Calcio’s Greatest Shame

http://www.milanobsession.com/2014/07/calcios-greatest-shame.html

A pretty amazing article written by a Milan supporter on the events of Calciopoli and how most people dont know what actually happened.

"What Milanisti remember about the 2006-07 season is that we won our most recent Champions League trophy. But no one remembers the blood on our hands when we did, or why we shouldn’t have even been in Serie A or Champions League that season."

"But what did change was that all of the new wiretaps showed conclusively what some had said all along: Juventus were the least guilty of those charged and should not have been relegated. Inter and Milan were two of the most guilty clubs, and absolutely should have been relegated."

He also goes on to expose Inter as well.

"So despite a second Calciopoli trial, the evidence of which Palazzi said “Inter violated the article relative to sporting fraud with regards to the possibility of taking advantages in the standings” and also that they were "directly responsible for having secured an advantage in the league standings by conditioning the regular function of the referee sector," that evidence was never allowed in court. Ex-referee designee Bergamo actually said of all of the teams, Inter called him the most: “In particular I used to speak with Inter because they never used to win back then, and they always used to moan." Some things never change."

On Juventus:

Everyone knows that Juventus were relegated to Serie B for the 2006-07 season and had two of their titles stripped. But what never made sense was the original ruling itself. According to the sporting justice code, to be relegated, a team would have had to have violated the terms of Article 6, which involves illicit activity such as matchfixing. (FIGC Code of Sporting Justice) But Juventus were never officially accused of and definitely never found guilty of matchfixing. (Federal Court Sentence, p. 74) Rather the court used one phone call from then Juventus Director Luciano Moggi to former referee designator Paolo Bergamo to cite violations of Article 1, which involves unsportsmanlike conduct, and punishment for violations typically involve smaller fines, bans, or at the most a small points deduction. With nothing to support the accusations and seemingly needing someone to blame, the FIGC did something unprecedented, a point which has been heavily criticized by the legal community. They created a “structured article violation,” (Commissione d’Appello Federale or CAF Sentence, p. 76) stringing together multiple Article 1 violations by Juventus to equivocate (but not prove) an Article 6 violation and justify their hasty decision to relegate the club. So they invented a ruling to justify a punishment."

The article is long and I wont post it here directly but it is a very good read and sheds new light on the scandal.

Thoughts?

Italy should have been more united, like Spain, who together destroyed the evidence from the doping doctor Eufemiano Fuentes all together, which could have changed our view of Spanish football and sports forever. Doping teams so they could win the CL is better than giving watches to refs in Serie A lol (though perhaps Juve did this alrdy during the 90s Others too perhaps?)

Unfortunately our league isnt like that. Whatever teams could do to gain an advantage is what they did.

I was weighing up whether to comment on this thread. There was always going to be a risk that this would create fierce debate once again. However, I decided that people on GL these days are mature enough to handle what I have written and will take it like men, but I have my doubts. Anyway, here it is...

The article above is the work of someone who has deliberately told the story in such a way as to attempt to exonerate Juventus, Moggi, and other people and organisations who were ultimately found guilty in courts of law. Found guilty in courts of law. Guilty. Courts. Law.

Perhaps it would be convenient for some people to believe this "trial by blog" and that the work of this blogger is more authoritative than all of the highly trained experts employed to make such decisions in the Italian courts. To those people I would say, with all due respect, move past the denial stage already because you are 7 years behind. This so-called 'analysis' is in the league of tin-foil-wearing conspiracy theorists and is the product of the author's emotional connection to the scandal.

The only 'amazing' aspect of this article is that people believe this drivel.

Forza wrote:I was weighing up whether to comment on this thread. There was always going to be a risk that this would create fierce debate once again. However, I decided that people on GL these days are mature enough to handle what I have written and will take it like men, but I have my doubts. Anyway, here it is...

The article above is the work of someone who has deliberately told the story in such a way as to attempt to exonerate Juventus, Moggi, and other people and organisations who were ultimately found guilty in courts of law. Found guilty in courts of law. Guilty. Courts. Law.

Perhaps it would be convenient for some people to believe this "trial by blog" and that the work of this blogger is more authoritative than all of the highly trained experts employed to make such decisions in the Italian courts. To those people I would say, with all due respect, move past the denial stage already because you are 7 years behind. This so-called 'analysis' is in the league of tin-foil-wearing conspiracy theorists and is the product of the author's emotional connection to the scandal.

The only 'amazing' aspect of this article is that people believe this drivel.

I find that interesting. Is there any specific evidence or such that you could bring up to refute some of the points he brought up? I mean you cant just deny his analysis by saying that the courts are automatically right. I mean he brings up some serious points of consideration that do make sense.

