I came to the conclusion that Suarez's ban should probably be restricted to international duty. Ban him for the next Copa America and a bunch of 2018 qualifying if you have to.
Also, I found Kuyt's running today to be inspiring.
All in all, a shamefully pro-Liverpool day here. We go again!
The thing is, it isn't the first time a ban has gone from club to country, or vice versa, so why should we make an exception? Liverpool have to realise that they aren't the victims here or even an intended target. They're merely a stakeholder in the situation, indirectly affected. The objective of the ban is to deter future assaults by Suarez. There would be no deterrent if all he missed was a tournament that nobody outside of South America cares about and a few WC qualifiers that Uruguay will easily win without their majestic striker. Unfortunately for Liverpool, the only way to have any severity to the ban is through continuity. Banning him from 9 games spread over more than a year would be like him picking up 2 or 3 separate injuries. There'd be no weight to it. If this was his first offence of this kind, or any other outrageous behaviour then I may have agreed with LFC. However, they know what he's like. They know he's someone who will physically or verbally assault fellow professionals when things aren't going perfect for him.
What has happened was always a possibility. They have had a few opportunities to offload him since the previous biting incident but chose not to. All they can be grateful for is that he did it in a Uruguay shirt and not a Liverpool one, as it would have had a stronger effect.
The way I see it, to put football in to real terms. It's like a person having a full-time job and a part-time job at the same time. This person assaulted someone at his full-time job, in a similar way to another assault at a previous job. Now he got arrested and went to court but they gave him a suspended sentence so he could still work at his part-time job but his full-time job suspended him for a couple of months.
Now at his part-time job, he's done a similar thing and has gone to prison for a few months. As a result he cannot work for either his full-time job or his part-time job. Now this isn't an attack by the judicial body upon either company which employs him, but rather against the individual for something he did meanwhile working there. They're punishing the person. Now of course both companies lose an employee, who despite his violent and racist history, was too good to sack. Neither company are victims.