Having gone through it a second time ... It's still a joke of a report.
Firstly no where does Suarez statement change, every event is listed clear in his opening statement.
The incident in question ( which they say changed ) is the pinch.
Suarez says in his statement it's just 'sticking up for himself' , so for the panel to decide he admitted after video evidence that it's not 'nice' suggests Suarez stated previously that it was .. And he never said that.
On top of that, when the panel state that in SAmerican regions, pinching ones own arm is a way of describing ones skin colour. So with no history of this act being used on others , how they can conclude its possibly an attempt to call out Evras skin colour is beyond me.
Regarding the inconsistencies in Suarez vs kuyt and DC, Suarez said to these that what he said translates in English to 'you are black' . The language expert even concluded that in Spanish context it's not inherently racist, although they chose to believe it occurred multiple times, thus changing the context to something more sinister.
There is no evidence that he said this more then the once Suarez admitted to other then the testimony of SAF and Evra. An LFC employee overheard SAF saying Suarez used the word 5 times, meaning it must have come from Evra. SAF said the 5 times thing himself also. Evra in France said it happened 'at least ten times' , a huge inconsistency itself, and tried to back out of this with the excuse " it's a French thing ".
The panel asked Suarez if he told Kuyt and Dc he called evra out as being 'black' , under the context of how Suarez used the sentence / word, Suarez is right to say they must have misheared, as what he told them is it translates in English as X, not that he called him Y.
The final inconsistency is the use of a word whic Suarez defence only used after hearing the panel use it. Hardly the biggest crime is it? Considering it didn't actually change what Suarez was saying, although the panel concluded it was an attempt to change his statement.
Regarding not using Evras apparent unreliability ( Chelsea, Finnan) , the panel said that they chose to ignore this for one reason only, because LFC chose not to use it in their defence. Quite poor IMO, and the panels statement that Evra wouldnt try to damage a fellow professionals status in the game, huge assumption to make considering the Finnan incident.
Regarding what Kuyt accused Evra of saying to Suarez and the ref, the ref didn't hear, so this is thrown out. And to say Kuyt must have misheard what Evra said to Suarez ( re: his sister) .. How can they come to this conclusion? The whole trial is based on one word against another so the only reason to throw this out is they believe Kuyt to be a flawed witness because he is a team mate of Suarez. This is common in criminal courts, but the panel failed to apply the same assumptions regarding other peoples statements, seems like selective acceptance to me.
There's more, but I'm hung over so I'll stop here.
).
