He should have to undergo psychiatric evaluation... Imagine having this happen at your work. If I bit a coworker or a customer I would be fired. I would has assault charges pressed against me. I would have a hard time finding a new job I the same caliber. That is how life is ... Suarez should be punished the same way you or I would in a place of business. Better yet, he should be punished more because he is representing his country and this is a pattern of behaviour. At the very least he should be locked up for a bit in a correctional facility for psych eval. Maybe he needs help for cannibal tendencies.
OT- FIFA charging Suarez for biting
It isn't a spur-of-the-moment emotional deal if it's the third time you've done it. He's an adult and a professional, he can't just go around biting people. In fact, if you have a recurring problem with biting other humans, you probably can't be a fully functioning/valuable member of a civilized society without getting some serious help.
It is the multiple offenses and without the heat of the moment - this wasn't some melee or scrum, just two guys battling for position in the box.
Right now all sorts of dodging stuff occurs in futbol under the very broad heading of gamesmanship - flopping, simulating, deliberate handball. So if the line isn't drawn at BITING where will it? When someone pulls out a knife or uses a gun? Or when someone karate chops an opponent or kidney punches them?
If he gets off with a light penalty they'll need 22 cameras on every world cup match - one to follow every player to track what crap they are getting up to.
yea sure--tell me how many times you were bitten playing sports. Tell me how many examples you personally know of anyone being bitten playing sports---let alone 3 times. This goes well beyond emotional. Psych students weigh in.
seen one person bring up and that was a guy in the ESPN fruit room was this: He is an asset to Liverpool Football Club, why should Liverpool be punished for something he did playing for Uruguay?
He still has value to Liverpool as an asset and FIFA will not destroy that by banning him. The most anyone can expect here is banning him from International play for 2 years or 24 matches. At the very very least he probably shouldn't play in this years World Cup, which would mean a 4 match ban.
Outside the World Cup there are significant matches that take place inbetween, for Uruguay its South America's version of the Euro-Championships and qualifying. So a two year International ban would not be insignificant to him or Uruguay.
He simply isn't going to get the ban people seem to want. His last suspension was 10 matches for his bite of a Chelsea football player, that was handed down by England's Football Association. FIFA isn't going to go much further than that.
Who cares if it affects Liverpool? Seriously? Clubs take on risk when they sign players. They could get innjured on or off the pitch, they could get suspended for actions related or unrelated to football. That's just the risks clubs take when they sign people. Given his history there's probably something in that contract about not paying him if he is suspended again for actions he has already committed two times previously.
This yoyo obvioulsy hasn't learned his lesson from the previous two suspension so something much more harsh is warranted. Not only that, he has shown biting isn't his only issue, he's a complete racist tool who has no control over his mouth whether it's being used for speaking or chewing.
I don't think he should have a lifetime ban but if this ban only applies to international duty than he won't even get a monetary penalty for it. Whatever he gets should apply to both international and club play.
would for one. Along with any other football club who allows their players to go play in International competition. You simply can't set that precendent or you destroy International football.
Footballers are paid for their time by their national teams. Its not much but it is something. So an International ban would have a monetary consequence.
It would make clubs be more accountable. First off there is generally stipulations in your contract that cover international duty (This is the case in hockey anyway and I assume in other professional sports it's the same). Clubs also purchase insurance on player contracts so that if the player is injured for a certain amount of time or suspended for certain things they aren't out of pocket.
Over the years professional organizations have found ways to all but completely eliminate the risk associated with their players taking part in internationl competitions. Even if they didn't, don't you think the more dangerous precedent for FIFA to set is one where they don't care about player safety?
I wonder what Liverpool had to pay for insurance on Suarez?
It would destroy international football--because clubs would be afraid to allow players to compete in international tournaments?--if clubs had to fear that they might lose the transfer value of a player if he bit someone during an international match?
I'm pretty sure the only player that would be impacted by this precedent is Luis Suarez and the only club that would be impacted would be whichever one owned him at the time. It's not a concern for anyone else.
They defended Suarez through the whole racial abuse incident. Liverpool can suffer for signing the moron
Can't find any info on Uruguay but USMNT players get $1500/friendly if I'm remembering it right. For Suarez that's about 12 minutes' pay (based on a normal 40-hour work week).
A one-year ban would mean he'd miss ten friendlies. The monetary consequence would be like docking somebody two hours of pay.. Maybe Uruguay pays its players a little better than the US but there's no way it adds up to a sum of money Suarez would even notice.
