Calciopoli information

[Bagg10]

[Italiamia]

[Italiamia]

[marco]

[Bagg10]

[Bagg10]

[maro]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that ju27's 'arguments' are so weak, but I am a little given the not unadmirable passion and energy they come with. For those 'fence-sitters', can you see, with some degree of careful thought, how Italiamia's arguments on the previous page have completely exposed the empty rhetoric of ju27's 'argument'? Don't worry about the wider picture here - since, clearly, he has other points too - but just take that single point. ju27, you said a little earlier (clearly disingenuously) that you'd come here prepared to learn and listen and engage in discussion. Well, then, surely you should accept that this particular 'argument' holds no water; you have, quite understandably, made the mistake of conflating two types of transgression, one of criminality and the other of sporting fraud. This isn't a question of opinion; it's just a measure of the fact that you were, again quite understandably, unable to read the facts in the right sorts of terms. And yet you refuse to listen to the distinction that Italiamia quite carefully draws for you here. This ought, then, to be a piece of your case that you're prepared to concede and drop from all future arguments.

More generally, it seems to me that your 'argument' has been based on two basic elements: first, a distortion (whether this be deliberate or just a kind of sincere, passionate, misreading) of the judgement itself which extracts and misunderstands snippets in the way I have tried quite carefully to illustrate, though this could also be done much more fully and much more forcefully. And, secondly, on an elaborate conspiracy theory which insists not simply that those accusing and judging and condemning Rube were all complicit, but also that any evidence which works against the club needs to be dismissed because it is unreliable, and that the club's own response to the accusations and judgements need to be dismissed because key elements within the club were themselves complicit in the whole thing. Other than on certain points of fact, such as those Italiamia illustrated yesterday, this is quite simply impossible to argue with; the observation that this seems astoundingly improbable isn't, strictly an argument. You can't mount your arguments without recourse to certain extraordinary premises that it seems to almost all it's simply absurd to accept. Perhaps we are just prisoners in the cave and your eyes have been opened to the true nature of the sun; more plausibly, I think, you are still the prisoner seduced by the shadows Moggi continues to cast for you against the wall.

[ju29ro]

Pompinamia,
a) Telecom individuals have been indicted
b) Some of the evidence I posted came directly from the court room and I could send you more personally (I don’t like those mediashare things)
c) New stuff is arising all the time. Just recently the last of the “Moggi influencedâ€

[ju29ro]

Italiamia I’m going to break two things down.

Despite your legal prowess you missed two points:

1) Marcello Maddalena is a Magistrate. Why would he end up holding the transcripts of a sports judicial case? You and I both know it was to find a criminal charge…specifically “Associazione a Delinquereâ€

[ju29ro]

Maro I am open to learning but haven’t heard anything new or relevant. All I am seeing is the typical reaction of trying to discount info by simply calling it crazy or unrealistic rather than trying to disprove it. It is unrealistic to those who desperately need to believe the opposite. Calling my arguments weak won’t weaken them. Calling evidence of a conflict of interest a “conspiracy theoryâ€

[ju29ro]

Frankly the credibility you guys have established here is paper thin. You guys have missed the most obvious of facts and assume whatever you like based on who Moggi is and how much you hate him.

You yourself admitted that Telecom provided the wiretaps for the case. You ignore the fact that Inter’s biggest sponsor (Pirelli owner Tronchetti) and Moratti himself are directors of the company and that no calls relating to Inter ever pop up despite both De Santis and Bergamo stating that they frequently received calls from them in video interviews that I provided. If Bergamo’s phone was tapped why on earth did the Facchetti calls not get recorded with the others?
More to the point…Inter become the single biggest benefactor of the entire case and Guido Rossi is then made VP of Telecom the moment the case closes. I don’t want to insult anyone here but holy shit this isn’t rocket science.

Take away the fact that this attacked Juventus, make it some poor civilian instead and all your tones would change instantly.

[maro]

First, many of your arguments are based not on 'info' but on speculations arising from certain pieces of 'info'; that one can stretch to find possible reasons why certain parties' disinterest may have been compromised is 'info', of sorts, but that their disinterest was compromised is not susceptible of proof or of disproof given the information in play. That's manifestly not a question of 'info' and it's an absurdly rhetorical gesture to conflate these two kinds of things.

Secondly, on what grounds do you seem I "desperately need" to believe in Rube's guilt? I suppose we could start by asking you to demonstrate that proposition without recourse to circularity.

Thirdly, you are right - calling your arguments weak won't weaken them; they do that for themselves.

Fourthly, of what was Moggi guilty? A criminal offence or one of sporting fraud? And why does that question of mine matter so much in this particular context?

Fifthly, this is true - we haven't made many arguments yet; the nature of this discussion has been to assess the arguments you've been rallying and to see if they're cogent. A number of them have been addressed quite directly.

And, sixthly, yes, "I don't buy it" isn't an argument; nor is "I do buy it." See "first."

[maro]

Oh, and seventhly, no, it's not rocket science; it's a word etymologically related to suppository.

[ju29ro]

"First, many of your arguments are based not on 'info' but on speculations arising from certain pieces of 'info'; that one can stretch to find possible reasons why certain parties' disinterest may have been compromised is 'info'"

No that is what Calciopoli was based on.

"Secondly, on what grounds do you seem I "desperately need" to believe in Rube's guilt?"

You called the Rube...I rest my case.

"Thirdly, you are right - calling your arguments weak won't weaken them; they do that for themselves."

- I stated that they were found not guilty of match fixing and provided proof
- I stated that the wire tapping was compromised leading to arrests and provided proof
- I stated that conflicts of interest existed and provided proof
- I stated that the trial was unlawful and didn't follow due process and provided proof

If those are weak arguments we are both wasting time. Coming from a man who believed Luciano Moggi controlled soccer in Italy based on wire taps that identified no such thing I can only snicker.

"Fourthly, of what was Moggi guilty? A criminal offence or one of sporting fraud? And why does that question of mine matter so much in this particular context?"

It is the purpose of the debate and no one can answer the question...not even judges and magistrates so far.

"Fifthly, this is true - we haven't made many arguments yet; the nature of this discussion has been to assess the arguments you've been rallying and to see if they're cogent. A number of them have been addressed quite directly."

"I don't buy that" is not addressing an issue or statement but you have the roles reversed anyway. I am speaking on behalf of the accused, the burden of proof rests on the accusers.

"And, sixthly, yes, "I don't buy it" isn't an argument; nor is "I do buy it."

Agreed but "I buy it because....."is a different story.

[ju29ro]

I want to summarize because I realize the previous post was lengthy.

- Marcello Maddalena's purpose was not to find a specific match that could have been fixed (which would not necessarily constitute a criminal charge)
- Marcello Maddalena's purpose was to identify a system that conditioned an entire season which would have constituted a very specific charge (Associazione a Delinquere)
- When he found no such evidence he archived the case and sent it to Carraro at the FIGC with a statement (provided earlier) indicating that he found no reason to believe there was a system
- When Calciopoli exploded they were looking for the specific fixed matches that Maddalena never looked for
- When they found none they based their sentence on a system that conditioned the sport
- Not only was this completely out of the CAF's jurisdiction but completely contradicted the findings of Maddalena a year prior (who was within that jurisdiction) using the exact same wiretaps.

I think the point I am making here is fairly obvious and anything but weak. I hope we can move on.

[arthurfonzarelli]

[juventino_italiano]

[ju29ro]

[Zoff82]

[maro]