As a result of posting this article before afew days:
http://www.football365.co.uk/story/0,17033,8742_2948515,00.html
James appears again and replies defending Juventus:
Tedious accusations demand tedious replies. I have to point out to Philip Cornwall that getting your information about calciopoli from 'Gazzetta dello Sport' or secondary sources quoting it is like making an informed decision on foreign policy by reading the Daily Mail. And the 'Gazzetta' was the source of pretty much all of the 'calciopoli' information, since they were the newspaper being illegally fed confidential legal documents on an ongoing investigation, and publishing only what suited their slant.
Maybe you would like to quote a more authoritive source, such as the official FA verdict, which read, bottom line, more or less like this - "
You're not guilty on any counts of match fixing. You're guilty on 3 counts of unethical behaviour. But we've decided to ignore our own rule book and invent a new rule, so just especially for you, 3 unethical behaviours = 1 match fixing, so we're sentencing you for match fixing".
That's like being condemned for murder after throwing 3 punches at someone who is still very much alive. The reason for this is actually stated in black on white in the official verdict by one of the judges: "we tried to interpret the popular sentiment" i.e. screw evidence and justice, if public opinion want Juve in Serie B that's where we'll send them.
By the way the official 'calciopoli' case in the Italian civil courts is due to begin shortly. It will be interesting to see the conclusions arrived at after a trial where the defence lawyers can present evidence, have more than a half an hour speech in the whole proceedings, and are actually allowed to defend themselves.
And I'm sure that having the case judged by judges who were not nominated by the prosecution might also be seen as a bit of a more objective trial in that bastion of legality and democracy that is the UK.
James
Micallef, Amsterdam