Juveman17 wrote:

Forza wrote:I was weighing up whether to comment on this thread. There was always going to be a risk that this would create fierce debate once again. However, I decided that people on GL these days are mature enough to handle what I have written and will take it like men, but I have my doubts. Anyway, here it is...

The article above is the work of someone who has deliberately told the story in such a way as to attempt to exonerate Juventus, Moggi, and other people and organisations who were ultimately found guilty in courts of law. Found guilty in courts of law. Guilty. Courts. Law.

Perhaps it would be convenient for some people to believe this "trial by blog" and that the work of this blogger is more authoritative than all of the highly trained experts employed to make such decisions in the Italian courts. To those people I would say, with all due respect, move past the denial stage already because you are 7 years behind. This so-called 'analysis' is in the league of tin-foil-wearing conspiracy theorists and is the product of the author's emotional connection to the scandal.

The only 'amazing' aspect of this article is that people believe this drivel.

I find that interesting. Is there any specific evidence or such that you could bring up to refute some of the points he brought up? I mean you cant just deny his analysis by saying that the courts are automatically right. I mean he brings up some serious points of consideration that do make sense.

I think that the best way to achieve a greater understanding of Calciopoli would be to read a range of articles and books from reputable sources & authors so as to ground yourself in the context in which the corruption occurred and the many facets of that illegal conduct.

Someone, please help me out here before I bother reading through the rest of the sentence document.

On page two, they list the wrongdoings (not sure if it's all-inclusive) of Juventus. Point #7:

7. Moggi, di violazione degli artt. 6, comma 1, prima parte, C.G.S., per aver posto in essere atti diretti ad alterare lo svolgimento delle gare Juventus- Lazio del 5 dicembre 2004 e Bologna-Juventus del 12 dicembre 2004 come descritto nella parte motiva, e dell'art. 1, comma 1, C.G.S. in relazione alla gara Juventus-Udinese del 13 febbraio 2005, per aver posto in essere le condotte descritte nella parte motiva, relativamente a tale ultima gara. Con l'aggravante di cui al comma 6 dell'art. 6 C.G.S., per la pluralità di condotte poste in essere.

So, just on the basis of that point alone (I haven't read through the rest), it claims that Moggi attempted (not sure if he succeeded) to alter three matches: Juve-Lazio (December 2004), Bologna-Juventus (December 2004), Juventus-Udinese (February 2005). They specifically mention the amount of times Moggi tried to alter matches.

I would like to read more about these articles and statutes that were broken, but I'm not able to find a .pdf or link anywhere on the internet. There isn't a source on the article in the OP, either.

Only certain fact about all this - The truth is beyond reach for any of us...

Just did a bit of research about these three matches, certainly shady. The referees had major influences on the match.

Pippo wrote:Juventus-Udinese (February 2005)

Udinese had a goal wrongly dis-allowed for offside from Dino Fava at the 69th minute. Antonio Di Natale was wrongly called offside when he was right in front of goal at the 83rd minute. Fabio Cannavaro also made a handball which would have given him his second yellow card. However this was not called by the referee.

http://archiviostorico.gazzetta.it/2005/febbraio/14/Negato_all_Udinese_gol_valido_ga_10_0502142026.shtml

(Gazzetta do a review of referee decisions, so in this article they talk about the referee decisions from the matchday.)

Here is a Youtube video, it's awful quality. It shows the dis-allowed goal at 1:20, if you can see it.

Pippo wrote:Juve-Lazio (December 2004)

A penalty not given to Lazio after Gigi Buffon rushes out of his goal and trips Simone Inzaghi. This would have been a red card, and a penalty. Ibrahimovic himself was denied a penalty after being impeded by Leonardo Talamonti.

Juventus won 2:1, coming back from a 0:1 deficit after Goran Pandev scored in the 11th minute. Ibrahimovic with a late winner. Who knows what the result would have been if Lazio were winning 2:0, and Juve were playing with 10 men?

http://archiviostorico.gazzetta.it/2004/dicembre/06/Era_rigore_Cassetti_sbagliato_punirlo_ga_10_0412066072.shtml

Pippo wrote:Bologna-Juventus (December 2004)

Probably the worst in terms of refereeing. Giacomo Cipriani was called back from a run at goal for a non-existent foul on Thuram. Later, Jonathan Zebina fouled Cipriani in the box, but a penalty was not given. There was another possible penalty for Bologna, as Thuram fouled Cipriani in the box; however it was not deemed as "clear cut" of a penalty as the earlier Zebina challenge, which was not given.

Pavel Nedved scored from a free kick that should not have been given. The match finished 1:0 in favour of Juventus.

http://archiviostorico.gazzetta.it/2004/dicembre/13/Fallo_reciproco_punizione_decisiva_Ibrahimovic_ga_10_0412135353.shtml
http://archiviostorico.gazzetta.it/2004/dicembre/13/Pieri_Bologna_fischi_per_Juve_ga_10_0412135354.shtml

 

Vibe wrote:Only certain fact about all this - The truth is beyond reach for any of us...

