PDA

Visualizza versione completa : FARSOPOLI IN ENGLISH


Luca
18.11.2007, 17:47
Se qualche utente straniero che non parla l'italiano dovesse capitare da queste parti può leggere e capire cosa è Farsopoli. Da giulemanidallajuve

This story was nearly 10 years in the making and has nothing to do with soccer and everything to do with money, power, and politics. I'm involved in various activities revolving around Calciopoli and have become somewhat of an expert in the topic. I'm fluent in Italian and as a result have been able to go through archives of newspaper articles, interviews, and books (written by lawyers). The most evidence you will get however is in reading the declarations and sentences left by the judges that presided over the trials and appeals. Most Juventus and Anti-Juventus fans (outside of Italy) have no idea that no shred of evidence existed linking Moggi and company to a single fixed game. Most people are unaware of the judge's declaration that "no game was fixed and referee selections were legitimate" Cesare Ruperto CAF judge. So why the punishments? Equally puzzling, why did Milan get a slap on the wrist after Meani threatened a linesman over the phone "when Milan is on the field keep your flag down unless the ball is on the opposite side of the field otherwise we'll chop your head off" Leonardo Meani. Why was an Inter investor and former Inter employee allowed to control the trial? This man Guido Rossi not only omitted evidence that would have cleared Juventus but discarded evidence that would have condemned his former employers (Inter). Do people know that there was phone tap evidence of Udinese and Milan organizing a tie? Do people know that there was phone tap evidence of Galliani and Collina meeting personally after hours at Meani's restaurant? Do people know the same man that sponsors Italian soccer through his ownership of TIM Mobile managed to intercept the phone calls that would eventually be used against Juventus? Do they know that he gave them to his partner (Moratti) illegally through a police officer who sanctioned the intercepts and then ordered that they be altered or destroyed in cases where Inter were incriminated? Eventually a security employee at Telecom Italia confessed to the shady wire taps and the police officer killed himself on July 21st 2006 (his name was Adamo Bove). Does anyone know that the wire taps were never listened to in court despite Juventus defense requesting it? When Juventus requested to use video evidence it was denied too. People are in the dark on this case because it is convenient to many to believe that their team was losing because someone else was cheating...others are unwillingly in the dark because evidence is hard to find and hard to understand (unless you are fluent in Italian). As a result I have been strongly considering writing a book in English regarding the case (now known in Italy as Farsopoli). I am questioning the level of public interest however. It would take months to put together and I'd hate to do it for nothing. For now though feel free to ask me whatever you want and I'll do what I can to shed light on the situation. I'm more than happy to answer your questions. For now I'd suggest reading this article which helps understand why the media painted such an ugly picture of Juventus. http://www.goal.com/en/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=299625 Let me know what you think. If you get anything out of this article it should be the web of power Juve were up against. Here are some names in powerful positions just to give you an idea:

- FIGC President (at the time): Franco Carraro (ex-Milan President and co owner of Lazio/Roma through his control of Capitalia Credit Bank)
- La Lega Calcio President: Adriano Galliani (Milan Vie President)
- Italian Referees Association (AIA) President: Tulio Lanese good friend and political affiliate of Silvio Berlusconi and known Milanista (known on wire taps as Tulio “miLanese”)
- FIGC Referee Designers: Bergamo and Pairetto underlings of Carraro, Lanese, and Galliani as evidenced by the wire taps…now Collina after secretly meeting with Galliani assumed that role
- Prime Minister (at the time): Silvio Berlusconi who controls several TV stations, magazines, and newspapers, as well as controlling one of Italy’s biggest political parties (Forza Italia). Through his TV station ownership Berlusconi controls all Soccer TV rights (therefore ad revenue) for all teams competing in Serie A and B (this would later be used as blackmail to keep Milan in the Champions League).
- Italian Soccer Sponsor: Tronchetti Provera (massive Inter shareholder and personal friend of Moratti) owns Telecom Italia and its sister company TIM Mobile and which not only provided Inter owner Moratti with phone intercepts but also sponsors all soccer competition in Italy (Serie A TIM, Coppa Italia TIM, Supercoppa Italiana TIM)…also owns Pirelli Tires (Inter primary sponsor) and also owns LA7 (major Italian TV Station)
- Federcalcio (FIGC Investigations) President: Borelli, a political associate of Berlusconi and discovered having meetings behind closed doors with Galliani throughout the trial
- Federcalcio Commissioner: Guido Rossi, major Inter shareholder and former Inter director also sat on Telecom Italia’s board of directors
- President of la Gazzetta dello Sport: Carlo Bore also acting as Vice President of Inter
- Editor and Chief of la Gazzetta dello Sport: Verdelli and Cannavo’ both Inter shareholders
- Vice President of Federcalcio: Massimo Moratti Inter Owner
- Current Commissioner of the Federcalcio Investigating Inter for Accounting Fraud: Stefanini acting lawyer for La Spezia soccer team (40% of which is owned by Moratti)

So...still sound like a "Moggi controlled system"?

Finally (and believe me there is still WAY more to the story) I want to inform you of what our team was actually accused of. The accusation of match fixing revolved around three games. This is key to the case and all but proves how ridi****us it was.

Game 1: Lecce-Parma – yes you read right. The game has nothing at all to do with Juventus but this game allowed Fiorentina to survive Serie A in 2005. The ccusation is that the Moggi controlled referee De Santis fixed the match at the request of Moggi after Della Valle (Fiorentina owner) asked Moggi for help. Moggi actually can’t stand De Santis and De Santis can’t stand Juventus. It was De Santis (admitted Interista) that disallowed a legitimate Juventus goal in the Italian Supercup costing Juve the trophy and handing it to Inter wrongfully. All intercepted phone calls regarding this game showed Della Valle contacting Bergamo (referee designer) and Carraro (FIGC president) and Mazzei (FIGC Vice President) directly with no mention of Luciano Moggi.

Game 2: Juventus-Udinese – the actual “fixed” game was Udinese-Bologna the week before. The idea was for the Moggi controlled referee to give yellow cards to Udinese players that were already carrying yellow cards so that they couldn’t play against Juventus. The players handed yellow cards that day were Pinzi and Di Michele. In actual fact neither was carrying yellows and both were on the field against Juventus the following match day.

Game 3: Juventus-Sampdoria – here the accusation was that the Moggi controlled referee allowed an offside goal to stand granting Juventus a 1-0 win over Sampdoria. The game actually ended 0-1 for Sampdoria with Aimo Diana scoring an offside goal. The result can be found on espn.com still today.

To close it should be noted that both Cesare Ruperto (CAF judge) and Piero Sandulli (Federal Court judge) declared that no system of pre-planned yellow cards existed and that no game was fixed by referees. It was also expressed that referee designations occurred throughout the season regularly. In other words the season was legit. The phone calls showed unsportsmanlike conduct by all parties but this is an Article 1 offense punishable by a 1 to 3 point deduction and a possible fine.

Finally the CAF sentence declared that “though no Article 6 offense can be found in the investigation, the overall conduct of Moggi and Giraudo (the latter heard on 3-5 phone calls mostly about nothing) created an unsportsmanlike environment favorable to Juventus in the standings AS EVIDENED BY THEIR 1ST PLACE FINISH IN THE SEASON IN QUESTION”. This is like saying that driving is proof of being a car thief. In the end the sentence tried to lead us to believe that Juventus obtained an unfair advantage in the standings without conditioning referees or fixing a single game…mysterious no?

Feel free to ask me anymore questions. By the way...there isn't a single recorded conversation between Moggi and a referee or linesmen with one exception; Paparesta called Moggi to apologize after a mistake of his cost Juventus a game against Reggina. Moggi said one line "I have nothing to say to you" and hung up.

