Arsenal News
Arsenal News & Transfers
As featured on NewsNow: Arsenal newsArsenal News 24/7

Arsenal News, Only Arsenal, Blogs, Transfer News

Archives

November 2017
M T W T F S S
« Oct    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

It is not about Suárez: it is about protecting the players he plays against

By Tony Attwood

Most of the publicity about Suarez’ biting has been about punishing him.  But there is another dimension – a much more important dimension.  That is the issue of protecting players from being bitten by him.

As I said last time around, I felt there was evidence that Suárez was not getting psychological help.  Now it seems that is true.

More on that in a moment, but let’s deal with something else first.

We now know that not only has Suarez bitten three players, but now it has emerged that there was also a “very nearly” incident when Uruguay and Italy met in the 2013 Confederation Cup.  The pictures and the full story appeared in the Independent – click here

Liverpool’s comment about the biting incident meanwhile has been limited to noting on their web site that Suarez played the 90 minutes.  Nothing more, which doesn’t exactly show the high moral standing that Rodgers had when he got annoyed at Suárez wanting to leave Liverpool.  More like the moral standing of the Liverpool MD who boasted that he lied to Arsenal about the Suárez contract.

Meanwhile in Brazil there are commentators saying that biting is normal – and comparing it with an elbow in the face.

So maybe it is a cultural issue – but even so, anyone who is bitten needs urgent medical attention – and that is not pleasant.  I have taken the trouble to consult a hospital nurse, Siobhan, and she tells me that human bites cause more problems and more damage to the recipient than dog bites.

Anyone receiving a human bite not only needs a number of HIV tests (and you’ll of course be aware of what the situation would be if the results came back HIV positive) but also needs a series of injections, whether HIV is there or not.

These injections, I am told, are thoroughly unpleasant and can themselves cause much discomfort and temporary illness.

As things stand therefore, in each case of biting on a football pitch, the player in question might get nothing at all by way of punishment (as Uruguay request) a one or two match ban (as some in Brazil who have been reported on Five Live are suggesting), or a repeat of the type of ban he has had before (seven or ten matches perhaps).

But the player who is bitten could suffer from the after effects all his life (if Aids is involved) or for many months, even if not.  This doesn’t seem quite right to me.

Thus the notion that there is a cultural difference between parts of south America where biting and spitting are not looked upon as offensive as they are in Europe, has a hole in it.   But it is not the cultural issue that is at the centre of all this, it is whether the perpetrator or the victim should suffer the most.

If Suárez continues to play for Liverpool, then Liverpool, by accepting his as a player will become open to legal cases from any other player that Suárez bites.  Liverpool now know that he has bitten three times, and attempted to bite a fourth time, and as the medical report below suggests there is every chance he will do it again.

If they play him, and he does do it again, then they could certainly be charged with negligence – and not negligence of something culturally considered unpleasant, but negligence in terms of the effect the action has on the player who is bitten.  This is different from Shawcross meting out his form of punishment on a player who can get by him, because Shawcross could not be proven to be liable to do this at any moment.

But with Suárez things are different.

Liverpool have a particular problem here.  They defended Suárez so strongly over the Evra racial abuse case their credibility is looking thin – especially with them being the only media outlet with an interest in the man not to be running the story.

So we are at the point of saying that even a one year ban might well not keep other footballers safe.

Here’s another problem for Liverpool.   Suárez is said to have been pushing for a move away from Liverpool.  Liverpool could still sell him, but his value in Europe must now be lower because other clubs are going to protest at him being in the team because of the danger to the well-being of their own players.   It is quite likely that every other club will demand extra insurance for their players if Suárez is in the team.  The cost to Liverpool of insurance against the problems that biting can cause would be beyond belief – if they could get insurance at all.

There are more credibility problems around.  The PFA and Footballer Writers’ Association voted the man footballer of the year, which speaks not just of his football but also his humanity.  They ignored both his biting and the Evra case – plus if you want to go on, his diving.  Their credibility is shot to pieces now.  The PFA and FWA will try and hide the giving of the award, but some naughty blogs will remind them.  I can’t think which blog, but I am sure someone will keep bringing it up.

