Press Reaction To Barmy Liverpool Suarez Response

Oliver Holt, The Mirror.

What a shame Liverpool chose to couch their decision not to appeal in ­inflammatory language that continued to insist Suarez had done nothing wrong. Suarez has admitted calling Patrice Evra “negro”. To persist with the argument, as he and the club are doing, that this was a term of endearment is not just “incredible”, as the tribunal found; it is also laughable.

The fight against racism, or racist language, in sport is bound to be uncomfortable when it affects a club someone supports or ­represents. Liverpool and Suarez had the ­opportunity to apologise on Tuesday, move towards restoring a damaged reputation and emerge with some dignity from this horrible affair. They chose not to take it.

Martin Samuel, The Daily Mail. Read the article in full or these snippets:

So Liverpool deigned to do the world a favour and will not appeal Luis Suarez’s eight-match ban. How decent of them. Maybe they’ll make a T-shirt telling us all about it; or a hat. Not a white, pointy one, obviously…

…Letting the football men run the football club is an admirable stance, but there comes a time when an issue lies beyond the manager’s call. Whoever was left to mastermind Liverpool’s stance over Suarez has been proven horribly inept in this arena…

…Suarez put out a statement on Tuesday night, which included the remarkable assertion: ‘I will carry out the suspension with the resignation of someone who hasn’t done anything wrong.’ So if he was found innocent, he would have been innocent; but if guilty, he is innocent, still. At the outset Suarez said the verdict would decide which of the parties had to apologise. Apparently, like much of the evidence, that stance has since changed…

Stuart James, The Guardian. Read the article in full or these snippets:

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…

…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…

…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…

…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.

Darren Lewis, The Mirror. Read the article in full or these snippets:

It is fascinating that, in a week when we have reached the conclusion of a high-profile court case following a man’s death because of the colour of his skin, football fans – and one of the country’s highest profile clubs – are still defending a man found guilty of using a racially offensive term. As a black man I can tell you this: There is no context in which any term referring to the colour of my skin during an argument can be termed as anything other than racist…

…Liverpool are a great club with good people, good administrators and many, many good fans. But they have got it wrong on this occasion from start to finish. They demanded the written reasons after the guilty verdict was announced last month but have gone on to dismiss those, maintaining they are right and the rest of world was wrong. Even then, in their incendiary latest statement they claim to be a “leader on taking a progressive stance on race issues”. But privately the anti-racism groups in this country that I have spoken to are horrified at the Reds’ intransigence on Suarez…

Phillip Cornwall, F365. Read the article in full or these snippets:

Any attempt at an explanation based on cultural misunderstanding had to come after the word “sorry”. And not as in, “I’m sorry but you’re completely wrong.”

The failure to offer any form of apology, even as a precursor to a rejection of the charges of repeated use of the word, was a mistake – even if Suarez’s version is, in fact, accurate. Kenny Dalglish breaking the requested silence regularly while the investigation went on, talking as if Evra should be in the dock if his player were acquitted, was a mistake – even if Suarez’s version is, in fact, accurate. Treating the Uruguayan as some kind of political victim needing help from the sale of benefit T-shirts was a mistake – even if Suarez’s version is, in fact, accurate.