I enjoy shedding light on these matters so feel free to share my points with others and ask me whatever you like.

FORZA JUVE!


STATISTICS DISCREDITING CALCIOPOLI

I've been keeping in touch with a few hardcore fans desperate for info. I'm happy to provide whatever I can. I'm passionate about this topic and am lucky enough to be fluent in both languages (I use both on a daily basis) so I have more of an opportunity to find and understand these facts.

I have in my possession actual legal files like the Juventus TAR appeal that was pulled from the courts hours before they were to stand trial. I have wire tap transcripts in their entirety including some that were never used in court (conveniently). I have dossiers mounted against teams like Inter and Milan. I have studies regarding calciopoli and post-calciopoli. I also have books published this last year (some written by lawyers) for the purpose of shedding light on the situation. I also have links to archived articles in various Italian newspapers where critical interviews were conducted and then forgotten. Even youtube has become a source of important info as many interviews were conducted on camera. Perhaps the most important info I got my hands on are the actual sentences made against Juventus and the successive declarations made by the judges responsible for the sentencing. It is here that the biggest contradictions exist and manage to basically demolish any credibility the case may have had initially. I have names, dates, and page numbers.

There is a problem. All this info is in Italian. If you by chance understand it...I'd be more than willing to share it. If you do not, I suggest simply asking me questions. This is what I've done with others and I'm happy to do it for whoever wants it. I do not know everything and don't pretend to. When I don't know something I will not try to pass on opinion as fact. If I write opinions I say they are opinions so as to not misinform (like the Italian press).

A fan has requested statistical proof for a video he intends to make so I extracted a few things I have uncovered. Another contact in from youtube requested some info so I am adding it to the email as well.

As far as stats are concerned, I’ll see what I can do to help. I have an article that I personally wrote in the hopes that goal.com would publish it. They refused twice. I’ll send it that at the end of the email as well. The info was extracted from the following link should you choose to double check: http://www.sportnews.it/articoli/2007/07/2...ate_1398365.php (http://www.sportnews.it/articoli/2007/07/20/boom_di_sviste_nell_ultimo_campionato_uno_studio_l e_ha_contate_1398365.php). The article describes a study conducted after Calciopoli and proves that things were cleaner before and that the accusers have become the accused. I’m questioning why goal.com wouldn’t post the article.

Another study was conducted and posted on www.juventus1897.it regarding the statistical evidence that supported (or contested) the accusations regarding referee treatment during the 2004-2005 season. This first list shows how the teams benefitted from having players who had already previously been booked, receive another yellow:

Atalanta 22
Brescia 19
Reggina 18
Inter 17
Juventus 17
Lecce 17
Livorno 17
Messina 16
Cagliari 15
Sampdoria 15
Lazio 14
Parma 14
Siena 14
Udinese 14
Chievo 13
Milan 12
Bologna 10
Palermo 9
Fiorentina 8
Roma 8

Wow…looks like Atalanta (relegated) should be under investigation. Funny how Inter was just as “favored” as Juventus here huh?

This second list shows how the teams benefitted from having players suspended during their match due to having received second yellow cards in the previous match. For instance imagine Milan playing Livorno without Lucarelli because Lucarelli got a second yellow card against say Brescia. This would count as +1 for Milan on this list:

Atalanta 30
Reggina 27
Juventus 25
Brescia 24
Lecce 23
Sampdoria 22
Lazio 22
Siena 22
Inter 21
Parma 21
Bologna 20
Livorno 19
Cagliari 19
Udinese 19
Milan 19
Messina 18
Chievo 18
Palermo 16
Fiorentina 12
Roma 11

Amazingly Atalanta is still the most favored. What’s funnier is that the team accused of “fixing” this season is actually in 3rd on the list a mere point ahead of Brescia (another relegated team) and only 4 bookings ahead of the “honest” Inter. Consider 38 matchdays at 90 minutes a piece…I think it is safe to say that there is little or no statistical significance to that difference (I’ve had to study plenty of statistics).

The third list shows overall bookings given to players the previous week. In other words, regardless of whether or not they had prior cards, if Inter plays Juventus on Sunday and Emerson had a yellow the previous Sunday against say Palermo…Inter would be at +1 (the idea is that Emerson may feel he needs to hold back to avoid a second successive booking and then suspension).

Atalanta 97
Lazio 90
Lecce 88
Cagliari 86
Chievo 86
Reggina 85
Juventus 85
Inter 83
Messina 83
Brescia 80
Udinese 80
Bologna 79
Palermo 79
Sampdoria 76
Livorno 75
Milan 75
Parma 74
Roma 74
Fiorentina 69
Siena 65

Juventus here is tied in 6th with Inter in 8th by a mere two bookings. Atalanta is still the most favored.

Looking at the 4th list shows that there was little rhyme or rhythm to the bookings. This list shows how many times a team benefitted from a player receiving a red card in the previous matchday.

Reggina 12
Bologna 9
Sampdoria 9
Siena 9
Atalanta 8
Juventus 8
Palermo 8
Parma 8
Chievo 7
Milan 7
Lazio 6
Udinese 6
Cagliari 4
Brescia 4
Livorno 4
Roma 4
Lecce 3
Inter 3
Fiorentina 3
Messina 2

Finally Atalanta isn’t in 1st anymore…but neither is Juventus. In fact they are quite close to the same Milan that was allowed to stay in the Champions League.

In the 5th list, a measurement of how many yellow cards were given to a team’s adversaries during the match was carried out. Maybe this will prove Moggi was a thief.

Roma 108
Fiorentina 97
Lazio 90
Palermo 89
Sampdoria 88
Cagliari 88
Juventus 84
Milan 84
Lecce 84
Reggina 82
Udinese 80
Siena 77
Chievo 77
Messina 75
Parma 74
Bologna 73
Brescia 73
Livorno 73
Inter 73
Atalanta 67

Looks like Juve and Milan are tied…for 7th.

List #6 is my favorite. This list shows a count of how many times a team’s adversary received a red card during the game. In other words, if Juvetus was playing Reggina and Zebina got a red card it would count as 1 for Reggina.

Cagliari 11
Roma 9
Brescia 9
Bologna 8
Livorno 7
Fiorentina 7
Lazio 7
Lecce 7
Reggina 7
Palermo 6
Sampdoria 6
Milan 6
Chievo 6
Udinese 5
Siena 5
Messina 5
Parma 5
Inter 5
Atalanta 3
Juventus 2

It appears as though Juventus wound up with a man advantage all of twice throughout a 38 game season…wow. Even Inter had that advantage 5 times.

Lastly I wanted to mention a study done by two Universities regarding the 2004-2005 season. The Universita’ di Messina and Queen Mary University in London, England conducted a statistical analysis searching for a correlation between the referees under investigation and the teams under investigation. The researchers were Professor Pietro Navarra (Messina), Dario Maimone (Messina), Ansaldo Patti (Messina) Walter Distaso (London), and Leo Leonida (London). The results were posted in an edition of La Stampa on the 3rd of September 2006.

The study showed that of the four teams under investigation, only Lazio showed a statistical advantage when playing a game governed by one of the referees under investigation. Milan and Fiorentina showed no correlation at all. In other words the two teams had no greater or smaller chance of winning when these referees were officiating. Interestingly Juventus was the only team to actually show a statistical disadvantage when their game was officiated by the referees under investigation. In other words Juventus had more of a chance of losing points in games governed by the very referees they were accused of controlling!

Answeres to questions received by readers Regarding Inter, Milan, Appeals, and Reggina

FYI an article 1 violation is unsportsmanlike conduct (points penalties and fines) while article 6 violations are sporting fraud (relegation).


