Poll: Suarez has to be banned for a year at least
- Thread starter Frankiemac
- Start date
sorry Lin but you are not really being impartial. Far worse happens in sport and is stated in that article in order to bring the latest Suarez bite of death into perspective.
Specifically this paragraph:
The outrage here is simply because it is Suarez and he is mentally unhinged. No one on these forums really gives a flying **** about the morals of what has happened, they only give a crap because its Suarez. Either LFC fans who underplay it, or non LFC fans with an agenda to push because LFC without Suarez = a rotweiler without testicles................
There are far more morally reprehensible things that happen in Football on a daily basis, far worse player spack outs but no one comes back asking for life bans, because no one actually cares about those also rans. This however is different because of who it actually is........
Note I am a spurs fan so habe nothing to lose or gain if Suarez stays, goes, becomes the next vampire overlord etc
So everyone is biased except you? How convenient 
Bringing up suspensions others have received for similar offences is completely irrelevant to a person's opinion on this case. If I think that Suarez should be banned for a year and that Dylan Hartley should have been banned for a year there is no discrepancy. The punishment Hartley actually got is irrelevant.
Bringing up suspensions others have received for similar offences is completely irrelevant to a person's opinion on this case. If I think that Suarez should be banned for a year and that Dylan Hartley should have been banned for a year there is no discrepancy. The punishment Hartley actually got is irrelevant.
Last edited:
So everyone is biased except you? How convenient
no, but I am impartial in as much as i don't give a **** either way, which is more than the rabid bloodletters in here calling for a lifetime ban simply because its Suarez, but not doing the same for other sportsmen that do far worse. Case in point as per the article in the independent .
No its not. It serves as a way of putting some context on to what has happened and judging how best / long / harshly to punish him. Simply shouting life ban him is not a rationale response, its the response of the emotionally retarded.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
99% of the people in here don't follow the Rugby at all, I have no idea who plays for the England Rugby team, suggesting the lack of outrage for this other player proves that this is a witch hunt purely because it's Suarez is completely daft.
It requires that the majority of people talking about Suarez have the faintest clue who the person being talked about is.
No sportsman being mentioned is worse than Suarez. This rugby player has both already received huge bans for all the bad things he did(something Suarez has not, he has received middling bans for a small fraction of the bad things he's done), he has also only done 3 bad things. This is Suarez's third bite alone, he's been banned for racism, he's been suspended by Ajax separately for a fight in the locker room and he's gotten away with an absolutely massive number of other incidents.
Sorry but the rugby player has both been treated relatively fairly(6 month and 8 game bans for his severe breaching of rules), and he's only done a few things by the sounds of it.
The bite is not the situation the bite being one of literally dozens of instances of cheating or assaulting other players is what is being discussed.
So you're wrong on the severity and wrong on the presumption that anyone has a freaking clue who this rugby player was and thus drawing comparisons presuming we all chose to ignore what he did and vilify Suarez.
No, nobody has to. There is no defending him for just thinking **** it lets run towards Chiellini who's no where near the ball and take a bite.
That's like saying somebody has to defend a guy for assault even though it's caught on CCTV and was unprovoked.
I don't understand this conspiracy either of it being used to cover up England's shocking performance, all that stuff was still slapped all over the papers. If England went through the media would still be all over this Suarez case.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 15,788
- Location
- Outside in the bushes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28020605
It seems someone is rather happy about the "incident"
It seems someone is rather happy about the "incident"
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The principle reasons for bans are to teach a player not to do what they were doing and to protect other players from their bad behaviour.. either via the deterrent/teaching/rehabilitation method OR via simply not allowing said player near potential future victims. He has been banned over, and over, and over and over again and he still has not learnt his lesson, he is not rehabilitated.
Please go ahead and suggest how many attacks on other footballers is deemed the limit before you stop him being able to attack other footballers by not letting him play football?
What is it, 3 broken legs, 5 attempts to injure and 7 bites... exactly how many is the magical number that makes it sensible to prevent him being in the situation to hurt other people?
If his next leg breaking tackle happens 6 months from now, would you like to be that player, that knows Suarez's full history, knew he would assault someone on the pitch again and knew that Fifa knew all this and didn't protect you by banning him?
Again, simple question how much is enough before you put other prioritise other players safety before a lunatic? How many attacks, leg breaking challenges and stamps when you say enough is enough?
I've yet to see a sensible answer from the Suarez apologists, because your posts seem to suggest that as long as it's only a bite, he should be allowed to indefinitely go on biting other people.....
Which is odd as no where else, in no business, no company and surprisingly not in the law anywhere does it say, as long as it's only a bite you can attack as many people as you want.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I think that is the third person to bet on Suarez biting at the world cup, and winning, in different countries no less. Sweden and Norway betting shops have paid out, I believe the first was an English one but am not sure, might have been German.
Would be interesting to know if any other companies took bets on any other players biting in the world cup at all or if Suarez is the only player people actually expected could do it......
My point was that it is irrelevant to the validity of a person's opinion. You can't say 'Your opinion that Suarez should be banned for life is wrong because Hartley was not banned for life' if I believe that Hartley also should have been banned for life.
The article is arguing that the response to Suarez' bite is over the top because other players committing similar offences have not received the huge bans some are calling for. Fine - but the argument only works on the assumption that the previous, more lenient punishments were the correct decision. If everyone agrees that Hartley should not have been banned for life, then calling for Suarez to be banned for life is internally inconsistent and potentially biased by the fact that we're dealing with Suarez.
However, if a person calling for a life-time ban in fact would have called for a tougher punishment in Hartley's case too, bringing up the actual punishment does not undermine their argument.
This, the guy is a total nut job but a life ban is not a fare and justified punishment for the offence. Will be interesting to see what FIFA go with as inevitably it will be too strong for some and too lenient for others. I hope they do make an example of him not just because it's a repeat offence but because the way he and the whole Uruguay team and management have responded is an embarrassment. I'd have much more time for him if he held his hands up and said "Sorry, I lost it." but he's not the type. I would also like to see any punishment include an strong element of coinciding or similar so he can be helped to prevent this happening again.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 11,701
- Location
- Cheshire
Its all irrelevant anyway, a life time ban isn't in FIFA's remit.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,280
- Location
- Cornwall
With the amount of crap Suarez has had to put up with over this I hope he gets some compensation for emotional distress.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 2,658
It's desperate not pathetic. They're clinging on to the feint hope that he gets let off and can play in the next round.
No but for enough money Sepp will hold a vote an hour before the tribunal publishes the outcome of it's deliberations to change the rules. Never underestimate the power of the corrupt cess pit that is FIFA to stoop to a new low!
Last edited: