Antonio Conte (218 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dostoevsky
- Start date
- Tags goat coach
I think people have lost sight of something here, Conte taking the plea bargain means one of two things:
1. He's guilty
or
2. He's innocent but not willing to fight for himself and our clubs best interests
Either Conte has lessened himself as our manager.
(Option 3. He is willing but the FIGC are out to get Juve etc etc is no to be entertained.)
1. He's guilty
or
2. He's innocent but not willing to fight for himself and our clubs best interests
Either Conte has lessened himself as our manager.
(Option 3. He is willing but the FIGC are out to get Juve etc etc is no to be entertained.)
If he's taking the plea bargain, it is for the club's best interest as he will only miss 3 months instead of 12. I suspect Juve's lawyers urged him to take it. Also, he took a plea bargain without admission of guilt.
It is a sporting trial in which you are guilty until you prove your innocence. In such a case, it is almost impossible for Conte to prove his innocence since Carrobio has been deemed reliable by Palazzi(don't ask me how). The only way they can do it is by discrediting Carrobio but that's almost impossible. If they go to civil court, it will take a long time and Conte wouldn't be absolved of all charged before his 12 months ban expired.
I don't think he is guilty and he said he is going to speak out when the time is right. Conte did the right thing for the club.
It is a sporting trial in which you are guilty until you prove your innocence. In such a case, it is almost impossible for Conte to prove his innocence since Carrobio has been deemed reliable by Palazzi(don't ask me how). The only way they can do it is by discrediting Carrobio but that's almost impossible. If they go to civil court, it will take a long time and Conte wouldn't be absolved of all charged before his 12 months ban expired.
I don't think he is guilty and he said he is going to speak out when the time is right. Conte did the right thing for the club.
Conte took the plea bargain because it was the best decision. Now he knows that he has 3months (starting from August) ban and he can concentrate on work with the team. I'm sure he could defend himself in the court but imagine how long would it take to prove his innocence. And the possible scenario was, that after defending himself for some months he still would get ban. Imagine the whole season without Conte, thinking about the process and not concentrating on the game.
After all i think that this plea bargain was a good decision, especially that one month from the ban is games-free.
---------- Post added 01.08.2012 at 13:26 ----------
yep
After all i think that this plea bargain was a good decision, especially that one month from the ban is games-free.
---------- Post added 01.08.2012 at 13:26 ----------
yep
No, no, no. You're doing it wrong: Fuck the FIGC! They're only targetting us. He didn't do anything wrong. It's a consiparacy. Etc.
We may never truly know what happened. But if we put everything that we read together, it's very likely that Conte was aware of what was going on but did not report it.
Does not make him guilty per se in my book, but like I said earlier, you have to live with the possible consequences of what you did or did not do.
We may never truly know what happened. But if we put everything that we read together, it's very likely that Conte was aware of what was going on but did not report it.
Does not make him guilty per se in my book, but like I said earlier, you have to live with the possible consequences of what you did or did not do.
So the key excusing factor here rests on legal technicality, a punishment without admission of liability? If we're going to draw positives from something let's at least try not to use Italian legal practice especially the sporting equivalent of a reversed 'without prejudice'. Such offers exist only when the party in question is certain of defeat OR as you said weighs the balance of probabilities versus the cost of attempting for no offer and failing, that is, the ban. Now what we are being asked the believe is either that Conte is guilty and wants a lighter sentence or that he is innocent but has weighed the balance in favour of the 3 month ban. For the second part to be true Conte would firstly have to be ok with being seen (in real and not technical terms) to be guilty and the definite damage that this will do to Juventus. In his mind he would have to believe further that definite damage cause by a longer ban would be sufficiently greater to warrant a plea bargain. The image damage to Juventus is the same, the sporting damage would more than likely be greater, this is true. But there is 100% possibility of punishment in one choice and a lesser possibility in the other. We don't know what the outcome would be of the sporting trial or any sort of appeal of even if a leave to appeal would granted for any ban enforced.
So the 'right' thing for the club is a definite limited punishment versus the risk of greater although appealable punishment with a third chance of NO punishment. He or rather Juventus has decided that a definite loss is preferable to a possible loss.
I don't think it's serious but I believe it is guilt. When you are bound to do what's right and you fail, you deserve to be punished.
So the 'right' thing for the club is a definite limited punishment versus the risk of greater although appealable punishment with a third chance of NO punishment. He or rather Juventus has decided that a definite loss is preferable to a possible loss.
I don't think it's serious but I believe it is guilt. When you are bound to do what's right and you fail, you deserve to be punished.