FA statement on Suarez

Liverpool Football Club

Full decision "in due course" but it appears he mentioned that Evra is 
black, tut tut.


An Independent Regulatory Commission has today [Tuesday 20 December 2011] 
found a charge of misconduct against Luis Suarez proven, and have issued a 
suspension for a period of eight matches as well as fining him £40,000, 
pending appeal.

On 16 November 2011, The Football Association charged Luis Suarez with 
misconduct contrary to FA Rule E3 in relation to the Liverpool FC versus 
Manchester United FC fixture on 15 October 2011.

A hearing took place from 14-20 December 2011 before an Independent 
Regulatory Commission of The FA to consider the charge.

The Independent Regulatory Commission announced its decision on 20 December 
2011, which is as follows:

1.Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary 
to FA Rule E3(1);
2.the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's 
colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);
3.Mr Suarez shall be warned as to his future conduct, be suspended for eight 
matches covering all first team competitive matches and fined the sum of 
4.the [penalty] is suspended pending the outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr 
Suarez against this decision.
The Independent Regulatory Commission will provide written reasons for its 
decision in due course setting out:

(a)          the findings of fact made by it;

(b)          the reasons for its decision finding the charge proved; and

(c)           the reasons for the penalty.

Mr Suarez has the right to appeal the decision of the Independent Regulatory 
Commission to an Appeal Board. An appeal must be lodged within 14 days of 
the date of the written reasons for the decision.

The penalty is suspended until after the outcome of any appeal, or the time 
for appealing expires, or should Mr Suarez decide not to appeal. The reason 
for this is to ensure that the penalty does not take effect before any 
appeal so that Mr Suarez has an effective right of appeal.
They should double his ban for a frivolous appeal, if indeed he makes a 
formal one.
Why would it be "frivolous"? Do you have access to the evidence their 
decision was based on?