yes i agree maybe 8 games is to much but sorry suarez is not innocent like liverpool supporters and sadly the club are making out , plus the hypocrisy is unbelievable no body wants suarez banned but are happy to see evra banned just because he is a manchester united player and i am only interested in getting our own house in order .
Suarez is innocent of the accusations that were initially made against him i.e. that he called Evra a 'N1gger' and that he did so at least 10 times.
Suarez was also entitled to be innocent until and if proven guilty of anything hence the club's support.
The club acknowledged from day 1 that Suarez used the word Negro once. (though in Spanish and within a specific context)
As to whether he used it more than once has still not been proven with a standard of evidence that the man in the street would expect and hence the club's continued support.
In a nusthell, the club supported Suarez against the exaggerated claims and the overreaction in good faith i.e. on the basis of Suarez version of events and that there was no real categorical evidence to the contrary.
The fact that the club could've handled it better is a different point. It doesn't detract from the fact that Suarez has been found to be innocent of the original accusations against him.
In a case as complex as this I don't think you should make generalised, blanket statements like 'suarez is not innocent like liverpool supporters and sadly the club are making out'. Or lazy statements like you said earlier about me not chosing to see the evidence that you say is in the public domain - I find that very offensive given that I have read the report and conducted a debate with you in a reasoned manner on a point by point basis. You can't seem to back up your statements with specific detail.
Of course Suarez is not a saint. which footballer is? I don't think anybody is saying that Suarez is a totally innocent party. The point is that he is innocent of the original accusation against him and also that the FA's charge against him has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt - the panel decided the case only on a balance of probabilities based on their interpretation of events and using their logic but not on factual evidence. Would you yourself be happy to be branded a racist on this forum let alone in the national press on that level of evidence or proof?