Quote Roddy B="Roddy B"He wasn't found guilty of it over here so WTF has it got to do with anything?'"
Liverpool bought him when he was serving a ban for biting someone. He's now bit someone on the field for a second time, but because it happened under a different FA everyone should pretend it never existed???
WTFever. Scouse divs.
Quote Roddy BSuarez isn't repeatedly banned for cheating and fouling, so again, WTF does that have to do with anything? Every player in football 'cheats' in one way or another, Suarez does it in a way that upsets people but it shouldn't affect a disciplinary.'"
He does it clearly, stupidly and he's unrepentant after doing it.
The use of the racial slur against Evra at a corner against Man United. The punch in the face of the Chile player in a recent international. And now the biting of an opponent in the box during a Liverpool attack. Don't these show a ridiculous and stupid pattern of behavior to cheat to win?
The FA made themselves look ridiculous by claiming that the reason that John Terry could be charged over the Ferdinand incident was because of his later denial to a TV reporter that he didn't knee the Barca player in the back. That was their "essential new evidence". You're alright with them using that BS argument, but you're completely against looking at what Suarez does on the field because it's against your player.
Quote Roddy BFor the record, I think the ban is too long but he needed an extended ban. Six games IMO would have been adequate. Biting isn't something that's prevalent in the game so it's not like they had to set a precedent or anything. It was a unique incident that caused no harm.'"
Unique for most players, the second time for him.
Quote Roddy BHowever, with regards to the Defoe incident. That very same season Ben Thatcher elbowed Pedro Mendes, correct me if I'm wrong but he was booked at the time but the FA took exception and handed him a further ban, as well as the ban City imposed. Now, IIRC, later on that season Defoe bit Mascherano and they were unwilling to step in as it had apparently been dealt with. If the FA believes it to be worthy of a 10 match ban, surely they couldn't have let something like that slip? I'm not aware of any rule changes that were made with regards to biting, so I dunno.'"
They haven't said it's worthy of a 10 match ban in itself.
They will pretty much say that they recently warned him of his future behaviour after they found him guilty of racially abusing Evra. They will say that the warning to him has been completely ignored. They will note his failure to accept guilt, and his subsequent refusal to shake Evra's hand which caused further negative publicity and animosity between LFC and MUFC.
They will say that biting an opponent is not a normal or understandable behaviour from a grown adult and one that merits special consideration.
