Originally posted by Mostar
View Post
I would view more information as additions rather than changes. If the ref said in his report that Suarez said nothing racist, but later said Suarez did say something racist, then that would be a change. If however the ref left things out of his report, but later mentioned them in the investigation, then they would be additions, and puts us in the position of the panel deciding if those things said merit further action rather than the ref. I don't know if the ref is bound by any rules of disclosure when writing his initial report, along the lines of: "Well, I heard Suarez say < insert phrase here>, and that could be construed as offensive in some circles, but in the context I think no harm was intended, thus I deem no further action is neccessary"
The snippet about Evra accusing the ref of "only booking him because he is black" is a new one on me, and I presume it came from the ref in the course of the investigation and was not intially in his report.
The whole point is though, if Suarez has said something that can be construed as offensive, he doesn't know with any certainty that Evra is the only one that heard it; in front of 40,000+ people, countless cameras and mics, we would have to do our own exaustive investigation to make sure there was no evidence before he could put forward his denial. And with tens of thousands of busy-body mancs scouring every frame of tv video and audio and **** knows what cunt's mobile phone footage, it would be an extremely nervous wait. Just look at the Terry incident with supposed new fresh evidence winging its way to the CPS. Who the **** knows what could crop up?
If it was just two fellas in a room with nobody about it would be simple.
Comment