I think I'm talking about how you come across to a world which is inevitably less informed than you but also less reason to be biased.
Take it away from LFC for a minute imagine we're talking to hard-line Isralie's or Palestinians, Iranians or Russians, what the fuck do we really know of the situations they're reacting to? But at the same time how balanced do their views come across as?
I guess from my perspective, if Suarez was innocent, if the FA inquiry was a sham (and I'm willing to accept that it may have been), then LFC should have challenged it, they could have taken it all the way to CASS if needs be. But as with anything, once you plead guilty or after the verdict accept the verdict and don't challenge it, then that's the end of the matter. Suarez did use a Uruguayan term of endearment at least once in his conversation with Evra and that term of endearment could have been misconstrued as racist. This is Suarez's defence and it fits the facts. As could a plethora of alternative stories. Only he and Evra know the truth, the rest of us frankly don't have a fucking clue apart from that LFC didn't challenge the verdict of the inquiry.
They probably would have, if the verdict hadn't come with the added little line that only the length of the ban, not the verdict itself, could be appealed.
As for taking it beyond the FA... from what I understand there are "safety measures" in place from the FA, which gives them the option to severely punish any clubs taking matters outside their doors.
Besides, the report showed such blatant one-sided bias, with the so-called independent panel operating more like a prosecutor, I don't think anyone saw much hope in it going anywhere. It would end up in front of another panel chosen by the FA.
It all gives North Korea the semblance of a thriving democracy in comparison.
I would suggest any open minded, intelligent individual actually have a read of that report. They might learn quite a bit about how the organisation governing this, our favourite sport, works. Or, rather, doesn't.