MILAN

Milan’s involvement in the scandal is more defensive than offensive. You have to understand Milan’s pull in various aspects. Berlusconi is the owner of the team and also head of one of Italy’s biggest and most powerful political parties (Forza Italia). He also owns Mediaset, and a variety of other media channels via TV, satellite, and press. In addition Milan’s former president (Franco Carraro) at the time of the scandal was sitting in the presidency of the FIGC. Milan’s Vice President happened to be the President of “La Lega” (League of Directors). Milan also had their best buddy (still to this day) working as president of AIA (Italian Referee Association). The man’s name is Tulio Lanese but is known in his inner circle as “mi-Lanese”. I’ll come back to this in the end. I won’t even bother to get into their Mob ties…it just gets too long. Just know that I have names and criminal records of various mobsters that have sat as directors in both Milan and Forza Italia. Berlusconi has himself faced (and evaded) charges.

Milan was the only team to employ a “Referee Public Relations Minister” by
the name of Leonardo Meani. His entire job revolved around keeping a good rapport with the referees in the league. We have wire taps where he yells at Copelli (linesmen) instructing him that “when Milan is on the field you keep your flags down unless you are on the other side of the field” he went on to say “altrimenti vi spacchiamo la testa” (otherwise we’ll crack your head open). Coincidentally it was Copelli working the game where Juventus were denied a clear as day penalty against (sorry) Reggina. There were many other examples of clear article 6 violations punishable by automatic serie b sentencing (one of which I’ll send you) where Meani organizes a secret meeting in his restaurant (on a day the restaurant was closed) between Collina (the other voice on the recording) and Galliani. This clearly violates all rules and is far worse than the recordings regarding Moggi (where you’ll never hear him speaking to referees or linesmen nor requesting any specifically). There are plenty of tapes where Meani demands certain referees and then reports his success to Galliani.

Milan were caught red handed with more violations than any other accused team. Considering this was their second scandal regarding match fixing (Calcioscomesse 1980) the Serie B punishment would no longer apply. Serie C2 would have been nearly impossible to avoid. So the Miln machine began pulling strings. First their media portals began reporting excessively blaming Moggi and Juve for everything possible and would consistently bombard newscasts with accusations, declarations of innocence, and believe it or not demands for the two scudetti they lost to Juventus. Meanwhile Berlusconi, Galliani and Mediaset (venue by which TV rights are sold in a quasi legal fashion to teams permitting or denying ad revenue to those teams) began their threats. If Galliani and Milan were prosecuted for article 6 violations no TV rights would be sold in Italy and no UEFA coverage would be possible in Italy. You’d be surprised how much pull the Milan media machine has in Europe. Just look at what they’ve gotten away with in Europe. Against Juventus in the final of 2003 Dida (with a phony passport) came off his line for every penalty (Nedved forbidden to play), against Inter in the quarters Schevchenko landed a stiff headbutt on Materazzi (big shock) that no one saw, then Inter scored but it didn’t count…no one knows why. Just this year Milan not only were permitted to play but were even permitted to win after Inzaghi scored a goal with his arm. Who knows, maybe had Milan not threatened to renegotiate all their contracts for television rights just days prior to the CAF sentences things would have been different. Maybe if Milan hadn’t frozen their payments and transactions between Mediaset and the leagues just 4 days prior to the sentencing this would have been even more different (Corriere.it 10th July 2006).

What all this means is that Milan’s involvement was by far the most abundant and most illegal but their activity after the scandal was more an act of self preservation than a “let’s kill Juve” attempt. Indirectly however they painted a convincingly brutal portrait of Juventus and Moggi which helped condition the judges and public opinion throughout the case. During the proceedings Galliani met publically (though behind closed doors) with Borelli (head of the Federcalcio Sports Tribunal). Days later the argument was made that Meani acted independently of Milan and Galliani (though wie taps tell a different story) and as a result the charge was altered from article 6 violations to article 1 violations. Result…Milan stayed in Serie A and the CL while Juve plummeted to Serie B.

I said earlier that I’d get back to the Meani-Galliani-Collina meeting. Here’s the icing on the cake. The same Collina on the wire tap,the same Collina that awarded a fictitious penalty to Milan in the 2003 Supercup against Juventus, the same Collina that cost Juventus the 2000 scudetto on the last day, the same Collina that was sponsored by OPEL when Milan too wassponsored by them, the same Collina that Milan requested against Juventus in season’s past on public forums like TV and newspapers, has just been named Referee Designer for Serie A and B.

INTER

Where do I start? I’ll keep this as brief and to the point as I can. Yes Facchetti was caught on tape calling the same designers Moggi contacted. Bergamo (referee designer) himself on televised interviews admitted that no one called him more (or dined at his home more) than the late Inter president Facchetti (http://youtube.com/watch?v=tl9N0vxjMPo&mode=related&search=). This type of conduct is no better and no worse than Moggi’s contact with Bergamo. At most this is an article 1 violation because of the nature of the calls. This however, is only the beginning. Soon Calciopoli the very secretive Spiopoli or Intercettopli began. This is where we all found out who where the famous wire taps came from. What was discovered was that two police officers (with criminal charges pending including evidence and wire tap tampering) were in charge of handling all intercepted calls once recorded in order to pass them onto the prosecution. The police officers names are Giovanni Arcangioli and Attilio Auricchio and their scandalous past is well documented in an article of “La Repubblica” on the 25th of February 2006. These officers were being handed these intercepts by another officer, an investigator by the name of Adamo Bove. Adamo was heading the intercept project and had set up shop at Telecom (chief Inter sponsor Tronchetti Provera’s company). Who was the work commissioned for? One of Telecom’s board of directors…Massimo Moratti.

Bove’s secretary, Caterina Plateo eventually confessed that after a meeting to which all previously mentioned names and Luca Cordero Montezemolo (Ferrari President and FIAT board member) that strange instructions were passed on to all working on the project. The instructions were to manipulate or eliminate various intercepts and to flag certain phones so that they would be warned the moment they were intercepted just in case they would ever be placed under surveillance either by accident, by others, or by means of who they were communicating with (i.e. if Facchetti called Galliani and Galliani’s phone was tapped Facchetti would receive a message instantly). These confessions and those of Fabio Ghioni (former head of Telecom Security and Bove Partner) were publicized on the 31st of August 2006. On the 10th of July the two were interrogated in court…on July 21st 2006 Adamo Bove committed suicide. When Moratti was asked if he commissioned the surveillance he responded “Yes I did…no wait…maybe…I’m not sure” (Mandiamo la Juve in B: Calciopoli o Fasopoli Antonello Oggiano). The interviewer was Claudio Sabelli Fioretti and the publication was in the Corriere della Sera on the 31st of August 2006. These charges have been compounded by the fact that the intercepts were then sold illegally to the Gazzetta dello Sport by way of the newspaper’s President Carlo Buora (Inter Vice President).

Moratti is on trial for this as well as the fraudulent accounting charges but one of the prosecutors selected by the Federcalcio (of which Moratti is the Vice President???????) is Marco Stefanini. Acting lawyer of Spezia Calcio soccer team that Moratti owns 40% of…so much like Recoba’s fake passport and Kallon’s steroid use, nothing will happen because he is being prosecuted by a partner.

Furthermore Bove’s family have launched an investigation into the death of their son. Foul play has not been ruled out but nothing proving anything but suicide has surfaced yet (I’m following that one closely).

These are not Serie B punisgable offences. They are federal infringements on constitutional rights and public accounting. Delegates could and should be jailed but they won’t. the team could be appropriated by the state too, but it won’t. Welcome to Italy.

Referring back to Montezemolo, he is part of the FIAT management that had been butting heads publically with former Juventus management. His connection to Telecom is rather sketchy. To make things worse, after Juventus retracted their appeal at the Regional Administrative Court (TAR) the FIGC publically thanked Luca Cordero Montezemolo. Sound funny? That appeal not only would have cleared Juventus according to Antonio Baldassarre (ex President of the Constitutional Court in an article published on the 4th of October 2006 in Tuttosport) but it would have wrecked the system that governs soccer in Italy.

REGGINA

I can’t find shit on this. I know they were accused of article 1 offenses and were caught on tape but can’t find the taps or the games they called about. Frankly I think they just pissed someone off at the Lega or the FIGC or both. It’s all about who votes for who come election time and if they went against the powerhouses this type of treatment wouldn’t shock me. Arezzo and Messina were dragged through the mud after the fact too and it is hard to see why. Then look at what happened. Reggina became the most punished team in Serie A by referee errors in 2006-2007. Messina was relegated to Serie B, and Arezzo was relegated to Serie C1. My guess…they swim against the tide and were put in their place.

APPEALS

Every team prepared appeals but to my knowledge only Arezzo are still fighting. We on the other hand at Giu Le Mani Dalla Juve (www.giulemanidallajuve.com) have financed and prepared many legal maneuvers including appeals going beyond the Italian judicial system. I personally am limited but the team in Italy has been taking the necessary steps to clear Juventus’ name.

IBRA & VIERA

Simply put, the new management at the level of Secco, Blanc, and Cobolli Gigli were unprepared, uninformed, and needed to make some sales to avoid overextending themselves. Ibra and Viera refused to play for Juventus in Serie B and therefore Juventus sold them to the highest and quickest bidder. Inter (almost as though they new in advance) were making offers prior to the verdicts for both. At that point I doubt that Juventus managers knew the extent of Inter’s responsibilities…the FIAT managers likely did, but they have a different agenda altogether. There is an interview on youtube where Secco explains their motives for the sales on youtube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9JlkVT4N4hw&mode=related&search=) .
Lastly I attached the pictures of what the new jerseys will look like. It hasn’t been officially announced yet but it shouldn’t be long now.


SWISS SIM CARDS

After a year of failing to provide proof of match fixing, the Neapolitan prosecutors introduced a new argument. Allegedly Moggi provide referees with Swiss SIM cards to communicate without being spied. Since the prosecutors couldn't listen it was assumed all illegal activity could be found on those calls. Moggi and the referees responded by saying that they never made or received calls from each other. This portion of the trial is still going on.

The Neapolitan magistrates responded to Moggi and the referee’s denials by producing tables showing dates, times, and numbers called throughout the season of 2004-2005. Moggi responded saying that the numbers may have been real but the calls and tables were falsified. They all continued to deny ever having called each other. Obviously no one believed them.

As a result Moggi went on national television and claimed that through various computer programs, these tables can be falsified. He was ridiculed by the panel and the public. A week later he was invited back on the show and in an attempt to discredit him they invited a telephone company technician as well.

The technician shows how easy it is through a computer to falsify a phone call. Watch as the technician has one person on the panel shut his phone off. Then he used a computer to call another panel member with the number of the phone that is off. The number of the dead pone appeared on the recipient’s phone screen. Moggi has a certain smile on his face…the crowd remained silent.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2fSAxRNGFJM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vvv3qOoUA5Y

http://youtube.com/watch?v=M6RTt5quftQ

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JciFOvfu7HQ

The technician actually goes on to say that through a program called “Cambia Voce” (Voice Change), that a phone call can be made from person A to person B with the voice of person C. In other words many of the phone calls presented in court may have been of other people all together. All that is needed is a recording of Moggi’s voice. The recording then duplicates tone, volume, pitch, etc. and another person can make a call with his voice. This from the mouth of a telephone technician, he claimed he would be willing to testify.


TRANSLATED WIRE TAP

I just thought I’d post an example of the differences between the actual phone calls intercepted and the excerpts found on the various pro Inter sports papers. This article came from “Il Corriere dello Sport” which is run by a prick named Bartolozzi who also serves as Inter’s team manger (the same position Pessotto has with Juventus). The article can be found here http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Sport/2...ettazioni.shtml (http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Sport/2006/05_Maggio/05/intercettazioni.shtml)

The call is between Dondarini (referee) and Pairetto (referee designer) after a game between Juventus and Sampdoria. Amazingly this game wasn’t originally being questioned at all. The accusation was originally the 1-0 Juventus-Sampdoria game but was eventually altered. See the accusation was that Moggi had convinced the referee to allow an offside Juventus goal paving the way to a 1-0 win for Juve. The game actually ended 1-0 for Sampdoria after Aimo Diana scored an offside goal. The prosecutor quickly changed the game in question.

In this game Juvenus win 3-0 and the game ends in violence. A penalty is awarded to Juventus and one is later denied for Sampdoria.

Here’s the Corriere’s take on the call:

Dondarini: See that battle?

Pairetto: Fuck

D: The guys from Sampdoria were out of their minds. I swear if it wasn’t for the Juve players helping me I don’t know how it would have ended. Then I had to give that penalty Gigi (Pairetto)

P: Sure I believe it from your position.

D: Sure, but I tell you, I tried…to you know, to make the game end in that way

This gives the reader the impression that Dondarini was forced to give a penalty and intended on steering a game in a specific direction.
Here’s what Bartolozzi’s Corrire dello sport edited:

Dondarini: See that battle?

Pairetto: Fuck

D: The guys from Sampdoria were out of their minds, had it not been for the Juve players helping out who knows how bad it would have gotten. Then with Emerson, he didn’t dive at all, he tried to get through and the defender practically grabbed him and fell bringing him down too while hugging him, and Emerson falls backwards. Emerson looked at me as if to say “hey, this is a penalty” and I had no problem blowing the whistle and pointed to the spot.

P: Sure I believe it from your position.

D: It’s just that no one there understood at the moment, especially the public so the tension became complaints (by Sampdoria players). Thankfully there was a camera right behind the net that proved the penalty was right. What is this? You can’t give a penalty to a big club now?

Later regarding the Sampdoria penalty:

Dondarini: I blew the whistle…Ambrosini (linesmen)…

Pairetto: He indicated a penalty?

D: He did, he said it was a penalty so I pointed to the spot but then he came to me and said “Donda, I’m sorry I fucked up. Don’t give the penalty because we’ll look like idiots” so I figured it’s 3-0 anyway (for Juventus) and I said “Marcello, by now let’s just give the penalty (to Sampdoria)” and he says “no look, absolutely don’t give it because we’re going to give the impression that we’re fuck ups” because it was a corner. He seemed so convinced that I overturned the penalty. I was trying to you know limit the damages of making the game end in that way.

P: Ya sure.

D: I know the episode was ugly but in the end it’s better that we didn’t give the penalty I think.

This was the point that the Sampdoria players went into a massive frenzy and the game finished with pushing and shoving.

Amazingly though, even the Turin magistrates that looked at this case long before Calciopoli stated that from the (entire) phone call it was apparent that Dondarini gave Juventus their penalty in a professional and proper manner and overturned Sampdoria’s penalty in much the same way. Actually, he was willing to give a penalty against Juventus knowing it wasn’t the correct decision just to keep the peace on the field. The magistrates actually stated that if anything, Dondarini favored Sampdoria. I quote the
Turin magistrate Marcello Maddalena:

“Dondarini may have helped Sampdoria by:
- Not booking the Sampdoria players after their unsportsmanlike conduct and the end of the match
- Showing a willingness to give them a penalty knowing that it was not in accordance with the rules of the league”

Then Calciopoli happened and the newspapers mysteriously got a hold of the transcripts. In this one I’d say 90% is omitted and the words that were left painted a very specific picture.