Totally agree. Liverpool signed him after two of the bitings and has been part of a racist slur saga in the EPL. They should be punished for not doing due diligence before signing him and / or applying their own sanctions to his poor behavior.
In my mind, Suarez has had plenty of chances. Chances to keep playing after now 3 bitings. Chances to still get paid without retribution for racial slurs. Chances to play for his country. Chances to be a professional soccer player. You make this type of decision again and again and you deserve the punishment. Everyone around you deserves it to - Uruguay and Liverpool included.
signed him after the first biting incident. The second occured at Liverpool.
Michael Vick was an asset too. Until he turned into an ass.
You take a risk when you sign players with known behavior issues. And you know it in advance.
Man you guys are harsh. I mean let's be real here for a moment shall we? Who among us can honestly say that they haven't bitten a friend, co-worker or family member when things don't go the way you want? I know just the other day I was in a meeting and we were discussing Q2 sales results and I just had to go bite our western sales director. And last weekend I went golfing with some buddies and missed a putt so I went and bit everybody (TWICE) I was so mad at myself.
Glass houses people.....
Wow, your meetings are tame. Typically we just behead people.
MGrowOld works for one of those touchy-feely new age companies that has a ping-pong table in the lobby.
Eh, it's not really touchy-feely unless it's a foosball table. With a cappucino machine.
GrowOld... I pictured my own Western Sales Director. Damn.
"Not everybody's the perfect person in the world. I mean everyone bites people, chews people, eats flesh from you, gnaws on me, whatever."
- signed, TP.
EDIT: Don did it much better. Ignore this post.
These guys have to know that cameras are always on them. How in any way can he think I'll bit this guy and act like he shouldered/elbowed me in the mouth and expect to get away with it. The Italian player didn't need to roll around on the ground for so long but I guess that is the only way to get the refs attention.
he scored at Goodison Park against rivals Everton. In pre-match build up Everton manager David Moyes accused him diving too much.
hilarious when it happened
The next chapter?
If it hasn't already been said, it's important to distinguish between FIFA and his club team (Liverpool). Suarez could be punished on the federation level, but probably not within the EPL. I can't think of a precedent for a FIFA sanction carrying over to the club level where tension already exists over scheduling conflicts and injuries.
On the other hand, Liverpool may act on their own by agreeing to sell Suarez to someone (like Barca or Real) or handing him a suspension of some sort. Remember, this is the same ownership group that put up with Manny's bullshit with the Red Sox. Until they couldn't. Likewise, Brendan Rogers seems like a manager that won't tolerate sheanigans.
It would be unprecedented, but one of the UK papers (Guardian, Telegraph, one of those I was reading last night) said that FIFA can institute an all-competitions ban that could be enforceable by UEFA.
Suarez really is a piece of sh*t. Incredible talent, but an absolute headcase, and an awful flopper to boot. He just cost Liverpool at least $30 million (rumor was that Real Madrid was offering 80 million pounds as a transfer). Can't see either Real or Barca paying Gareth Bale money for this headcase.
FIFA's handed out a lot of lifetime bans.
Those were all match-fixing incidents though, not violent conduct. A search for a precedent for Suarez is going to come up empty; the only precedent for Suarez is Suarez himself. I've never heard of anyone else biting someone on a soccer field.
Add Roberto Rojas to the list. It's not exactly "match fixing" but it's sort of close.
It would be a precedent for a FIFA ban to directly carry over to a club for a player. The "worlwide bans" referenced above generally apply to international competitions.
Here's a typical example:
While the FESFUT bans prohibited the players from suiting up in national team colors, the FIFA ban -- which was imposed on the 14 players with lifetime bans and two players suspended six and 18 months, respectively -- relates to all football-related activity.
The national federation banned them from international play; FIFA then stepped in and banned them from all football anywhere in the world, whether international or club. The same thing happened to the 51 Koreans. And in their case the bans resulted from their actions as club players, not in FIFA-sponsored international play. FIFA's powers are broader than you think.
You can look up the players involved if you like. None of them have ever played club football again.
Earlier you referenced the fact that bans were essentially issued for match fixing/corruption. And I can certainly own up to my oversimplification of the issue.
The relevant fact is that FIFA imposing a ban for this type of offense - a violent foul - is unprecedented and probably wont happen to a player who is in the world's most lucrative league (or La LIga, etc). The domestic associations would revolt.
...because before Suarez no one had ever done this before (at least not on the world stage--I'm sure it's happened on a grade-school playground). He's now done it three times.