Of course amidst the tragedy and the pain of the injections and protection against whatever was in the Suárezian blood stream there is some black humour.  Like the suggestion that has been made that Chiellini inflicted the wounds on himself before he went out to play because Suárez was an easy target.  Oh and he did that because the English press paid him to.

Now I know I am endlessly critical of the English press, but even Untold doesn’t go this far with its accusations.

One other thing that has come to light following the earlier Untold suggestion that Suárez has not had any counselling (based on observations of this behaviour) – this has now been confirmed.  Apparently after he attacked Branislav Ivanovic he was offered it, but preferred not to take it.  One psychologist who studied that attack considered it so uncontrolled that without concentrated psychiatric help at once Suárez would be bound to offend again within five years.

I wish I had found that report when I wrote the last piece!  Refusal to accept medical help is always a material fact in such cases.  If this were to be a real court rather than a Fifa court that refusal would be a key piece of evidence against Suárez.

So now we wait on Fifa, on Liverpool, and on the reaction of every team that has to play a team with Suárez in it.

But I’ll tell you something trivial.  If I were lucky enough to be younger and supremely talented as a footballer, I’d refuse to play in a team with him on the pitch.  Even if it meant that I got sent home and transferred.  There are some risks to future health that are too great to take.

Recent posts

 

 

61 comments to It is not about Suárez: it is about protecting the players he plays against

  • Lobsta

    If it is indeed the case that he was offered help and he refused, then there is no apparent solution but to keep him as far away from a football field as possible. That whole thing about not being able to help someone who doesn’t want to be helped is absolutely true.
    So if he really rejected psychological intervention (like u say he did, but don’t state where u got that information from), then, for the sake of the good of the sport and and everyone involved in it, he has to go

  • ace

    I dont care about suuarez why u even writing about liverpool player we wanna no news abwt our beloved arsenal

  • Mandy Dodd

    Wow, thats quite a can of worms that has been opened up. Interesting input from the nurse in this article.
    From this, I would say that any player who believes he is about to be bitten has the right to defend himself …at least to a degree… with inpunity…perhaps even in a way which may not look pretty to the watching millions…then you have anarchy on the pitch, with the easily led aping every action.
    If he has been allowed by Liverpool to avoid professional help on this issue, I am utterly amazed. They are owned by citizens of the most litigious country on earth, they really should know better. Suarez recently signed a bumper contract, surely there were clauses in there over his future behaviour, and not bringing the clubs brand into disrepute.
    Can see Liverpool selling him abroad as soon as what they consider a half decent offer comes in.
    There was much debate over whether we should have signed Suarez last summer, he may well have helped us to the double, but long term, I think Mr Henry has dodged us a bullet, a large calibre exploding after impact bullet designed to cause maximum internal and external damage

  • john

    I always felt that Suarez would not be a suitable signing for us. His habitual cheating by diving was enough for me to take this view, regardless of his propensity to assault people. I don’t want to seem pious, but I do value Arsenal’s reputation above the idea of success at any price.

    Most comments from Liverpool fans that I have seen now appear to favour getting rid of him, despite his obvious talent and contribution to their relative success.

  • Brickfields Gunners

    Some suggestions for future Liverpool t-shirts to commemorate the event.
    Fangs for the memories !
    We have the only EPL striker with bite !

  • Mike T

    Very interesting .

    The issue about Liverpool should it happen again, being potentially exposed should the case go to law is very interesting and something I had not even considered before I read this article.

    Had Chelsea or Ivanovic taken action or indeed had Merseyside Police stepped in then we could well had been a year ahead of where we are today.

  • jambug

    He’s got a 9 game ban.

  • jambug

    He’s also banned for 4 months from ANY football.

    ANY FOOTBALL.

  • jambug

    To summerise.

    He is banned from International football for 9 matches starting immediately.

    He has a right of appeal but this does NOT suspend the sanction.

    He is banned from playing ANY football for 4 Months including in the PL and Europe.

