Multiple camera angles and the testimonies of all involved I'd hope.

Not much knowledge then. Anyway, there are dozens of foreign media sites and newspapers headlining it with conclusive video if you'd prefer a viewpoint from just about anywhere else on the planet.

They are just presenting what happened. Their headline doesn't even say he bit the player rather posing the question instead.


Surprised the Uruguayan media are saying the British media are blowing it out of proportion. He was voted PL player of the year last season!

Nice to see Brand remembered that he can be funny.

The point with that page is that they're accompanying it with photos from reputable agencies that show the marks on Chiellini's shoulder, which makes it surely unlikely that they've been photoshopped.

Yes, it's not photoshop.. People who think that really have a bizarre blind spot. The first pictures of the bite mark were out within minutes from the internationally respected AFP, Agence France Press, of Paris, and probably others. Then came the conclusive video.

You`ve had their "testimony" - Suarez`s lies and Chiellini saying he was bitten. We`ve already seen the tragically pathetic way his teammates, a bit like you, are saying nothing happened so what else are you waiting for? This wasn`t Dealey Plaza!

The amount of people in denial of the bite is surprising but I guess Suarez has many fans.

Goodness me - they didn't need pictures off TV - there are dozens of stills photographers with top level equipment including massive zoom lenses down to pore level at the games.

Not sure if this has already been mentioned or not but how come the police dont get involved in this ?
Surely its a form of assault which if anyone else in any job had done this would be sacked?
Repeat offenders of this would be jailed .
you just cant go around biting people whether its in your home ,street or football stadium.
If a dog was to bite someone they would probably be put down.
Why do the victims of his biting not press charges against him ?

So, things that we've all already seen and heard then?

You really are grasping at straws here.

Uruguay have until 5pm Brasilia time today to present their case to FIFA.

Came charging into the thread shouting the odds about people prejudging the case based on nothing more than reputation and then had to admit that they hadn't even bothered to watch all the footage. Embarrassing really, just wanted to make it about a personal agenda against the press when that's really of no relevance in this case and doesn't fit the known facts.

Danny Taylor of the Guardian tweeted this at the time of the incident:

I have been trying to think who these "evil media to blame" and "bite deniers" remind me of. It's those Belieber early teen girls.

Oooerow, that looks nasty, Suarez is a savage. Getting 2 years ban I hear.

I think this whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. Yes, he did bite someone - for the third time - but lets look at it in terms of the damage he's caused. Has he seriously injured the other player? No.

It was ill discipline, but I've seen far worse offences on the football pitch, for example, there are plenty of incidents where you have one team deliberately making reckless challenges (think stoke in the PL, holland in 2010 WC final), and in some cases they were career-threatening. This is 100 times worse than what suarez has done, so the other guy has a bite mark, big deal, it would've been gone within a few minutes and its not made a impact on the result of the game either. I think his handball in 2010 was worse as well, which is funny seeing how so many pundits and commentators are willing to praise him for that bit of 'smart' play.

I'm not saying nothing happened. Please don't twist my words like that, that isn't constructive.

With teeth like that no wonder he's got to use them as sort of a weapon ().

He should be reprimanded for this without a doubt. We can't just go on biting each other no matter how much we desire. We are civilized!

So, you`re agreeing Chiellini was bitten by Suarez?

Good....Moving on.

I have to say, as much as Suarez is obviously in the wrong, the hyperbole surrounding the incident is quite frustrating. The Telegraph led with the headline, "Ban this monster!"

Monster? It was an extremely twattish thing to do, and he'll deserve a lengthy international ban, but a 'monster'? isn't that the kind of word we use to describe murderers, rapists and paedophiles? Of course, this kind of exaggeration extends not only to the media, but to pundits and fans alike. All calling for his head. The way I see it, it's a form of violent conduct, for which he has previous. On a basic level, it's no worse than deliberately kicking a player whilst he's down on the ground, except a bite just happens to be really ****ing weird, so naturally it garners more attention. But the punishment that comes to him should be no harsher than if he had deliberately kicked someone 3 times. Violent conduct, in all its forms, is violent conduct.

But then what do I know? I'm a blinkered Liverpool fan.

In my opinion from the one zoomed-in clip I've seen it looks like he bit him. As I said previously, I'd rather listen to the opinion of the people who make the decision based on a lot more evidence than that though.

Was the Telegraph headline not quoting/paraphrasing somebody else?

Genuine question, as I honestly don't know.

Yet you can't tell us what further evidence is required, or even available, over and above what we've seen.

This has probably been shown but this gif clearly shows he went in to bite him

http://a.pomf.se/phdzcy.gif