There are really two arguments here and I'm not sure which one you're making (or both):
1. It won't happen because it was only a "violent foul".
2. It's fine punishment for players in the K-League or El Salvador, but Liverpool's too important and can't be allowed to suffer th collateral damage. Too big to punish, you might say.
I think #1 doesn't account for the uniquely embarrassing nature of the offenses. And if they press #2 too far they really will have a domestic-association revolt on their hands.
A lifetime ban isn't happening. But I can easily see a 6 or 12-month suspension from all football, with the possibility of an appeal to shorten the duration if he voluntarily agrees to seek psychiatric help. And there'd be a lot of soccer paople saying "about damn time." Liverpool might be mad but there wouldn't be a FIFA-destroying revolt.
Do you read what you write upthread?
Earlier, you dedicated time to a google search which produced a handful of articles supporting FIFA lifetime bans for corruption and fixing. However, you later admitted (now I get to deploy quotation marks) that they were not equivalent to the "violent conduct" that Suarez committed on the pitch.
And then, because the Suarez bite is "uniquely embarassing" FIFA will be compelled to act. But instead of a lifetime ban, you are giving his psychosis a "6 or 12 month suspension from football" to sort itself.
Ok. Again, there's been no example of a player or any sort getting a FIFA lifetime ban - hell, a FIFA-induced months-long ban that extends into domestic club season - for an EPL player. Use your google skills and let me know what you find. It was a bite - he didn't conspire with gamblers or prostitutes. There's a difference and a line that FIFA would need to cross.
Furthermore, someone at FIFA needs to hear your prognosis because initial reports have Suarez facing a much smaller punsihment than you'd like (click here for my google skilz). And yes, domestic clubs would revolt if - on top of their assets returning from the World Cup, Copa and the like all busted up and exhausted like they do now - they were lose players to FIFA suspensions related to international play.
I'm sick of his shit and want him off Reds if Anfield can swing it. But sorry, there's a good chance Suarez will be scoring against your side sometime soon.
Suarez wil be scoring against my side sometime soon? They're going to ship him to Aarau or St. Gallen, they coudln't find a better deal than that? That would be fitting punishment. (I take it from that sentence that you think this is some sort of club-fan vendetta? I don't even watch the EPL; I couldn't possibly care less about what happens to Liverpool, for good or bad.)
I posted those links to point out that it wasn't true that no FIFA ban had ever extended to club level, which was your original claim. Domestic clubs have lost players to FIFA suspensions related to international play. Not special clubs like Liverpool, mind you, just ordinary clubs in leagues you and I don't care about. Sao Paolo lost Roberto Rojas forever, because of something he did in an international match. (I've wondered what would have happened if he'd tried to use the blade on somebody else, instead of himself. Would you get a lifetime ban for trying to kill an opponent or referee on the field, or would that just be a violent foul?)
That doesn't happen for ordinary examples of on-field violent conduct, of course. There's no precedent for Luis Suarez because there is, literally, no precedent for Luis Suarez. Nobody in the history of world soccer has gone around biting opponents. There aren't a whole lot of precedents in the entire adult population, never mind world soccer.
It's still not clear to me, from what you've written, which line it is that you don't think FIFA would cross--the one about it being a bite and not prostitutes/gamblers? Or the one about it being an EPL player?
I don't have the foggiest idea what they'll do, except that I'm sure he's done for this tournament.
It's not at all related to my main argument, but I find myself wondering--if they did choose a harsher punishment and the clubs reacted the way you suggest, would the EPL win a confrontation with FIFA? UEFA was quite happy to do without English clubs altogether, once upon a time, and doesn't seem to have suffered overmuch. I hardly noticed. Maybe I'm wrong but I think if EPL clubs stopped allowing their players to compete internationally, international players would choose another destination for their club football.
I'm not sure why you continue to be unclear: FIFA will not hand out the punishment you want because there is no basis for it. It was a shocking physical outburst, yet ultimately similar in nature to a headbut, punch or elbow - none of which ever got a player a FIFA lifetime ban or other major suspension from a domestic league.
There's no need to try to explain the distinction between Rojas and Suarez. So I won't.
Also yes, the increasing financial significance of the major European clubs and the well-heeled foreign ownership groups now occupying the EPL will probably be a factor in FIFA decision making in this situation. It seems naive to think otherwise. The ownerships do not want the value of their investments damaged by international play. FIFA will not fight this battle by setting a precedent.
Suarez is definitely done for this tournament. Unfortunately, Anfield may decide to go another season because they'd be selling low at this point. Maximizing his value is important because Ajax is owed 10%-15% from a future sale (a "sell on" clause).