  • jambug

    He also is banned from entering any football ground for the duration of the ban.

  • jambug

    £66,000 fine as well

  • Shakabula Gooner

    I also hope that Liverpool make it mandatory for him to get psychiatric help during the period of his ban and beyond – if deemed necessary to ensure that other players are safe around him.

  • jambug

    Liverpool fans whinging already.

    Of course they are, because as we all know IT’S NEVER THERE FAULT.

    Maybe if there CEO hadn’t lied this would all be our problem.

    Oh well, what goes around comes around.

  • Ben

    and he has been banned for 9 games and 4 months

    http://www.businessinsider.com/luis-suarez-banned-2014-6

  • bjtgooner

    If Suarez is banned from ANY football for 4 months – does that mean he is not allowed to train?

    At first sight the Fifa punishment looks quite lenient and so far there is not indication of medical assessment and help being tied in to the return date.

  • bjtgooner

    ….so far there is no indication….

  • Super Singh

    What will be interesting is what Liverpool FC comment on their player? If they remain silent then that will tell the world that LS is bigger than the club?
    But if they do sanction against him, then he will feel unsupported and angle for a move. But I don’t think Liverpool will get anyway nearer the asking price they are looking for?

  • Super Singh

    Guess the £4000001 might not have been a bad price? Lol

  • Dave C

    Karma’s a bitch…

  • jambug

    bjtgooner

    Not allowed in ANY ground for 4 Months. That includes Uruguays remaining games.

    Not allowed to train at any football ground.

    Is allowed to be transferred.

  • jambug

    To clarify. He is not allowed to train with Uruguay, Liverpool or any other Club, for 4 Months.

  • bjtgooner

    @jambug

    Thanks. The reason I asked the question is that if he cannot train to full fitness then theoretically he cannot play end Oct, early Nov.

    He could train on his own to maintain some fitness, but he would not really be ready to play immediately the ban is lifted. It will be interesting to see just when Diverpool play him.

  • WalterBroeckx

    The full verdict from Fifa:

    Luis Suárez suspended for nine matches and banned for four months from any football-related activity

    The FIFA Disciplinary Committee has reached a decision in the case related to Luis Suárez of Uruguay following an incident that occurred during the FIFA World Cup™ match between Italy and Uruguay played on 24 June 2014.

    The FIFA Disciplinary Committee has decided that:

    – The player Luis Suárez is regarded as having breached art. 48 par. 1 lit. d of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) (assault), and art. 57 of the FDC (an act of unsporting behaviour towards another player).

    – The player Luis Suárez is to be suspended for nine (9) official matches. The first match of this suspension is to be served in the upcoming FIFA World Cup™ fixture between Colombia and Uruguay on 28 June 2014. The remaining match suspensions shall be served in Uruguay’s next FIFA World Cup match(es), as long as the team qualifies, and/or in the representative team’s subsequent official matches in accordance with art. 38 par. 2a) of the FDC.

    The player Luis Suárez is banned from taking part in any kind of football-related activity (administrative, sports or any other) for a period of four (4) months in accordance with art. 22 of the FDC.

    – A stadium ban is pronounced against the player Luis Suárez in accordance with art. 21 of the FDC as follows: the player Luis Suárez is prohibited from entering the confines of any stadium during the period of the ban (point 3). The player Luis Suárez is prohibited from entering the confines of any stadium in which the representative team of Uruguay is playing while he has to serve the nine-match suspension (point 2).

    – The player Luis Suárez is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of CHF 100,000.

    The decision was notified to the player and the Uruguayan FA today.

    “Such behaviour cannot be tolerated on any football pitch, and in particular not at a FIFA World Cup when the eyes of millions of people are on the stars on the field. The Disciplinary Committee took into account all the factors of the case and the degree of Mr Suárez’s guilt in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code. The decision comes into force as soon it is communicated,” said Claudio Sulser, chairman of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee

    does this mean no transfer possible?

  • jambug

    Walter

    According to SKY, who did seem to take some time to look into this, he can be transferred.

