we soon learned, however, was that Liverpool had no intention of showing any contrition, Suárez would not be apologising and, in the eyes of the club, the Football Association is to blame for damaging the reputation of a man that was found to have used the word "negro" seven times.
The blind loyalty that Liverpool have shown towards Suárez throughout this sorry saga continues to shine through despite the verdict two weeks ago and the publication of a remarkable 115-page document, compiled by the FA's independent panel, that presented a compelling case against Suárez and, at the same time, highlighted the shambles that the Merseyside club had made of trying to defend the player.
Accepting the guilty verdict represented a chance to move on; instead Liverpool have poured fuel on the fire and thrown in a couple of sticks of dynamite for good measure. In Liverpool's statement, the FA and the three-man panel it selected is accused of constructing "a highly subjective case" against Suárez. There is also stinging criticism of the report, which is described as "clearly subjective" and, as a result, held responsible by Liverpool for tainting Suárez's image.
And then we come to Suárez, whose own statement screamed his innocence and flew in the face of everything the linguistic experts told the FA panel when they analysed what the player said to Evra at Anfield, the context in which it was said and how his comments would be interpreted in his homeland and beyond. The experts' conclusion, lest it be forgotten, was that Suárez's remarks would be "considered racially offensive in Uruguay and other regions in of Latin America".
The report pointed out that while this information was useful it "is the commission's task to decide whether the use of the word in England is abusive or insulting". Suárez, judging by his statement, has still not grasped this fundamental point and also conveniently ignored the acrimonious context in which he used the word "negro" when he disputed the findings of the language experts, Professor Peter Wade and Dr James Scorer.
"In my country, 'negro' is a word we use commonly, a word which doesn't show any lack of respect and is even less so a form of racist abuse," Suárez said. "Based on this, everything which has been said so far is totally false. I will carry out the suspension with the resignation of someone who hasn't done anything wrong and who feels extremely upset by the events."
This was merely in keeping with Liverpool's approach throughout, which has smacked of arrogance at times, no more so than when those ridiculous T-shirts supporting Suárez were worn at Wigan, and on other occasions raised questions about how seriously they took the issue.
We learn in the report that when Phil Dowd, the fourth official at Anfield, knocked on the home dressing room door shortly after the Manchester United match to ask Dalglish – who had been made aware of the allegations at this point – that Andre Marriner, the referee, needed to see him and Suárez in the officials' room, the Liverpool manager, alluding to the rules that are normally in place, "made a joke about having to wait 30 minutes before speaking to the referee." When Dalglish did eventually visit Marriner (without Suárez), his response to Evra's accusations was: "Hasn't he done this before?"
Liverpool should have spent less time worrying about discrediting Evra and more time getting their testimonies right. Suárez, after being asked the same question six times in the hearing, was forced to admit it was not true that he had pinched Evra to defuse the row, as he had claimed in his witness statement. Peter McCormick, Suárez's representative, tried to explain this confusion, that cast further doubt on the credibility of the player's evidence, on "bad drafting".
Every bit as bad was the moment in the report when we learn that Damien Comolli, the club's director of football, and Dirk Kuyt, the Liverpool midfielder, changed their statements after realising that Suárez had given a different account to them. It is cringeworthy reading Kuyt's attempt to deal with this discrepancy in his witness statement. "I am aware that LS will state in evidence that what he actually said in response to the remark from PE was (translated into English) "Why, black?" or "Why, negro?" and I am perfectly happy to accept that this is what he said. I may have misunderstood what he was saying or perhaps sought to interpret what he was saying as what I thought LS might have said when, in fact, it was not what he said."
Yet according to Liverpool's statement before the Manchester City game, the mistakes have been made by the commission rather than the Anfield club or Suárez. If Liverpool truly believed that was the case they would have appealed. Instead they took the sensible decision before pressing the self-destruct button. Again.