KEY TRANSLATIONS FROM THE TRIAL DOCUMENTS

These are excerpts from the sentences which sent Juventus to Serie B.

First of all I want to explain the difference between an article 1 violation (points deduction) and an article 6 violation (relegation). Article one is unsportsmanlike conduct (badmouthing a ref) while article 6 is illicit activity (match fixing). Since no article 6 violations were found against Juve the CAF and FIGC did what has never been done before. The created (and later annulled) a structured article violation adding together various article 1 violations to compose and article 6 violation. This is like saying that 3 grand theft autos = a murder 1. This was widely criticized by other judges and lawyers.

I am quoting the sentences from the Commissione d’Appello Federale (CAF) and Corte Federale (CF). The key points are:

- Pg 74-75 CAF claims that there was no “cupola” or “Moggi System” contrary to the Gazzetta

- Pg 76 claims no article 6 violations against Juventus and therefore introduces the structured article violation (much disputed by many legal entities) The reason this is so scandalous is because it attempts to convince the reader that a team (Juventus) was capable of obtaining a favorable position in the standings without fixing the results of a single game. My question is how? The only way to acquire points in the standings is by winning or drawing matches. If Juve didn’t fix any matches then the standings were legit right?

- Pg 83 CAF states that referee selections were done in accordance with the rules of the FIGC therefore all the phone calls made by Moggi to designer Bergamo were legal and altered no referee selections.

- Pg 101 CAF I’m sure you heard of Moggi’s yellow card system to ensure key players were suspended for upcoming matches against Juve. On this page the sentence declares that the yellow cards were not organized.

- Pg 65 CF claims that Moggi and Giraudo operated independently of Juventus and its owners. In other words the team should have been off the hook regarding relegation and only the two directors should have been on trial (that’s the little loophole that kept Milan in the CL)
- Pg 61 CF states that Juventus was not responsible for the salvation of Fiorentina after the De Santis influenced game between Lecce and Parma that finished in a tie allowing the Viola to survive Serie A

- Pg 66 CF states that though Moggi didn’t exercise his ability to condition games, he still possessed the ability. So since you have a car and a bottle of wine you could be tried for having the ability to drink and drive?

- Pg 74 CF admits that no proof of match fixing (article 6) exists.

- Pg 77 CF finally states the proof used against Juventus “Juventus’ advantage was evidenced by their position in the standings at the end of the season”. That’s right…they were guilty because they finished first. So you driving is proof of being a car thief too. Are you laughing yet?

CF Judge Piero Sandulli had an interview in “Il Giornale” on the 27th of July 2006 where he was asked what the reasoning was behind the sentence he approved. His response was “there was no illicit activity; the 2004-2005 season was not fixed. The only doubt we had was Lecce-Parma (didn’t concern Juventus or Moggi) which we looked at again and again (with no video…whatever). In any case the season was legitimate.” I’ll just add that Sandulli has a criminal record for fraudulent activity while at Rome’s City Hall and is a die hard Lazio fan.

CF Judge Mario Serio stated in an interview in “La Repubblica” on the 27th of July 2006 that “in spite of a lack of evidence regarding match fixing, Juventus were sentenced to Serie B and stripped of their titles after taking into consideration the collective interests of the parties involved in the investigation.” All of which happened to be Interista and not just from a fan point of view. See the facebook group to see who the key players in the investigation were and how they were tied to Inter.

Note that no wire taps were heard in court. That’s right. Only pieces of transcripts were used, transcripts that have been manipulated by those that provided them to the court (see facebook group because I don’t feel like re-writing the names and confessions).

Note that no video evidence was allowed to be used by the defense (see facebook videos)

Note no witnesses were allowed to be brought forth

Note that the defense had little more than 3 days to compile their arguments and that they were not presented with the evidence prior to the trial as opposed to what the law dictates…instead the press got a hold of the prosecution’s information first. Is it any wonder? Inter VP Carlo Buare owns la Gazzetta dello Sport and it is run by two major Inter Investors (Verdelli and Cannavo’) while il Corriere dello Sport is run by Bartolozzi (Inter Team Manager). There is more on this in the facebook writings.

This is a fraction of what is out there. This is why I lose my mind when I hear that Juve are “cheaters” or that Moggi is a “criminal”.

I’ll be happy to answer whatever questions I can and provide whatever else I can through email including the actual sentences if they interest anyone.

I’ll eventually be adding the TAR appeal which Juventus mysteriously retracted hours prior to going to court. The appeal was considered to be profound enough to clear Juve’s name and crush the system that governs Italian soccer. After the appeal was retracted the FIGC publically thanked Luce di Montezemolo (FIAT Director and Ferrari President). Month’s later the same Tronchetti owned Telecom Italia (that spied on Juventus) sponsored Ferrari SpA in Formula 1.

amorejuve
18.11.2007, 17:55
Opera meritoria.

A memoria per i posteri.

joemestolone
25.11.2007, 08:56
Luca, hai fatto bene a riportare qui questo gran lavoro per questo sarebbe il caso di evidenziarlo nel modo migliore... potrebbe passare inosservato

Luca
23.05.2010, 18:15
Ten reasons why Calciopoli still keeps not convincing me!

10) THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
I am a defender of civil rights and I respect the statute of limitations which is a cornerstone of our legal system, a fundamental defence for every defendant. It holds good for everyone, including Inter. And it lasts for four years, not eight (as after the modification of the sport codes in July 2007). It could be bypassed with a “political” action, but that is another issue, and I do not care. Let us stick to the rules and to the interpretation “of law”: it does exist.
Is that it? No, it is not.
What has happened since 2006 onwards cannot be trivialized so easily. The Office of the Public Prosecutor in Naples officially closed the investigation on the 7th of April 2007. In a reasonable Country, nothing should have been known before that day. Wiretap transcriptions were not supposed to appear on the newspapers, gallows were not needed, no media driven trials had to be initiated, and, let alone, no sports trials. The statutory waiting period, to which the “Honest ones” (the Inter people –Ed.) are now clinging, would have been widely expired for Juventus as well. But it did not happen. Why? Because, in May 2006, someone thought to “freeze” it, pushing a whole library of wiretap transcriptions (along with some audio files) to several national newspapers which, in the rush to publish everything, even forgot to delete a few phone numbers. A race to the scoop that swept away some teams and interrupted the statute of limitations. Moggi was the monster and, for Juventus (as for the other subjects involved in Calciopoli 1), the statute of limitations hasn’t elapsed only because someone illegally slipped the documentation to the newspapers. The phone calls involving Inter, instead, were not there (in May 2006) for various reasons (i.e.: partiality of the investigations made by the chief inquirer Auricchio, inactivity of the FIGC, the italian football federation, which – although they questioned the referee De Santis as well as the referees chiefs Bergamo and Pairetto, and although all of them confirmed to the Chief Prosecutor Borrelli to have been in contact, by phone and personally, with Inter managers – never wanted to investigate this track, deferring the opening of a new inquiry to April 2010, when the statutory waiting period had elapsed). This is the reason why the nerazzurri are now able to bring up the statute of limitations.
That can not be fair.
And it cannot be fair because, in the case of Juventus (not elapsed) waiting period, something illegal happened – a news leak – to freeze the time. On the contrary, for Inter the time elapsed only because the FIGC, although they already held all the official deeds from the prosecutor as well as the confessions from the questioned people, and although they even had the documentation regarding the Telecom illegal shadowing and wiretapping campaign against some affiliated subjects (Moggi, Fabiani etc.), “forgot” (let us be diplomatic) to open a new investigation involving the nerazzurri. Therefore, it is acceptable, and I said it in the introduction, asserting that the statutory waiting period has elapsed for Inter. But, for intellectual honesty, it should be mentioned and explained why.

9) THE DE GREGORIO’S AND THE POLICE INFORMATIVE REPORTS MISTAKES
There is really plenty of them. Mistakes of every nature: disallowed goals never actually scored, falsified scores, supposed fraudulent bookings for players who were not cautioned before, false sending-offs, “fraudulent” sending-offs for a punch in the face. A compilation of horrors that makes quite unstable the entire investigation and, unfortunately, the judge De Gregorio’s abbreviated trial sentence as well. In particular, there is an episode that grabbed my attention and involves the former referee Paolo Dondarini, convicted to two years in jail. I will report what is mostly worryingly, and that is about one of the two allegations he has been charged with.
I am refferring to the match Chievo-Fiorentina 1-2.
Following is what the Federal Court of Appeal (CAF – first stage of the sporting trial) presided by Cesare Ruperto declared in relation to the match refereed by Dondarini who intentionally helped Fiorentina, denying a penalty to Chievo in the injury time (obviously everything has to be inserted in the context of saving Fiorentina from relegation, with involvement of Della Valle, Lanese and clearly Moggi and Bergamo. I am going to save you that chapter.); according to the Court, this is a sport offence, a cheat punished by the Article 6 of the code of sport conduct.
Due to Mazzini’s persistent action, it was possible to obtain referee Dondarini’s appointment which was communicated from Mazzini to Mencucci (phone conversation on the 5th of May 2005, 13:26, prog:12528), taking also credits for Fiorentina’s win as well as the decisive cooperation of Dondarini who, as a matter of fact, denied Chievo a clear penalty in the injury time of the second half for a foul on the Verona’s player Cossato (phone conversation on the 9th of May 2005, 16:59 – prog.12779).
For the records, the foul was committed by Ujfalusi, and, to be honest, was worth the penalty (my personal judgement).
But here is the interpretation of the Federal Court (second stage of the sport trial - Ed) presided by Sandulli who reduced the charge regarding the misconduct of the subjects involved in the phone calls “surrounding” the game to a mere violation of the Art.1, and also acquitted Dondarini, being impossible to prove that the offence was done intentionally (and, in short, that the error was not only an error).
The CAF has considered as proved the charges formulated in relation to the match Chievo Verona - Fiorentina played on the 8th of May 2005 and involving, as previously mentioned, Diego Della Valle, Andrea Della Valle, Sandro Mencucci, Innocenzo Mazzini and ACF Fiorentina for their misconduct aiming to fix the match and the referee Paolo Dondarini for receiving and accepting from Bergamo indications and specific instructions about the attitude to assume in order to guarantee a well-disposed refereeing for the Tuscan team. The first judges assigned a substantial gravity to the phone calls existing between the suspects (apart from Dondarini), which would have been effective as a preliminary act to realize the expected illegal outcome, and to a phone conversation, occurred shortly after the game, between the President Lanese and a journalist, with a negative comment on the performance of the referee, to whom, according to the same journalist, “were sent signals”. At this point, the Court believes, granted the appeal of the suspects, that the necessary evidence to prove the perpetration of the considered offence is missing, without prejudice to the following clarifications, relative to the expectation of punishable misconducts as from Art.1. of the code of sport conduct. In particular, the assessment of probationary insufficiency issues, preponderantly, from the impossibility to consider established the existence of the technical segment. And in fact, nothing proves, nor allows for the suspicion, that the referee Dondarini was aware of someone else’s criminal plan, nor that he would have part, in whatsoever way, in it, nor that he would shape his refereeing to advantage Fiorentina, nor that the alleged (just like the malicious phone conversation between a third party) technical error was
maliciously biased, nor that he was reached by whatsoever “signal”. Lacking, for the just explained arguments, the umpire’s segment – which implies, obviously, the Dondarini’s acquittal on the charges for which he was remitted, with resulting correction of the subject of the contested decision – is, as a natural effect, irreparably flawed the outlined structure of the offence the other remitted subjects have been charged with, subjects for whom the causal efficacy needed to accomplish the task has to be rejected. Indeed, the several phone conversations occurred the days before the match had, once more, a generic character and always alluded to the need for Fiorentina to escape from the impending danger of relegation. But in none of them it was discussed an intervention aiming to influence the referees appointments; nor there are, in the proceedings official documents, conversations about an appointment concretely occurred or evidence of pressure put on a referee. Likewise generic is the phone call, after the match, between Mazzini and Mencucci in which it seemingly is defined as “foul of confusion” the one which the referee did not sanctioned inside the Fiorentina penalty box: nothing proves that such allusion implied Dondarini’s bad faith or connivance, being reasonably possible to assume that the statement was due to the excitement for the victory of Mencucci’s team. Nevertheless, the Court believes, conforming to a reasoning already set to support decisions dealing with analogous cases present in this trial, that the misconducts of every suspect (with exception, clearly, of Dondarini, whose position seems absolutely clear and free of any dark spots), revealing improper, inapt and excessively familiar phone relationships of club members and executives with the Federal Vice President (who should have been warrantor of the neutrality of the federation, rather than an active supporter of an affiliated team and a promoter of further contacts between Diego Della Valle and one of the referee’s chiefs), stand out, in the perspective of the Art.1, for their deal unsportsmanship and unfairness.
Personally, according to the available documentation, this seems to me more like a rational and respectful of the civil rights interpretation. Making such judgement is not up to me, but giving an opinion is licit.
Finally, the judge De Gregorio (judge of the preliminary hearing and of the abbreviated trial) reports the motivation for the prison sentence for Dondarini in the first instance of the abbreviated trial. I will show you only an abstract (p.157).
On the other hand, in this case it has to be highlighted that Dondarini, disallowing a goal for Chievo for unclear reasons and even in the injury time, made a decision which determined the final score as beneficial to Fiorentina and consistent with his partisanship.
A disallowed goal never scored!!! Even this is, if you like, Calciopoli. And this is exactly the reason why it is so unconvincing.

8) THE SCUDETTO AWARDED BY NOBODY
Who awarded the 2005/06 Scudetto? Let us go through a few declarations by the people directly involved.
Cesare Ruperto, president emeritus of the Constitutional Court and former president of the FIGC Federal Commission of Appeal (CAF) during Calciopoli. He pronounced the first harsh sentence on the 14th of July 2006.
“Try to read my sentence once more: revocation of the title of champions of Italy 2004/05; non-assignment of the title of champions of Italy for the 2005/06 season”
Piero Sandulli, former President of the FIGC Federal Court during Calciopoli. He pronounced the
second sentence on the 25th of July 2006.
“Back then I expressed an adverse opinion about awarding the 2006 Scudetto to Inter because the Scudetti must be won on the pitch and not by forfeit. Unawarding, as for the previous season championship, would have been more appropriate. I am not aware of pressures from UEFA aiming to award the title in any case but our own decision let intend that awarding that Scudetto was not appropriate. Our decision was an ethical sentence due to a persistent violation of the Art.1 of the code, the article about sport loyalty.”
Luca Pancalli, President of the paralympic committee and former FIGC Special Commissioner right after Calciopoli.
“Rush to award the Scudetto to Inter? At that time the former commissioner Guido Rossi relied on the opinion of a panel made by “the three sages” who clarified the situation explaining that the Scudetto could or could not be awarded. In light of that decision Rossi decided to award Inter. I have always asserted it could have been left unawarded.”
Gerhard Aigner, former UEFA general secretary, one of the “three sages” chosen by Guido Rossi to verify the existence of the essential requirements to award Inter the Scudetto (as requested by Massimo Moratti).
“It was Rossi and not myself to award Inter the Scudetto. I only received a positive opinion, based on the statute, about the generic possibility to re-award the title after the revocation to Juventus”.
Roberto Pardolesi, full professor of private comparative law at the Luiss Guido Carli and one of the “three sages” appointed by Guido Rossi:
“If new elements arose, a new prosecution would be necessary. Obviously, if new elements come out with respect to the ones we were given to formulate our evaluation, the latter should be done ex novo or at least reinstated. If the material at our disposal was not complete, our evaluation would be surpassed by the events, but this is something I do not know. If new facts arose, they could be analyzed; it would be necessary starting a new trial and therefore, from this point of view, the statutory waiting time has not elapsed yet.”
UEFA has its own regulations. In particular, on the basis of art 1.02 of the competition rules the nerazzurri would have been anyway considered “winner of the top domestic league championship”, even without being awarded with the title of champions of Italy. And they would have regularly taken part in the next Champions League without going through the preliminary round.
Franco Carraro, president of FIGC who resigned immediately after the eruption of Calciopoli.
“A serious mistake of sport policy was made by the commissioner Guido Rossi. I read on the newspapers that the reason was the pressure put from UEFA and from IOC. I rule out any type of pressure.”
Only Guido Rossi is left, but he – we are still in Italy – rejected the allegation claiming that Luciano Moggi and Franco Carraro, with their behaviour, awarded Inter the Scudetto.
A paltry buck passing. One thing is for sure: it was requested and obtained by Massimo Moratti.
And this is what Moratti said on the 16th of July 2006: “We deserve the Scudetto because a subtle distinction must be made between those who carried on a certain system and those who have always respected the rules: between who cheated and who is honest. Yes – he goes on – it would be a wrong message not to award the Scudetto. A bad sign not only to the italian sporting scene, but to the whole world. Something that would allow to think that really everyone was cheating. We are not, we raise our
hands and shout: “We are not. We have nothing to do with this corrupt system”. I would say the same things if an other team was in the third place. Scudetto is a right for those who behaved, the title must be given to those who stood out from the others”. Pathetic.

7) GALDI’S AND GAZZETTA DELLO SPORT ROLE
Here is a brilliant article by Enzo Ricchiuti:
I met Galdi. The Gazzetta correspondent in Naples. He is a placid and silent man. Often in the last row. Few notes, the mobile, some newspapers. The lowest profile of all, almost down to the ground. He looks uncomfortable. In a different dimension. As if he was counting, idle and hopeful, only the days passing by. As if he was attending a formal visit so not to be bothered. Lifted out of the hectic background. Halfway between being lost in his thoughts and feeling upset. No cross-examinations could change a thing. In that crowd of doubtful and curious people from everywhere, the only constant is his indifference. In that blessed hearing room everything could change, but not Galdi. And the fact that he moves like an ornament: motionless. Well. A security. The only doubt was if this was awkwardness or simply tediousness. But on that as well we put a full stop.
In the transcripts concerning the acceptance of the police informative reports by the Public Prosecutor of Rome, there are interesting statements about the information leakage during the Calciopoli investigation.
Major Auricchio’s statement:
“Galdi was a useful source to investigate the football scene. Contacts with him began at the end of 2003. We are friends and I used him to learn investigative news as a part of the football inquiry. He used to call me often to keep me informed on all the events coming to his knowledge inside the sport scene. He was doing it because he felt rewarded by cooperating with the detectives...”
Marshal Di Laroni’s statement:
“During the investigation for the Prosecutor of Naples we used Galdi to learn information on football, usually to help us finding useful website for the investigation as well as for general information. He was in touch with major Auricchio and myself; the contacts were occasional, sometimes in person some other times on the phone. The contacts were mostly made at the beginning of the investigation, late 2004; he used to call me often to grab some news about the investigation; I used to call him to find out news I was interested in... During the drafting of the second informative report, we were trying to understand how the random draw to pick the referees was held, I asked Galdi for some news and he sent me back, through the department institutional mailbox, a message with the rules the referees chiefs had agreed to use to hold the draw. Then, I politely lodged for him a petition against a fine he had received for violating the traffic regulation”.
“...Furthermore, after the leak, Galdi complained with me and with major Auricchio about the fact that he had provided his contribution receiving nothing in exchange, unlike some other of his colleagues.”
Chart of duties of a journalist:
Principles: “...a journalist cannot accept advantages, favours or duties which can affect his independence and professional credibility. The journalist must not omit facts or details essential to a complete reconstruction of the events...”
Presumption of innocence: ”For every investigation or trial, the journalist must always remember that every person accused of a crime is innocent until the final conviction has been pronounced and he must not report the news so to present as guilty whoever has not been sentenced as such in a trial...”
Incompatibility:”...The journalist must not undertake any duties or responsibilities in contrast with the independent practice of the profession”.

6) COLLINA WAS NEVER PUNISHED, NOR INVESTIGATED. WHY?
As we recently found out by listening to the “like it or not” phone calls, the former referee and current referees’ chief Collina had a very friendly and close relationship with Leonardo Meani (AC Milan employee – Ed), and used to approach the AC Milan executive and President of the Football League Adriano Galliani (and Fazi?) in order to sponsor his nomination as future referees’ chief. An inadmissible position (just imagine if Moggi had held a relationship with De Santis, and if the latter, once retired, had contacted Bettega to build his career...). On the 10th of April 2010 we found out through the words of “the idiot that counts”, Giancarlo Abete, that “the wiretap between Collina and Meani come out in the past few days and published as new is actually old, well-known and already assessed by the body of the sporting justice”.
Assessed? And how? Let us delve into it.
The phone call between Collina and Meani was assessed, analyzed and judged by Marcello Cardona, national referee prosecutor, and already resulted in the referral of Pierluigi Collina “for maintaining during the 2004-05 season and in any case until the end of August 2005, illicit contacts with subjects affiliated to A.C.Milan dealing with issues regarding the referee business; with particular regard to the contacts with the affiliated Leonardo Meani. It is disputed the aggravating circumstance about the prejudice caused to the reputation of AIA (the italian referee association - Ed), due to notoriety of the facts.” The act of the referral submitted from Marcello Cardona to the italian federation FIGC, stigmatized the behaviour of the former referee: ”Collina’s misconduct appears significant on a disciplinary level due to the clear inconvenience of the contacts made with Meani the day after a Milan match refereed by him, characterised by a violent controversy originated by some of the referee’s decisions. Such behaviour has been without any doubts untimely and clashing with the position of impartiality and independence which, even in terms of image, characterize the essence of the referee figure. It should be stressed that the relationship with the President of the League (Galliani – Ed) turned out to be inconvenient as well, in fact, as Collina admitted, Galliani was able to complain for what happened during the match Siena-Milan”. And Cardona also considered unacceptable the justifications Collina brought up for contacting Meani as a link to Galliani.
Now it is time to explain why and in the name of what, in 2006, while sorting among facts, phone calls, bans and referrals, someone decided that Collina’s referral, signed by the prosecutor Marcello Cardona, had to end up forgotten in a drawer of the FIGC instead of landing on the table of the sporting justice. The referee Prosecutor’s Office forwarded the report to the Investigation Office and the prosecutor Marcello Cardona clearly asked for disciplinary measures in the act of referral. That act ended up in a drawer of the FIGC and Collina became referees’ chief. Who decided to close that drawer? That year the whole referee class paid heavily, while Collina was rewarded with a promotion to referees’ chief.

5) THE WIRETAPS THAT FIGC LOST (OR NEVER HAD).
The FIGC general director Antonello Valentini said on the 16th of April:”For every case of legal nature we follow the judiciary Bench. We verified with the FIGC federal prosecutor (Palazzi, since 2007) that we never had those CD’s (containing the wiretaps – Ed). On the 15th of December 2007, in Naples, Palazzi asked for the documents and three large folders, concerning facts and events for which the statute of limitation had elapsed for three months, were delivered to us on Christmas Eve”. Translated:
FIGC never had the CD’s with the audio files of the phone calls, wiretapped by the police. How did they collect the evidence for Calciopoli? Reading the Gazzetta?

