The FA yesterday published the written reasons for charging Luis Suarez.

Photographic Evidence

Following the match on 15 Oct, Patrice Evra gave an interview to Canal Plus. This was the first time any reference to alleged racial abuse was publically quoted. Referencing the alleged abuse, he received from Luis Suarez, he stated “There are cameras, you can see him. He says a certain word to me at least 10 times.” Let’s take a look at this remark. Sky Sports broadcast the match live. In an interview given in June, Darren Long, director of operations at Sky Sports, says "In a 2D production of a Premier League match we average 23 cameras” And if the match is filmed in 3D “we've put additional cameras into positions where they aren't normally cameras.” So an average of 23 cameras (possibly more if shot in 3D), placed in positions that guarantee maximum coverage of the action, filmed the match that day. Racism is a very serious charge and one that must not by taken frivolously, so one would expect that all of this footage (atleast 34 hours worth) was handed over to the FA for this enquiree, and at least some of the alleged ten incidents Mr Eva refers to, would have been able to be pinpointed and scrutinised by the panel. In this day and age of instant replays from multiple angles to ascertain decisions in a split second, it would be a fairly standard process to pinpoint the footage required .Sky has never shown (on Sky Sports, or its news channels) a clip that pertains to show any of the ten or more incidents that Patrice Evra refers to. In order for full transparency, the FA must produce the above footage that determined their decision in charging Suarez.

What was the word?

During the past several days and weeks since the accusation made and subsequent charge by the FA, it has still not known what the word used by Suarez was. Suarez says he used a word Evra’s team mate’s use. Many of the media outlets have speculated that the alleged word was ‘negrito’ or ‘negro’. There is a definite conflict between the two parties, in the amount of alleged abuse received Suarez says once, Evra says “at least 10 times”. The FA have clearly ascertained that the term was used more then once as their statement says: “Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra”. In order to put an end to the uncertainty, it seems only right that the word becomes public knowledge. It’s also important to establish how many times the FA feels this word was used against Evra, backing this up with the above mentioned footage of the incidents.

Patrice Evra’s alleged abuse of Suarez.

Liverpool FC in their statement following the FA charge said that Evra made “abusive remarks” to Suarez, and the Manchester United player had “admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms.” Telegraph Journalist Henry Winter said in an article before the charge:

“Shortly after the corner, referee Andre Marriner called the pair together for a lecture. Suárez apologised and attempted to pat the United full-back on the head. “Don’t touch me, you South American,’’ Evra is alleged to have said. To which, the Uruguayan replied: “Porque, Negro?’’

It is not known if Mr Winter knows this because of insider knowledge or speculation. Alternative versions of events that have been circulating state Evra said: “Don’t touch me you Sudaca”. This exchange must have been heard by the referee Andre Marriner, and must be clarified by the FA. Winter also claims in his article:

“Despite Marriner’s intervention, Evra remained furious. When he caught Kuyt two minutes later, Evra responded to Marriner’s caution by allegedly claiming: “You’re only booking me because I’m black.’’

Again this exchange must be clarified by the FA. If the statements by Evra towards Suarez is true, then surely this needs to be again addressed by the FA. In order to retain credibility, the Football Association absolutely must acknowledge in its fight against racism, that it must tackle all incidents, not a selection.

The Independent Panel.

Paul Goulding QC:

Chairman of Blackstone chambers. The same firm that supplied the barrister who was successful in representing the FA in Wayne Rooney's Euro appeal. Qualified FA coach who appeared for Jean Tigana in his successful £2million-plus claim following his sacking as Fulham boss.

Brian Jones:

Chairman of Sheffield and Hallamshire FA, who wrote to county members six months ago stressing need to fight discrimination.

Denis Smith:

Ex-Stoke defender who managed York, Sunderland and Oxford United. He also managed Wrexham for six years between 2001 and 2007.

The definition of independent means ‘autonomous’, ‘self governing’ ‘not influenced by others’ and ‘impartial’. How was the independent panel chosen? One of the members: Denis Smith, whilst managing Wrexham, made Alex Fergusons son Darren Ferguson club captain. Also, when Smith in 2009 published his autobiography ‘Just One of Seven’, the back page proudly proclaimed “how he helped save Sir Alex Ferguson’s job”. We are not calling into question the integrity of Mr Smith, but surely his inclusion represents a conflict of interests and leaves the FA open to accusations of corruption? Why was a person with such strong links to Manchester United chosen? Liverpool Football Club could have objected to Smith’s inclusion, but did they know or where they made aware of his background? It may also be far to ask why three white men formed the panel? It seems incredible that a group of experts judging on a case of racism did not include someone from another ethnic background. The FA in the interests of credibility must explain how the panel was picked and the reasons behind the selection.

Why the delay between judgement and evidence?

The FA charged Luis Suarez on 20 December stating “The Independent Regulatory Commission will provide written reasons in due course”. It is normally practice for this to take a few days. As of this writing, it is ten days and counting. In the meantime the player, club, and its fans have been subjected to endless speculation and allegations from the press. In taking so long in its written response, the FA has effectively hung the club out to dry, while it enjoys its Christmas beak. Surely this decision from a professional organisation makes it look like a street market operation and calls into question the credibility of its practices. Why has this taken so long? In the interests of integrity, an explanation for this delay must be produced.