  • nicky

    Now we’ve been told the punishment, what about the rehab?
    Because without it, there will the inevitable repetition.
    Players like Suarez will never change without sustained treatment.
    Remember he was a practised diver before becoming a carnivore.

  • oldgroover

    I think that he’s been given the minimum punishment and is really lucky to get away with only nine matches. Of course Liverpool & Uruguay have gone into denial (well, they would wouldn’t they?), and the abuse Suarez will get from the fans of other teams from now on will be merciless and once again he’s going to cost Liverpool their biggest chance of winning the Premiership. Always a silver lining!

  • AL

    Didn’t the FA suspend part of his punishment for the ivanovic incident on condition he didn’t do it again? Surely that should be kicking in now, if they did.

  • menace

    HIV is not an issue with human bite unless both people bleed. Tetanus, hepatitis and other bacterial infections are a risk.

    Suarez is sadly in need of a whole heap of treatment. He has a psychological problem and is a menace to society. I wonder if FIFA are aware of his prior attempt to bite Chiellini? The action of his team mate Ramires shows that there is knowledge of his issue within the team. FIFA are not sufficiently organised to deal with the issues raised. It needs The FA, UEFA, the Dutch FA and FIFA to act together in deciding this issue. The press & media are irresponsible not bringing the whole picture to the notice of the footballing authorities. This man could bite a child’s neck just as easily. He might have some serious mental issues.

  • Linz

    There was a Dr on Talksport in the early hours of y/day morning who had initially been on after Suarez bit Ivanovic.They replayed the audio from his initial appearance and this Doctor predicted that he would do it again within a year.He was only a couple of months out. Liverpool have Dr Steve Peters contracted to working with them who,although mainly working with sportsmen and women these days,used to work with seriously disturbed criminals at Broadmoor and other institutions.One would have thought that working intensively with Dr Peters would have been a prerequisite of being offered his lucrative new contract last year.I am hearing that Liverpool are planning to take legal action against Fifa. Pathetic.

  • Paul Blythe

    Apparently Chellini is acting very strange
    very withdrawn uncharacteristically quiet….
    maybe no so strange, after all
    once bitten…..

  • Mike T

    Suraez is a fantastic footballer but there is no doubt his is damaged goods.

    He was when he was at Ajax, they couldn’t wait get rid of him quick enough when Liverpool signed him when he was subject to a ban for biting. Liverpool knew what they were getting into no high standards they accepted the player warts, teeth and all.

    At Liverpool he was found guilty of biting again and banned yet Arsenal were prepared to ignore he clear evidence that he was damaged goods , was a repeat offender and that the expert and informed advice was that he would repeat again. He was banned yet Arsenal were prepared to sign him warts, teeth and all.

    Some, certainly not all, on here by virtue of their comments with regard to Liverpool rejecting the £40 million +£1 offer from Liverpool clearly were prepared to accept the player warts, teeth but at the same time are very quick to judge other clubs actions claiming the high moral ground.

    Had he signed for you there is little doubt that your club would now have faced the real prospect of being dragged through the mud and in truth it would have been justified . So you should all thank God, Allah or whoever (delete as appropriate) your offer for him was rejected

  • AL

    Mike T
    I don’t think anyone is under any illusion what a disturbed person Luis is now. But I don’t think this was the case when we attempted to sign him. Most thought that the incidents were just a bit of mischief, not a serious underlying problem. This has since become clear to everyone with this latest incident. I bet if Liverpool knew last summer what they know now they’d have grabbed the £40m+$1 in a flash. That Madrid and Barcelona were willing to go toe to toe in a £100m+ bidding war over him just cements the idea that noone really saw the extent of the disturbance to what it really is. I doubt there’ll be any bidding war after this, very very unlikely. I think he’ll just go back to Liverpool as he hasn’t got any choice. And it’s clear he will most likely do it again. Just take a look at his crazed and glazed like look when he attempts to nibble Chiellini in the confederations cup. They say a picture paints a thousand words, well in this case I say that’s 100% correct. That is a look of a disturbed person, someone who appears to be in a trance and not in control of himself. Scary.

