Well put. I think the FA's appeals system allows clubs to only appeal the sentence and not the verdict or something to that effect and that is quite pointless for us given we want to not just overturn the ban but also to clear Suarez's name.
Under the FA's rules Suarez can appeal against several aspects of the decision:
- He didn't get a fair hearing.
- The panel's finding of the facts were such that no reasonable tribunal could have reached.
- That the punishment imppsed is unfairly harsh.
There may be others too but these look like the only really relevant ones to me.
In fact, I would discount the first one. It hardly seems likely that the panel would have cocked up the process so badly that this could come into play.
The finding of facts might be promising. These would appear to be:
1) That Suarez insulted Evra;
2) That in doing so he made reference to Evra's race.
Presumably all the debate about cultural and linguistic differences addresses the first point. However it is clear that to win on this basis Suarez has an onerous task. He not only needs to show that the panel was wrong to conclude that he insulted Evra, but that no reasonable tribunal could conclude the same. Very difficult.
Finally, appealing against the sentence could pay dividends. The rules state clearly that the reference to race doubles the tariff for the insult on its own. This would mean that without the racial reference Suarez was up for a 4 match ban simply for innsulting Evra. I think he might be able to argue that there is no precedent for such a lengthy ban purely for insulting behaviour.
The situation could be extremely clouded, though, if the only insult is the racial reference itself. The panel will presumably have had to try to liken it to an equivalent non-racial insult in order to arrive at a tariff, before doubling it. This seems fraught with difficulty to me. It would seem impossible not to have a multipying effect going on.
Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk