This case is not simply about one person's word against another. Whilst there were conflicting accounts of what happened which were presented to us by Mr Evra and Mr Suarez, there was other relevant evidence which we were able to take into account in reaching our decision. This other evidence included video footage of the match; the evidence of others as to what happened during or immediately after the match; documentation in the form of the referee's report which was based on conversations he had immediately after the match; transcripts of interviews with the main protagonists and other witnesses conducted in the course of the FA's investigation before witness statements were prepared for the purpose of this hearing; and the evidence given to us by other witnesses quite apart from Mr Evra and Mr Suarez, including expert witnesses on Spanish language. We reached our decision on the basis of a consideration of the totality of the evidence attaching such weight as we considered appropriate to the different elements of it.
The discrepancies between what Mr Dalglish and Mr Comolli reported to the referee on the one hand, and Mr Suarez's evidence as to what he said on the other hand, have not been satisfactorily explained. At the very least, they demonstrate a confusion in Mr Suarez's initial account of what he said, and an apparent inconsistency between that account and the case that he advanced before us.
The position, therefore, is as follows. Mr Suarez spoke in Spanish to Mr Comolli soon after the game about this serious allegation. Mr Suarez also spoke in Dutch to Mr Kuyt. Both Mr Comolli and Mr Kuyt understood
Mr Suarez to have told them that when he spoke to Mr Evra he said words which translate into English as, "Because you are black". According to Mr Suarez, Mr Comolli misheard what Mr Suarez said in Spanish, and Mr Kuyt misheard what Mr Suarez said in Dutch.
The second aggravating factor was what Mr Suarez said when using the insulting words.
He did not simply use the word "negro" to address Mr Evra. He did that, but he also said that he had kicked Mr Evra because he was black, and that he did not talk to blacks. Even if Mr Suarez said these things in the heat of the moment without really meaning them, nevertheless this was more than just calling Mr Evra "negro".
According to the Spanish language experts, the uses would have been regarded as racially offensive in Uruguay.
266. In our judgment, Mr Suarez's use of the term was not intended as an attempt at conciliation or to establish rapport; neither was it meant in a conciliatory and friendly way. It was not explained by any feeling on Mr Suarez’s part that a linguistic or cultural relationship had been established between them or that the context was one of informal social relations.
The video footage, when viewed in detail and when looked at as a whole, shows that the players continued their animosity throughout this incident. Their hostility is shown in their actions and demeanour before, at the moment of, and after Mr Suarez's admitted use of the word.
267. Once more, we were troubled by the fact that Mr Suarez advanced this case to us and relied on it to the extent that he did, when it was unsustainable. The suggestion that he behaved towards Mr Evra at this time in a conciliatory and friendly way, or intended to do so in using the word "negro", is, in our judgment, simply not credible. His evidence is again inconsistent with the video footage. Once again, there was no satisfactory explanation for this inconsistency.
303. There are a number of other surprising aspects to what Mr Dalglish and Mr Comolli told the referee. We accept that the referee's report accurately records what they told him. Its accuracy was not challenged by Mr Suarez.
304. Mr Dalglish told the referee that Mr Suarez responded with "you are black" having first been taunted with "you are South American". Mr Comolli is not recorded as using the word "taunted", but said that Mr Evra said "you are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues negro" which translates "you are Black". There is no suggestion here that Mr Evra had said "Don't touch me", yet this seems now to be an essential part of Mr Suarez's evidence. We were not given any explanation as to why the referee was not told that Mr Evra had said "Don't touch me, South American", as opposed to "you are South American". Secondly, at least as expressly reported by Mr Dalglish, Mr Suarez's remark was a riposte to being taunted by Mr Evra. If that is correct, it would suggest that Mr Dalglish understood Mr Suarez's comment to be in the nature of retaliation for having been called "South American". But that would suggest that the riposte "You are black" was used in a derogatory sense, which is contrary to Mr Suarez's case. In fact, Mr Suarez told us that he did not consider being described as South American to be derogatory, so it is difficult to understand why this was referred to as a "taunt".
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplin...ommission.ashx
If you need more proof - read the entire 115 page report. He admitted to it, and his thick as **** teammate Kuyt and Football Operations Director Comolli did the same. It is damning of Suarez, and Liverpool. In fact, the FA said, they considered giving him an even greater punishment, but because he was so contrite during the hearing, they settled on 8 matches.