Luis Suarez Suspension Exposes Both Progressions and Problems in Society

I, like any clear-thinking person today, do not support racism. I do not believe any person is better or worse than another because of the color of their skin. I do not think that people should get any advantages or disadvantages based on the color of their skin, no matter what that color may be. I certainly believe that no person should be subjected to taunts or made to feel uncomfortable in their work environment because of their color.

Some claim that, in football, this sort of taunt falls under the umbrella of "trash talk," on par with "your mama..." jokes. I dismiss this because of the historical implications of such thoughts and the pain that such insults draw upon.

What I am trying to say is that I believe racism has no place in football or society and that I support the work done by such organizations as Show Racism The Red Card.

Like others, I was surprised by the FA's decision to hand Liverpool's Luis Suarez an eight-match ban for racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra in an October match. The amount of games was unprecedentedly high, making the message all the more clear: Racist remarks will not be tolerated on the pitch.

Many have lauded this decision as a brave statement that, because of the high-profile status of the punished, could change the culture of the sport.

On the other hand, Liverpool FC is livid with the decision, mainly for two reasons.

For one thing, Evra's claim is that Suarez said "a certain word to me at least 10 times." That word was "negrito."  

This word may look insulting (I certainly wouldn't recommend using it casually), but Uruguayans such as the great Gus Poyet have claimed that the word is a loving term in the South American nation from which Suarez hails.

The second factor that Liverpool are fuming over is the proof that Suarez used the word at all. According to the club, "no-one else on the field of play - including Evra's own Manchester United teammates and all the match officials - heard the alleged conversation between the two players in a crowded Kop goalmouth while a corner kick was about to be taken."  

Essentially, this would mean that it was a case of one man's word against another's.

To Liverpool's first qualm, I understand the FA's dismissal of the usage as a mitigating factor. One must know what is appropriate and inappropriate in the environment in which they live. Suarez is not brand new to England and is certainly not brand new to the continent. He must know that the word, whilst being appropriate in his native land, is unacceptable here. And if he doesn't, well, he probably should have.

However, Liverpool's second qualm has made this situation reek of a societal issue that may be arising.

Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that the FA did anything wrong.  I am not going to say that Suarez was innocent of racially abusing Evra, and I am not going to say that the FA does not have evidence that proves Suarez did so.

However, the fact is that no such evidence has been brought to the public's attention, and yet, the decision has been widely embraced. Maybe Suarez did something wrong in the match, but maybe it was just a complete lie by a frustrated opponent. I don't know for sure, and neither does anyone else in the public domain. And yet it seems that his punishment is publicly embraced because even the smallest implication makes him guilty.

Where is the outcry, from other than his club that will miss his play, that a person is innocent until proven guilty? The most troubling dialogues I have seen on the matter suggest that because Evra accused him, then Suarez must be guilty. That is not the way judgments should be passed.

And now it is being accepted that the FA may increase Suarez's ban if he appeals their decision. On what grounds can this possibly be an acceptable outcome?

I understand the FA's lengthy ban for racism and, especially after Sepp Blatter's comments last month, fully applaud it.

However, I, as should you, will await the FA's release of the facts of their investigation before passing judgment on whether they were correct in this instance.

After all, if it is allowed for a man to be punished based solely on another man's word, then justice has not been done, no matter what the circumstances surrounding the allegations.

Allowing someone to be found guilty before proven so is a slippery slope.