Why did Suarez refuse to shake Evra’s hand? He apparently believes that Patrice Evra lied about what was said during the Liverpool vs Manchester United game on October 15^th 2011. He acknowledged soon the game that he used the word “negro”; what is under dispute is exactly how he used that word. Either way, it would have been unacceptable, but, strangely, the FA concluded that he had used racist language while stressing that they did not believe Suarez was a racist. Evra said the same thing. This apparent contradiction might have made sense had they accepted Suarez’s explanation (that he used the term in a solely descriptive sense), but not once you consider that they accepted Evra’s testimony, which describes Suarez as saying that he kicked Evra “because you are black” as well as saying “I don’t speak to blacks.”

One of the problems is that the FA Inquiry had a far lower burden of proof than, say, the criminal investigation into allegations that John Terry racially abused Anton Ferdinand, despite the fact that both Suarez and Terry faced similar charges. The reasons for this are mostly procedural, but, whatever one may think of the way the FA went about their business, it’s clear that the charges against Suarez would not stand up in a criminal court. Given that Suarez has faced such a serious allegation – and I don’t accept that somebody who isn’t racist would use racist language so casually – the charge should have been proven.

None of this matters now, though. The commission drew its conclusions, found Suarez guilty, and banned him for eight games. Given the bigger issues at stake, that should have been that. Everyone should have moved on. One of the reasons this hasn’t happened is Liverpool’s handling of the affair, unfortunately exemplified by ‘King’ Kenny Dalglish himself, although he can’t be blamed for Suarez’s snub, which nobody saw coming.

Suarez has now apologised, presumably for political reasons. He still hasn’t apologised to Evra. His refusal to shake the United left-back’s hand demonstrates that he continues to feel that Evra lied about what was said. Given this, one wonders why he hasn’t tried suing him for defamation, although I suppose that isn’t possible now the matter has been dealt with by the FA. However, what’s most interesting about his actions is his refusal to accept that it’s over and done with and that everyone should move on.

I suspect that, for Suarez, this is an issue of honour, a notion that doesn’t sit easily with the adversarial justice system that he faced. Whatever was said, Evra was undoubtedly the victim, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the FA failed to place reconciliation between the two parties at the heart of the process. At the very least, for example, Suarez should have apologised directly to Evra. It’s clear that this lack of closure was no less upsetting for Evra than it was for Suarez. Despite being the victim, he wanted to be able to shake Suarez’s hand in order to prove that everyone had moved on. His solitary over-celebrations at the end of the match, rightly condemned by his manager, demonstrated his regret at being denied some catharsis from what must have been a traumatic episode, irrespective of the over-hyped Liverpool/United rivalry and the importance of the result.

One thing you can’t say about Suarez, though, is that he didn’t take the handshake seriously. It’s a minor pre-match ritual that is taken for granted, but it only has meaning if it is sometimes refused. Personally I’d have fined Suarez two weeks wages and demanded that he apologise to Evra at the end of the game, but I cannot find fault in the courage it must have taken to refuse Evra’s hand. If he does believe Evra has lied about what he has said – and there is no possibility to prove this one way or the other – then he was right to stand up for this belief, especially given the universal opprobrium he now justifiably faces. We live in a world where dishonesty is routine, and we are forced to move on even when we don’t want to. The epigraph for Bret Easton-Ellis’s American Psycho, taken from the columns of ‘Miss Manners’ (Judith Martin), reads: “One of the major mistakes people make is that they think manners are only the expression of happy ideas. There’s a whole range of behaviour that can be expressed in a mannerly way. That’s what civilisation is all about – doing it in a mannerly and not an antagonistic way. One of the places we went wrong was the naturalistic Rousseauean movement of the Sixties in which people said, ‘Why can’t you just say what’s on your mind?’ In civilization there have to be some restraints. If we followed every impulse, we’d be killing one another.” I’ve always had a grudging admiration for people who can’t follow these principles, even if that means attracting hatred. And so, as much as I think Suarez’s actions yesterday were reprehensible, I can’t fault his integrity.

Incidentally United won the game 2-1. Gutted.