That probably is the best way to describe it

Pippo wrote:Just did a bit of research about these three matches, certainly shady. The referees had major influences on the match.

Pippo wrote:Juventus-Udinese (February 2005)

Udinese had a goal wrongly dis-allowed for offside from Dino Fava at the 69th minute. Antonio Di Natale was wrongly called offside when he was right in front of goal at the 83rd minute. Fabio Cannavaro also made a handball which would have given him his second yellow card. However this was not called by the referee.

http://archiviostorico.gazzetta.it/2005/febbraio/14/Negato_all_Udinese_gol_valido_ga_10_0502142026.shtml

(Gazzetta do a review of referee decisions, so in this article they talk about the referee decisions from the matchday.)

Here is a Youtube video, it's awful quality. It shows the dis-allowed goal at 1:20, if you can see it.

Pippo wrote:Juve-Lazio (December 2004)

A penalty not given to Lazio after Gigi Buffon rushes out of his goal and trips Simone Inzaghi. This would have been a red card, and a penalty. Ibrahimovic himself was denied a penalty after being impeded by Leonardo Talamonti.

Juventus won 2:1, coming back from a 0:1 deficit after Goran Pandev scored in the 11th minute. Ibrahimovic with a late winner. Who knows what the result would have been if Lazio were winning 2:0, and Juve were playing with 10 men?

http://archiviostorico.gazzetta.it/2004/dicembre/06/Era_rigore_Cassetti_sbagliato_punirlo_ga_10_0412066072.shtml

Pippo wrote:Bologna-Juventus (December 2004)

Probably the worst in terms of refereeing. Giacomo Cipriani was called back from a run at goal for a non-existent foul on Thuram. Later, Jonathan Zebina fouled Cipriani in the box, but a penalty was not given. There was another possible penalty for Bologna, as Thuram fouled Cipriani in the box; however it was not deemed as "clear cut" of a penalty as the earlier Zebina challenge, which was not given.

Pavel Nedved scored from a free kick that should not have been given. The match finished 1:0 in favour of Juventus.

http://archiviostorico.gazzetta.it/2004/dicembre/13/Fallo_reciproco_punizione_decisiva_Ibrahimovic_ga_10_0412135353.shtml
http://archiviostorico.gazzetta.it/2004/dicembre/13/Pieri_Bologna_fischi_per_Juve_ga_10_0412135354.shtml

 

Interesting research, thanks for sharing. Those games definitely do look shady.

I'll run through each of Juve, Inter, and Milan's league matches that season with Gazzetta. This is a pretty interesting topic, imo.

Pippo wrote:I'll run through each of Juve, Inter, and Milan's league matches that season with Gazzetta. This is a pretty interesting topic, imo.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Surely the league should stop focusing on the past and recover from the mess. Seriously, action must be taken to help this league catch up with Juventus and then eventually catch up with the superior leagues. It's a complete mess atm and all I ever see/hear is officials from the big clubs talking about how bad the situation is without ever offering any solutions

Looking back at Calciopoli again no matter how shady it was, isn't going to help anybody. Especially considering such a long period of time has passed.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:Surely the league should stop focusing on the past and recover from the mess. Seriously, action must be taken to help this league catch up with Juventus and then eventually catch up with the superior leagues. It's a complete mess atm and all I ever see/hear is officials from the big clubs talking about how bad the situation is without ever offering any solutions

Looking back at Calciopoli again no matter how shady it was, isn't going to help anybody. Especially considering such a long period of time has passed.

Well I just read the article and found it interesting so I decided to post it here. In no way was I suggesting that it would help anybody or solve any problems.

Not on about you, the numerous articles is what i'm talking about.

Constantly analyzing and re analyzing something that's never going to change and screwed Italian football back. And there's barely a scrap of news about the chiefs at various clubs/FIGC doing a damn thing to improve the league.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:Not on about you, the numerous articles is what i'm talking about.

Constantly analyzing and re analyzing something that's never going to change and screwed Italian football back. And there's barely a scrap of news about the chiefs at various clubs/FIGC doing a damn thing to improve the league.

Yea the Italian system is very very slow in terms of change. The bullshit about city councils owning stadiums needs to end. Every club in Italy should be able to own their own stadium if they choose to do so.

Yep that would be a ridiculously obvious and good start.

The league is getting left behind quite badly. Foriegn investors would help too but they don't seem interested in any clubs lower down the pecking order.