  • menace

    AL – Scary indeed. There must be something that drew him to Chiellini twice. He is almost lupine in his appearance and may have some lunar connection in his behaviour. I hope the FA do not allow him licence to play in the EPL. The FIFA reaction is poor as they have not asked for any medical reports or treatment. The mistackle or physical foul is not similar to the affliction that draws a bite.

  • Mike T

    @Al

    Sorry he was disturbed when he bit for the second time just as he was when he was sold by Ajax.
    Arsenal were prepared to take the player on with the undoubted baggage.
    Listening to many of the experts it is clear that Suarez has a mental health issue. The irony is that within UEFA, FIFA & FA there doesn’t seem to be any process for such eventualities.

  • bjtgooner

    @Mike T

    “Arsenal were prepared to take the player on with the undoubted baggage.”

    Is this statement based on the assumption that the £40m + 1 bid was a serious bid and not a vapor transfer or distraction? Or do you have additional knowledge on this subject which you would like to share with us?

    Further, I trust you share the joy of the greater number of contributors to this site that, as you put it, Arsenal will not have to face the “real prospect of being dragged through the mud”.

  • Alex

    There is no question in my mind that the guy will need a serious psychological help.And for me that is that.

    Four months ban from any football for merely a bite .I wonder what is thinking RAMSEY EDUARDO and DYABI.
    Not only Suarez need some psychological help i guess i need to as i do not understand with this FIFA ruling.

  • Mike T

    @bjtgooner

    You are in denial if you think it was some sort of clever ploy as opposed to a serious bid. Or are you suggesting that Arsenal intentions weren’t honourable and akin to the actions you in many many instances imply that Arsenal and by association AW would never employ?

    Your manager confirmed the saga during his press conference on Friday 1 November 2013 when he said

    “It was not the most subtle thing we have done but it was not meant to be provocative at all. It could be interpreted like that but it was not our purpose.

    ‘Relations are good — we kept in touch over that period. I don’t want to dwell on that situation. It was one of the transfers that didn’t work and in every club you have two or three like that. Life is about opportunities that you miss, some that you take.

    I am glad so many were glad that he didn’t sign for you.In truth you dodged a bullit

  • AL

    Mike T
    Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I bet you would not have been saying this e year ago. And if clubs like Barca and Madrid only saw it fit to bid around £100m only two weeks ago, why would a bid from Arsenal a year ago look that bad? It all shows this latest incident has exposed the seriousness of the issues he has. Anyway, what looks bad; a bid of 40m from arsenal, or 100m from Madrid/Barca? Does it mean all 3 clubs (Arsenal/Barca?Madrid) are bonkers then Mike? I bet after he put England to the sword, you, and many others, would not have bat an eyelid had he been sold for £100m. But right now any team offering half that would be viewed as crazy.

  • menace

    After careful thought, Wenger might have wanted Bonzer to quieten the media. He would have been ideal as a sniffer prior to entry at the Ems.

    Whatever you guys do don’t call me pal. He might attack me!!

  • bjtgooner

    @Mike T

    Knowing you are a Chelski supporter I don’t think you are in a strong position to make comments about the honor of another club. 🙂

    As usual you dodge the questions put to you.

    Just to return to one of your earlier points: –

    “Some, certainly not all, on here by virtue of their comments with regard to Liverpool rejecting the £40 million +£1 offer from Liverpool clearly were prepared to accept the player warts, teeth but at the same time are very quick to judge other clubs actions claiming the high moral ground.”

    I think you do UAs a disservice with that remark. But, perhaps you would like to share your thinking with us.

  • Mike T

    Al

    Had anyone bid £100 million he would have already been gone.

    As a footballer he is fantastic and had he signed for you and played as well s he did for Liverpool then quite possibly you would have won the league.

    Most clubs nowadays look far deeper into a player when they buy them compared to say buying a player 10 years ago.

    If you look at players that cause problems at their clubs in England very very few come from outside the UK. Ajax couldn’t get him out the door quick enough. What did that tell you?