Biting someone is not similar to elbowing them or punching them.
I'm not sure why you're confused on this point. Is there really a world out there somewhere where normal adults bite other adults in anger?
It's not similar to using knife or fixing a match, which is what you argue. Again, FIFA thinks it's not completely dissimilar.
I argue that it's not similar to anything. I've said more than once that there's no precedent for this. No one's ever done it once, let alone three times.
A friend reminded me tonight of Joao Pinto, which I'd completely forgotten about and gives an example of a club-level ban that wasn't corruption-related. It's not similar to that either.
You've repeatedly given examples of FIFA bans. That have...no similarities? I'm appropriately enlightened. Where did this Pinto lad play his matches? Right. Not the EPL. Or any other club that I (or much of the football world) give a shit about.
As unique as the Suarez offense was, he will not get a six-month sentience. Just re-read my posts above. I'm gonna resort to story boards or maybe finger puppets if you choose to continue.
That disciplinary stuff is for little clubs in countries that nobody gives a shit about, like Brazil and Chile and Portugal. We're LIVERPOOL!!!! We're the EPL!!!!!
(Honestly, you've never heard of Joao Pinto? Please tell me you're younger than 25 or so.)
Or the severe discipline is for punching refs, fixing games, etc., as you so dillegently proved.
On the other hand, discipline may not be for banning players from domestic clubs in major leagues for shit that occured in international play because, well, FIFA doesn't want to set the precedent and take on the EPL when they know fully well that the EPL is already sick of their players getting otherwise abused abroad and could very well decide to use this event to make their point.
Congrats on being up on Portuguese football. You're a better fan me, or just about anyone else I know.
I am the one who negged every one of your posts in this particular line. I don't know if you just have your head so far up your rearend that you can't read his posts or you're be blatantly obtuse, but your assertion that he keeps bringing up bans that have nothing to do with the conversation is ridiculous. You (or maybe someone else) stated that there is no precedent for FIFA bans to extend to domestic leagues and ALL his example show otherwise.
His intent wasn't to say "Here, look at the examples because they are just like what Suarez did." You're the one that is drawing that comparison, not him and why you keep doing it is beyond me. He's explained from his first post to his last that wasn't what he was saying, but you're so fixated on trying to make yourself believe that your precious Luis will be back playing for Liverpool at the start of the season that you're ignoring what is actually being said.
I also find your assertion that a professional sports league would get up in arms because an international organization suspended an idiot player while on internation assignment for doing something as insane as biting another player. If clubs are worried that even some of their players could fall victim to a suspension for biting other players 3 times than there is much bigger issues at that club and they need to examine their own practices, not FIFA's. If you're silly enough to believe that clubs like this don't take virtually every known risk related to their players out of the equation I don't know what to say to you. These teams are insured to the teeth so that when players are injured, suspended or otherwise miss a certain amount of games they aren't on the hook for paying them. Also, if FIFA were to impose a ban with the hope that it would have any impact it would be a suspension without pay so the club wouldn't suffer from a monetray perspective anyway.
In short I agree with the other guy (if you couldn't tell already) who isn't saying Suarez should have a lifetime ban. His point is there is precedent for FIFA to hand out a suspension that would carry over to club football and that should most definitely be what happens here.
I hope that was deliberate.
Rest of response at the tail of the page. This is getting too narrow.
Cool, I negged you for not reading all of my posts. I said repeatedly that: 1) Suarez should be given some form of FIFA punishment and 2) released/sold from Liverpool.
I gave a number different explanations why I think that FIFA would (and did) go relatively light on Suarez, so take a look if you're inclined. Or just continue to neg me. Whatever works.
It's still mind-boggling to me that we are actually talking about a "biting" incident.
This dude actually BITES people. Unreal haha.
Once? OK...chalk it up to a fluke weirdness or some such. Twice? OK...what are you doing here? THREE times? Dude needs help. And he needs to be sidelined for an extended period of time.
For those of us who also follow the fine TV show "Justified" this whole biting rings a bell.
Timothy Olyphant plays Raylen Givens a US Marshal who has the tendency to get into situation where he has to shoot people. I couldn't find that scene on youtube but it is Season 1 Episode 1. Here is the quote taken from a NY Times review:
"After Givens shoots a man in that Florida hotel and then, upon being transferred to his home state of Kentucky, promptly shoots another, his new boss warns him that he might be getting a reputation. “Put it like this: If you was in the first grade, and you bit somebody every week, they’d start to think of you as a biter.”
I'm afraid Luis Suarez is a "biter".