Liverpool also
noted the chants about the Uruguayan sung by Manchester United supporters at Fulham on
the same night this week. "I think where they [the FA] have to be
more supportive is the reaction from people – and the antagonism of
the crowds – towards Luis,'' said Dalglish. "That is the great
problem."
In the wake of the case, Dalglish asked the FA to publish
"guidelines" on what words are unacceptable in football. In his
unsuccessful defence, Suárez cited "cultural differences", arguing
that it was a descriptive, not racial epithet. "It would be helpful
to everyone if someone gave us some guidelines about what you can
and cannot say,'' said Dalglish. It is safe to assume that "negro",
regardless of its usage in Latin America, would be on any list of
proscribed words in England.
The whole sorry saga has been made more problematical by the
commission's delay in publishing its reasonings, which Dalglish
accidentally called "the written retort" yesterday. The presence of
a verdict but no explanation has created a cauldron of uncertainty,
bubbling with poisonous conspiracy theories and bile from sections
of two great clubs' extensive supports.
If the racially abused Evra must always be remembered as the one
who has suffered most, damage has also been inflicted on the
relationship between United and Liverpool. Both clubs had been
working hard behind the scenes to improve relations, including a
possible joint overseas venture, but the Suárez-Evra maelstrom has
set back that rapprochement.
In supporting Suárez in the immediate aftermath of the verdict,
Liverpool issued a strong statement, accusing the commission of
pre-judging him and attacking Evra's integrity. Dalglish defended
the wording. "The statement couldn't have caused anybody any
trouble,'' he insisted. United were hardly impressed.
Clearly, the commission made a major mistake in not releasing
the verdict and "written reasons" simultaneously, leaving Dalglish
and many others bemused. "In another walk of life, they would have
waited [to announce the outcome] until they had it [reasons] ready.
It might be weeks."
Dalglish was keen to strike a conciliatory tone, almost calling
for calm amid the frenzied polemicising. "If everybody waited until
the statement is written and shown on the FA website, you will have
a better idea of why they came to their reasoning,'' he argued.
In the search for enlightenment, the "written reasons" will be
pored over as if they were the Rosetta Stone. People will want to
know how the tariff of eight games was reached. They will want to
know if a precedent has been set which could apply to John Terry,
the England captain, if he is charged by the FA with racially
abusing Anton Ferdinand. Will the commission provide a lexicon of
acceptable and unacceptable words?
So many questions need answering. Is the delay designed to
ensure that when Liverpool appeal (within 14 days of receiving the
written reasons), Suárez's ban takes in Old Trafford on Feb 11? Is
there any legitimacy to Liverpool's hope that any of Evra's
comments come under FA scrutiny? Did the commission note that
Suárez's grandfather was black?
From the Boston base of the club's owners to the Kop, Dalglish
enjoys incredible backing. For those arguing he is too powerful,
that the club miss the steadying presence of an executive like
Peter Robinson in the past, it needs mentioning that Dalglish is
aware of his responsibilities to Liverpool's image. He just wants
to support a popular player who he feels has suffered an
injustice.
Yet the fact remains that Suárez has been found guilty of
racially abusing Evra. The fact also remains that the tribalism
tainting relations between Liverpool and United, and Anfield's
long-standing scepticism towards the FA, has turned the manageable
blaze of a disciplinary case into a towering inferno.