    He is an undoubted talent but the issues that surround he, and has since 2009/10 so its not about hindsight it always going to be so.

  • menace

    Mike T
    We would have won the league & crufts!!

  • Mike T

    bjtgooner

    AW stated in November that Arsenal did make a bid.

    In July 2013 and months before AW confirmed the bid Tony wrote a very well argued piece about the possible transfer
    http://untold-arsenal.com/archives/30065

    Read the article, read the comments and you will see why I made my comments. You wont accept them, but then you never do!

  • bjtgooner

    @Mike T

    The fact that Arsenal made a bid is not in question, the point I was making was whether or not you had information to prove the bid was genuine, or was it a “vapor bid”.

    I don’t see that you have clarified that point. Thank for the link above – very welcome, but it does not help your cause, I particularly like Tony’s line: –

    “So for me the hope is that this is a ploy, a little game, a bit of mucking about, and that Gonzalo Higuaín is still on his way.”

    So basically, if you cannot be sure whether or not the bid for Suarez was genuine or vapor then your sentence at 9.10am: –

    “He was banned yet Arsenal were prepared to sign him warts, teeth and all.”

    is not substantiated.

    Mike, I don’t know if the bid was genuine or vapor – and apparently neither do you, therefore your comments about Arsenal’s readiness to sign him seem misplaced.

  • oldgroover

    Mike T
    Thanks for the link.
    I’d forgotten that and it’s very surprising how many comments (including those by Walter) were pro Suarez.
    I doubt that if he had joined us the Wenger effect wouldn’t have stopped him from continuing his obnoxious behaviour.
    Apparently he’s still a target for Spanish clubs and lets hope for the sake of out team’s success’ that he goes to one of them.

  • oldgroover

    Wish there was an editing facility here. That should have read: the Wenger effect would have stopped him and not wouldn’t have.

  • Mike T

    bjt goner

    You really are in a world all of your own where invented phrases take a meaning all of their own.

    Clubs make enquiries about players all the time, they play games but when its down to making offers you don’t do it via a text its formal and there is absolutely no doubt that Arsenal made an offer and had it been accepted Suarez baggage and all would have signed.

    The comments from Tony were made before AW confirmed the bid and the fact that it was a real attempt by Arsenal to sign the player . I am not surprised that you cant see that as on many occasions you fail to see the wood for the trees! You spectacles are rose tinted

    As I said I have answered you just don’t like what is being said!

    @Oldgrrover

    I found bot the article really interesting. Its interesting how things pan out.
    All I was trying to point out that many on here (as I said not all) were ok with him signing for you which based on their comments on other matters is /was strange

  • AL

    Suarez is an enigma, I don’t think anyone will ever understand him. I mean if you try to connect that bawling at crystal palace with this, something’s terribly wrong with him.

  • bjtgooner

    @Mike T

    Now Mike you are really being a bit naughty with your first line.

    I have not invented any phrases, I have asked you to clarify, so far your clarification is inadequate and as usual with your debates you move from the point of interest to something else as a distraction.

    The bid by AW for Suarez – was it made knowing Liverpool would not accept? Had Liverpool accepted (and been honest) did AW still have a way out – he still had to agree wages with Suarez and Suarez still had to pass a medical, but low wages would have killed the deal, as would a low percentage for the agent.

    Was the Suarez bid designed only as a distraction – to keep the attention of the obscenely rich gazumpers from the real target(s)? Who knows, apart from AW?

    So Mike, your assertions made earlier are not proven.

    Unless, as requested earlier, you have additional information, I see no purpose in continuing what will become a cyclic debate.

  • Mike T

    @bjtgooner

    Wenger confirms Arsenal were after Suarez, Liverpool confirm they received two bids yet you have somehow convinced yourself it was all a game.
    Agents, middlemen whatever you want to call them would have
    carried out much of the ground work before formal offers were even made. That’s how it works. That’s why Arsenal arrived at the £40 million +£1.

