Dear Mr Henry
My name is...
....I have been in construction all my working life as a Surveyor and during this career have been involved in the drafting and defence of many construction disputes and their arbitrations/adjudications. As such, whilst not a lawyer, I do possess a reasonable working insight into how civil legal cases work. In particular how the adversarial judicial system is intended to function with two 'competing' advocates and a just and impartial judgement body.
It is clear the FA's handling of this Evra/Suarez affair has been anything other than just and impartial with no intent - once they made their original decision to adopt Evra's accusation as their own - other than to see to it that their 'independent' body implemented their own surmising that Suarez had been guilty of abuse with racist comment.
Last night, as I read the findings on the Evra/Suarez case, I was staggered at the adversarial nature of the panel's judgement. In its basic approach I felt as if I was reading the case for the prosecution in one of the construction disputes I referred to earlier.
Relating to Suarez, I'd cite just two out of untold instances which jarred for their biased interpretation - how, early in the report, they had laboured so determinedly to rule out 'subjective intention' as a judgement parameter and later, as they attempted to substantiate their ruling, how across several paragraphs they strived so ludicrously to discredit Suarez's testimony as unreliable based upon the distinction between his use at different times during the case of three similar meaning adjectives - 'friendly', 'affectionate' and 'conciliatory'. So one of the reasons a man, who in English is barely intelligible in communicating about a goal he has scored, is held as 'unreliable' is for a marginal distinction in how he conveys in the same English language his abstract intention concerning the Uruguayan street term 'negro'!
Relating to Evra, the panel's bias in his favour is apparent throughout but to demonstrate it most pointedly I'd merely refer back to the initial 'kicking/fouling' incident incident which seams through the whole affair and how the panel have chosen to view it - or more crucially - not to view it. In respect of something so pivotal to everything that subsequently transpired in this entire episode - it beggars belief how a footballing 'knock 'so manifestly innocuous could find any fair minded person steeped in footballing knowledge, let alone a 'body' which is deemed fair and impartial ,
a] failing to express disbelief at the manner and extent of Evra's reaction at the time
b] having the gall to refer to Evra being in a state of 'shock' some 5 minutes later at the time of the goalmouth confrontation episode and then citing Evra as merely 'partly' as distinct from 'wholly' responsible for the confrontation which then took place
The nature of so much similar 'analysis' within their findings showed me that this was no independent 'body 'seeking to determine what had actually transpired that day and thus ensure the implemention of impartiality and justice. Rather, this was a 'body' seeking to protect and implement a pre-determined decision of the body that had appointed it - namely that the accused party was guilty.
Just how incompetant and possibly corrupted the FA have been in their handling of this affair is yet to be fully determined. However what is glaring from the published findings of their so-called independent panel is that there has categorically been nothing 'independent' about it - rather it has been merely an instrument to ensure the implementation of Patrice Evra's claim of abuse with racist comment.
I am sure you are already determined to fight this travesty Mr Henry. I would urge you to do so by taking it to the highest profile available so that the sham which is our FA and the hypocrisy they represent can be exposed for what it is.
Kind regards
