Luciano Moggi (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Byrone
- Start date
The illecito strutturato was a means of summarizing all the individual infractions into a common theme. It was a summary of his conduct on the whole which the judges argued was a behavior with intent to obtain an advantage in the standings.
In the end, looking at each individual act or adding them together in no way changes the outcome of any single game (or the standings). It was a means to an end that again lacks logic.
When the rival fans brought that up they were challenged with how all the individual article one violations could alter the standings and no one could ever come up with anything.
In the end guys these are all old arguments and I hardly have the motivation to repeat them all over again in another forum.
In the end Illecito Strutturato/Articolo Strutturato/Illecito Ambientale were terms coined during the trial that had never existed before. They summarized a series of petty crimes in order to convict for a capital crime.
The end result is that Juventus were relegated for attempting to alter the standings and that no attempt was made to alter an individual match. It is a gross contradiction.
We got fucked.
In the end Illecito Strutturato/Articolo Strutturato/Illecito Ambientale were terms coined during the trial that had never existed before. They summarized a series of petty crimes in order to convict for a capital crime.
The end result is that Juventus were relegated for attempting to alter the standings and that no attempt was made to alter an individual match. It is a gross contradiction.
We got fucked.
Yes, i noticed a lot of holes in illecito strutturato and that's why i asked you about the individual infractions.
What we are told is that all these individual infractions, one by one, are harmless, but when you put all of them together you'll understand how the standings were altered.
And, if i understood correctly, the bulk of all acts, not every act individually, is what makes an article 6 violation. (at least that's what most people, no matter if they're Juve fans or not, agree with)
So i was hoping you'll show me a link where i can find all the individual infractions and try to figure it out how do all of them together give advantage to Juve in the standings.
But the article 1 violations you mentioned don't prove nothing, even when you put them all together, so i thought there is much more.
What we are told is that all these individual infractions, one by one, are harmless, but when you put all of them together you'll understand how the standings were altered.
And, if i understood correctly, the bulk of all acts, not every act individually, is what makes an article 6 violation. (at least that's what most people, no matter if they're Juve fans or not, agree with)
So i was hoping you'll show me a link where i can find all the individual infractions and try to figure it out how do all of them together give advantage to Juve in the standings.
But the article 1 violations you mentioned don't prove nothing, even when you put them all together, so i thought there is much more.
In truth there is more but they are all along the same lines. They can all be found in the verdict. To list all of them would take forever but we’ve already poured over all of them several times and no matter how many ways they can be added together, they could not possibly add or take away points.
One example is where Paparesta missed a clear penalty for us and then allowed an illegitimate goal to stand against us (against Reggina) and Moggi calls Bergamo demanding that he be suspended for a month. He wasn’t suspended at all which proves he had no power over Bergamo but people misinterpret where the violation lies. He was well within his right to complain to the referee’s superior after the match and request a punishment (according to the rules then however because now no one can call Collina). The problem was that he referred to Paparesta in a slew of derogatory manners. Hence article 1.
In any case, I am in no way willing to do all that work again. It’s been done to death. Feel free to download the verdict and read the article 1 violations and I feel confident that you will see that the standings could never be altered as a result of them no matter how they are combined. Many have tried to make arguments in favour of the “struttura” but in the end unless you fix at least a match there is no way the standings can be impacted.
The judges themselves admitted to that in articles I posted in the other thread.
It is an issue that has been taken up by lawyers who presented a federal appeal in Italy on the 6th of November, 2008. The process will be slow but my fingers are crossed.
I however cannot keep dedicating hours upon hours of my time in researching and translating already made arguments. I leave it to the lawyers.
The fundamental point is that the relegation was justified because the “standings were being altered” but the verdict never states how and then concludes by stating that no games were actually altered. One contradicts the other.
Yeah, but we have to check what was happening to Paparesta after this. Maybe he wasn't suspended but he was officiating serie B or serie C matches for the next month or so.
I believe what they tried to prove was that Moggi was doing some things in order to scare the refs and presure them to make favorable calls for Juve, without telling them to do that.
They say they proved it, but i didn't read the verdict and i never read much about their explaination how did they prove it, so i can't tell.
I believe what they tried to prove was that Moggi was doing some things in order to scare the refs and presure them to make favorable calls for Juve, without telling them to do that.
They say they proved it, but i didn't read the verdict and i never read much about their explaination how did they prove it, so i can't tell.
They didn’t prove it. He spent a Saturday in B and then went on to Serie A games the week after. It was a common thing if a referee screwed up royally (the calls were terrible) that he be removed or sent to officiate less relevant matches for a while. The same happened to Bergonzi last year after the Napoli-Juve disaster.
He requested that Paparesta be suspended for a month. He wasn’t suspended at all. He officiated the next week in fact.
He requested that Paparesta be suspended for a month. He wasn’t suspended at all. He officiated the next week in fact.
