Originally posted by Ragnorak
"proven"?
How does one prove anything in a case like this, involving a corrupt football club and corrupt officials? How can it be "proven" that Porto tried to bribe refs on only 2 occasions?
What about the countless other times they may have tried, and succeeded, in bribing referees? Did any of the 5 officials found guilty of corruption ever hav ...[text shortened]... think that United were knocked out by a team, who at the time would do anything to win.
D
You clearly don't know anything about the case.
This is a 4-year investigation that was precipitated by a number of accusations, the majority of which were proven to be false. One of the main sources, our president ex-girlfriend, was accused and tried of slander but not before printing a best-seller of lies and making a bundle out of it.
This 4 year investigation investigated accusation spread over several seasons and culminated in the conviction of attempted bribery for simply two games that were thoroughly analyzed and where it was concluded that no bias was apparent in the referees performance. What is a shame is that still only based on the testimony of witnesses, of which the most important of all is a proven slanderer that has become rich out of it, was still enough to get convictions, even if only on attempted bribery.
You clearly don't know the power of Benfica in Portugal. The six points and the 2 year ban were both maximum penalties for the alleged crimes (its relegation if proven that the ref took the bribe, which it was proven that he did not). All of this led by consistently false leaks to the press to put pressure on the District Attorney to find at least one conviction,no matter how circumstantial the evidence.
But of course, none of that interests you. What you care about is that Scholes goal stuck in your throat and the fact that this "semi-amateur, non-competitive" club has won more FIFA/UEFA tournaments that your "massive" club with all its fake fans.
02 May '08 05:41
Barca - United Leg 1
Back to Top