    As for a medical I agree that Suraez has issues but there is no way Arsenal would invent a physical issue to get out of the deal. If you think they would and expect to get away with such an approach then you really are living in some sort of different universe. Medicals and professionals just wouldn’t work like that

    Was Suarez bid a distraction? Get real as they say wake up and smell the coffee

  • bjtgooner

    @Mike T

    Mike – unless you can get inside AW’s brain you cannot know what the purpose of his bid was. You can speculate – and so can everyone else – but you have not provided proof as to whether it was a phantom bid or one with genuine intent.

    Without that proof the assertions you make in your 9.10 am post would appear to be unsubstantiated.

  • WalterBroeckx

    Maybe last summer Wenger planned to buy Suarez AND get him the help he clearly needed and now still needs? How about that option?

  • Mike T (@5.36pm),

    Thanks for that link. It brought back the memories of last pre-season. It is great fun to read my exchanges with Walter who was pro-Suarez at the time. It feels so prophetic reading those comments now. I am just glad that we never got him.

    It is also interesting that Arsenal would go on to win our first trophy without the vampire in our team. It is sad what many fans were willing to sacrifice for silverware.

  • Walter,

    Stop banging on that drum. Wenger is a manager and yes, a great one BUT he is not a psychiatrist and what Suarez needs is serious psychiatric help.

  • Mandy Dodd

    Think arsenal went below the perceived market value for Suarez as even last summer, he was damaged goods. Many will justifiably debate whether this was right or wrong, but watch Barca do exactly the same in coming weeks. 60 Mil or less with….reported arsenal targets Sanchez or pedro may do it??? Liverpool will be seriously weakened when they lose him, for all his faults….and all those penalties the pgmol gave Liverpool in the EPL last season

  • GoingGoingGooner

    I think Mike T is correct. A player of the calibre of Luis Suarez will always have suitors-Arsenal included. We have a great deal of confidence in Arsene Wenger and his leadership and we believe that he can help wayward players – this, too, may be misguided. We have released players who have not behaved well (Bendtner comes to mind) but not one that was scoring goals for us at the same time. We also think that we would be more discrete and less tribal if one of our players were to do what Suarez has just done. We’ll never know.

  • Gord

    I was away to a place where radio means country music and bible thumping, and no mention of World Cup. Football/soccer? That isn’t a sport. Nobody plays it. Except it is the most popular sport int he community, or in the top 2 or 3. Everywhere in Canada.

    Fine, I get back to an internet connection, and find Suarez has been an idiot again.

    I have never been in a fight, I have had martial arts training. Out of all the places to punch someone, punching anyone in the mouth is about the stupidest place to punch someone. The human mouth is quite vile. For years, people thought that all of the problem of the bite of the kimodo dragon was the flora and fauna of its mouth, and then we found that animal actually does have some poison its bite. Most of the animals killed by the bite of the kimodo dragon, are killed by the flora and fauna of the mouth environment, not by this miniscule poison.

    A bite is potentially lethal, from the infections it brings. It can cause a lifetime of grief. You want another minor problem cause by a bite, Lyme disease. How about malaria or sleeping sickness? Bacterial meningitis? The black plague? Are any of these transmissible?

    In Canada, a dog is allowed one bite. If Suarez bites again, he should be kicked in the jaw to the extent that his jaw is permanently wired.

    People have mentioned gaming the system if players who cause extensive damage cannot play until the player they damaged can return. Such gaming is likely detectable.

    The coach of Uruguay is completely wrong. And if he boycotts committees because his psychotic can’t play, that is just too bad. People need to be protected from idiots like Suarez.

    At whatever age Suarez is, I will suggest it is not worth anyone’s time or money to try and rehab him.

    But rehab is what he needs in bushels, before he is allowed to play football with civilized people.

  • Gord

    While it is hard for fans, it is easier for managers and owners. Trust Suarez? Just let him bite you (and draw blood) in public.

  • menace

    Apparently Bonzer has had a gnash at 8 players. That was on BBC news. How soon is he going to have a bite at an Arsenal player?

    I hope our boys don’t have the aroma that excites his taste buds!!!