ROUND 1

Juventus: [Trefoloni] No issues

Milan: [Pieri] No issues

Inter: [Paparesta] No issues

Sources:

Spoiler:

ROUND 2

Juventus:  [De Santis] No issues

Milan: [Messina] No issues

Inter: [Bertini] Biava fouled Adriano inside of the penalty box, no penalty was given for Inter. That should have been a certain penalty. Materazzi could have given away a penalty. Zaccardo could have given away a penalty.

Sources:

Spoiler:

ROUND 3

Juventus: [Dondarini] Controversial penalty given to Juve. There was little to no contact between Falcone and Emerson. After Pavan fouled Ibrahimovic, both Nedved and Camoranesi jumped towards Pavan and got involved in a little scuffle. Pavan and Nedved were yellow carded, Camoranesi wasn't -- if he got a yellow card, he would have been sent off. The referee gave a penalty to Sampdoria for a foul by Cannavaro, but the linesman convinced him to reverse the decision after he was surrounded by protesting Juve players. There should have been no penalty in the first place, however.

Milan: [Rosetti] No issues

Inter: [Paparesta] Issue or non-issue depending on your interpretation: do you think Adriano (Inter) fouls Natali here? It's a shoulder-to-shoulder collision, and Adriano was huge in his prime. Not a foul to me.

Sources:

Spoiler:

ROUND 4

Juventus: [Bertini] Juventus' goal was offside. Trezeguet was marginally offside when he flicked the ball on to Ibrahimovic who scored the equaliser.

Milan: [Paparesta] No issues. However, they noted this  -- Nesta put his hand in Simone Inzaghi's face, who bit his fingers! Nesta then slapped him.   

Inter: [Morganti] No issues

Sources:

Spoiler:

ROUND 5

Juventus: [Farina] Ibrahimovic headbutted Cribari. No card was given. The referee told Cribari to get up.

Milan: [Trefoloni] Colucci went in with his leg high towards Dida. It could have been a red card. Borriello (Reggina) scored a goal to make it 2-2, but the referee called it back due to a foul in the penalty box. With the help of slow-motion, the only foul visible was Nesta pulling down a Reggina player. The goal should have stood.

Inter: [Bertini] No issues

Sources:

Spoiler:

ROUND 6

Juventus: [Trefoloni] No issues

Milan: [Rodomonti] Costacurta fouled Langella inside the box. Costacurta signals that it should be a penalty for Cagliari, but the referee does not give it.

Inter: [Paparesta] No issues (Adriano scored two wonder goals that game)

Sources:

Spoiler:

ROUND 7

Juventus: [Bertini] A shot from Camorani (Siena) is deviated by Zambrotta who extends his elbow. It should have been a penalty.

Milan: [Rosetti] No issues, a brilliantly refereed derby

Inter: [Rosetti] No issues, a brilliantly refereed derby

Sources:

Spoiler:

ROUND 8

Juventus: [Collina] No issues

Milan: [Bertini] No issues

Inter: [Rodomonti] Assistant referee wrongly calls offside on Adriano, there is no description on what the scenario was (i.e. was he through on goal, or in a more difficult position). So I won't highlight it.

Sources:

Spoiler:

ROUND 9

Juventus: [Pieri] No issues

Milan: [Farina] Sheva is just barely offside on his goal.

Inter: [Trefoloni] Lazio scored from a freekick -- there should not have been any freekick as there was no foul.

Sources:

Spoiler:

ROUND 10

Juventus: [Paparesta] A clear handball from Balestri (Reggina) does not result in a penalty for Juve. A goal in the 94th minute for Reggina was reversed, as it was deemed that Kapo had used his hand. Dubious decision -- although images later showed that Kapo was offside (which was not recognised by the assistant referee). Note: Juve's first loss of the season. Moggi heavily criticises Paparesta.

Milan: [Bertini] No issues

Inter: [De Santis] Should have awarded a penalty for Fiorentina when Zanetti pushed Jorgensen in his penalty area.

Sources:

Spoiler:

It's taking longer than I expected it to be. I'll do 10 at a time, so the next 10 matches will come when I have the time.

These are just interpretations from La Gazzetta, which I find reliable. They've been doing this for years.

From the first ten matches it's obvious which team gets the most favours.   

Nice analysis, i appreciate it. Keep it up

I had written the next ten rounds, but then when I pressed "Preview" it told me to log back in again. I logged back in, and it was all gone.

Nott as bad as Ligapoli of 11-12.

Pippo wrote:I had written the next ten rounds, but then when I pressed "Preview" it told me to log back in again. I logged back in, and it was all gone.

It most likely logged you off when the time went over 60 minutes or so. Best is to 'always stay logged in' which is an option in the login page.

Or write in word and copy and paste across. Sorry about this man, happened to me as well in the past.

Pippo wrote:I had written the next ten rounds, but then when I pressed "Preview" it told me to log back in again. I logged back in, and it was all gone.

Ouch sorry bro