Less than a week after Luis Suarez got hit with an eight-game ban over the Patrice Evra affair and three days after Liverpool announced they won't be appealing his punishment, the club and Merseyside police are investigating whether Tom Adeyemi, an Oldham Athletic midfielder, was racially abused by one or more supporters at Anfield during Friday's 5-1 FA Cup win.

Further evidence that timing matters. And that some in the media and elsewhere have serious issues when it comes to distinguishing between racism and racial abuse, as well as realising the difference between a club, a fanbase and individuals in a crowd.

Then again, what do you expect? For years, many railed against the "rampant racism" elsewhere, mostly in Eastern and Southern Europe, quickly condemning the ignorant masses by the Mediterranean or in former Communist nations as Neanderthal proto-fascists, all the while heralding the efforts of those in the English game towards "eradicating the scourge of racism".

When you've spent the best part of the last few decades generalising about others, you're a hypocrite if you don't do the same about your own, right?

Possibly. Or perhaps you can use this as a "teachable" moment. And actually learn to make some distinctions. Just as racial abuse or monkey noises emanating from a foreign crowd – whether it's at the Bernabeu or behind the former Iron Curtain – do not make an entire nation racist, neither do events at Anfield mean that Liverpool has turned into a National Front outpost.

The truculent way this incident was reported ("The offenders were wearing shirts similar to the ones worn by Liverpool players in their support of Luis Suarez!") almost made you think this dastardly plan to abuse Adeyemi had been hatched at Melwood by the Uruguayan himself.

The fact of the matter is that if something untoward did happen there were one or two offenders. And those who reported them were watching the game from the Kop, ie they were fellow Liverpool fans. The culprits will be identified and dealt with and if they were, in fact, racially abusing Adeyemi (which is not implausible, and certainly far more plausible than the claim the fans were simply singing "You Manc Bastard" at the Norwich born-and-bred player) they'll be punished.

And if that happens, maybe some will remember this the next time somebody gets racially abused in Bulgaria or some other far foreign land. And they'll know that rather than pontificating about the "culture of racism over there" and wallowing in their own smugness at the fact that "it no longer happens in our grounds" they'll accept that it most likely was the isolated – and possibly criminal – actions of a few morons.

AT just before nine o'clock on Friday night, Nick Sutton, editor of Radio 4's The World at One tweeted, as he usually does, the front page of the following day's Independent. Camped in the middle of the page was a photo of a pensive looking Wayne Rooney, with the headline "Exclusive: Ferguson set to let Rooney go".

Just over an hour later, an item denying the story appeared on United's website. It was "issued" by the club, Paul Stretford (Rooney's agent) and Ian Monk Associates, the striker's PR firm. At around the same time, Rooney released his own denial via Twitter, followed shortly thereafter by his wife, Colleen.

The remarkable thing is that all of this happened in the space of less than 90 minutes and that United denied a story which had yet to be printed and which, at the time, existed only as Sutton's twitpic in the twitterverse.

According to the report, which cited a source "close to Manchester United", Sir Alex Ferguson is prepared to sell his star striker during the transfer window because the relationship had "broken down." This may or may not be true and there are plenty of shades of grey: heck, maybe the relationship hasn't broken down, but it's a safe bet that if you show up with Cristiano Ronaldo-type money, Sir Alex would probably gift-wrap Rooney for you.

What is more interesting here is the compression of the news cycle and the power of Twitter. And how, in a very short time, you can get Sir Alex, Rooney (and Colleen), Stretford and Monk to sing from the same hymn sheet.

A MANCHESTER derby at Eastlands in the third round of the FA Cup is the sort of thing that delights neutrals but which Sir Alex needed like a hole in the head. By the end of today, United could find themselves with only the Premier League and – ahem – Europa League left to play for. You have to go back a fair few years to find the last time the club were out of so many comp-etitions so early in the season.

Will Sir Alex wade into the January transfer market in an effort to right the ship? He says he won't, but then it would not be the first time he has muddied the waters. Nothing wrong with that, he's paid by United to do what's best for the club and if telling half-truths is part of it, so be it.

However, it was interesting to hear him rubbish the story linking United with Frank Lampard ("Do you really think Chelsea would sell to us?" he sneered). Because, well, it's not as absurd as it sounds.

Lampard doesn't seem to fit into Andre Villas-Boas' plans. Not in the present and certainly not in the future. And he's the kind of goal- scoring central midfielder with plenty of personality and intelligence that could provide a boost to United in the short-term.

True, he's 33 and earns £6.5 million a season. But actually that's precisely the reason Chelsea could let him go for next to nothing. They have Fifa's Financial Fair Play requirements to worry about and knocking that much off the wage bill, particularly for a player who is not part of their long-term plans, might make sense.

Lampard might even take a pay cut at United if you tack on a season or two at the end of his deal. Paul Scholes played until he was 36. And Ryan Giggs is still going at 38. Maybe it's not that crazy after all.