4) THE NEWS LEAK: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE AND WHY?
In 2007 the then-major Auricchio (the police officer in charge of the investigation – Ed) said, before the Public Prosecutor of the Tribunal of Rome, that the three summary informative reports drafted by his unit on “Calciopoli” were protected by a password shared with the colleagues who where working with him on the same investigation. The password was also known by his superior Colonel Arcangioli (try to google him, just out of curiosity) who requested and obtained to learn it. On the 13th of May 2006, Saturday, major Auricchio questions the referee Gianluca Paparesta who issues “statements of particular interest from the point of view of the investigation”. A few days later, undisclosed news leak to the TV programme “Matrix” and, afterwards, to the newspaper “Corriere della Sera” revealing statements released during the examination. At that stage Auricchio and his colleagues try to reconstruct the events. The Sunday following the questioning, still Arcangioli asks for and obtains by his colleagues, Di Laroni and Vucetic, a printout of the minutes of the examination. Auricchio sees Arcangioli with the journalist Sarzanini, and Galdi tells him to have glimpsed a dossier on the journalist’s desk, probably about Paparesta.
As for the police informative reports themselves, although the magazine “L’Espresso” was the first one to publish the news regarding the investigation in Naples, their articles, according to Auricchio, were based only on the informative report of the Turin investigation and not on their reports. The so-called “Black Book of Soccer” (published later on by “L’Espresso” – Ed) was instead, still according to him, simply bought from another magazine when the informative reports were already “on the market” (proved by the fact that they were also offered to a second magazine, “Panorama”).
The first magazine to publish news from their informative reports was “Il Romanista”, directed by Riccardo Luna. According to Auricchio, Luna used to have several “institutional” links.
“I do not think the news disclosure was driven by business reasons because this would require a criminal mentality; but I think there has been an accumulation of interests, as the one to jeopardize the investigations”. This is how Auricchio concluded his statement. Hard to believe.
A question is still left: why did the leak happen, if it could have jeopardized the investigations? Probably, excluding the “Auricchiese” interpretation, pretty much nothing in it had a crime potential, but from a sport-related point of view there was enough material to start a trial against the soccer scene (which “like it or not”, did not involve Inter). Without that news leak, in fact, it is worth reminding, the statute of limitations would have applied to every subject involved, including Juventus. And, for the same reason, the fact that, at that time, the phone call wiretaps involving Inter did not leak out allowed for the same calls to enter the statute of limitations date.
Who had an interest in leaking these news to the newspapers? Why? The answer to this question would probably unveil many of the current mysteries of Calciopoli.

3) THE STRANGE TANGLES INTER-TELECOM-FIGC-FIAT
Dangerous plots, those occurring on the axis FIGC-Telecom-FIAT. Let us reorganize the ideas step-by-step.
2006: Giuliano Tavaroli, former security chief of Pirelli before and Telecom afterwards, during the examination, confesses to the Public Prosecutor of Milan that Massimo Moratti organized an investigation on Calciopoli over two years earlier than the major Attilio Auricchio, arranging an investigation on the fringe of legality against referees, referees’ chiefs and Juventus. Since 2002, therefore, an investigation – illegal – begun against some of the defendants of Calciopoli. Obviously the source of these information is Giuliano Tavaroli, and the responsibility for such statements belongs to him.
May 16, 2006: Guido Rossi, former President of Telecom, becomes Special Commissioner for the italian football federation FIGC. Gianni Petrucci (president of the italian olympic committee, CONI - Ed) announces him with these words: ”We needed to pick a person outside of our world, as we said, and the professor is a person about whom nobody can say ‘he is a friend of...he is not a friend of...’”. An arguable statement, if nothing else, considering he has unquestionably been, among other things, a financial executive of Inter and member of the Board of Directors of nerazzurri. As if this was not enough, one of his deputies, Paolo Nicoletti, is the lawyer Francesco Nicoletti’s son, from Calabria, who has defended the Moratti family for decades.
May 23, 2006: Guido Rossi appoints Francesco Saverio Borrelli as the new Chief of the FIGC Federal Investigation office, replacing the discouraged Pappa. One of the two deputies is Federico Maurizio D’Andrea, Lieutenant Colonel of the Guardia di Finanza (a body of the police responsible for custom and investigating fraud - Ed) in Bergamo.
September 15, 2006: After Marco Tronchetti Provera’s resignation, Guido Rossi is appointed again President of Telecom Italy.
September 20, 2006: As soon as Calciopoli is over, Saverio Borrelli and his deputies, D’Andrea and Falcicchia, resign from the Investigation Office. Later, D’Andrea will be hired by Telecom replacing Tavaroli in the security unit. De facto, he will become recognized as the number 3 in Telecom.
September 21, 2006: The FIGC Special Commissioner Guido Rossi, new President of Telecom, gives up his mandate followed by his Deputy Commissioners, Vito Gamberale and Paolo Nicoletti. He is replaced by Luca Pancalli.
September 27, 2006: After talking to the new FIGC Special Commissioner Luca Pancalli, Francesco Saverio Borrelli changes his mind and withdraw his resignation.
March 2007: The Public Prosecutor of Milan sends to the FIGC a file containing, among other things, the aforementioned Giuliano Tavaroli’s statement on the shadowing activity arranged by Telecom.
April 2007: The former referee Massimo De Santis accuses Telecom of illegal telephone tapping ans tailing. The same fate happens, among others, to Bobo Vieri and Fabiani (former executive of Messina). Have a look to what Silvia Morescanti, Fabiani’s and Bergamo’s lawyer, has to say in this respect in a TV programme about Calciopoli aired on SportItalia last April 6, 2006:
“During the Telecom trial in Milan, it has come to the light, although it was already present in the official acts since 2006, that some of the referees and some of the team executives, including Fabiani, were tailed. All these documents came into the hands of Borrelli in April 2007. In 2007 the italian federation was well aware of what had happened. What did they do against Inter considering that, from that investigation, it clearly comes out that the instigators of tailing some people in the world of football were Moratti and Facchetti? The Federation has these documents, I have evidence, I have the
documentation and I took it to CONI (the olympic italian committee – Ed) when I defended Fabiani and I even sent it to them in order to start a trial against Inter. The Federation has been silent and reckoned that starting such a crucial proceedings was not necessary.”
Here is, instead, what Emanuele Cipriani, the man of the Telecom dossiers, says in an interview with the TV programme “Report” aired on RaiTre, May 16, 2010:
Q. Some of your dossiers concern Inter players, the referee De Santis...
A. Yes.
Q. ...later involved in Calciopoli, right?
A. Yeah, right!
Q. Who instructed you to do it?
A. The activity on the referee De Santis was requested and paid for by Pirelli, while the inspection of the behaviours – because there were rumors that these players had rather unorthodox rendez-vous and they could not properly perform on the pitch – was requested by Pirelli but billed to Inter.
Q. Was Tronchetti Provera aware of these activities, as far as you know?
A. In my presence several times Mr Tavaroli lifted the phone, touched on something and, automatically, very often – given that those were the most delicate files – Tavaroli used to stand up and walk away, leaving me there, heading for Dr.Tronchetti’s office.
April 2, 2007: Giancarlo Abete is appointed as new President of the FIGC replacing the Special Commissioner Luca Pancalli.
April 6, 2007: Guido Rossi resigns as President and member of the Board of Directors of Telecom.
June 2007: Francesco Saverio Borrelli resigns again.
June 23, 2007: The FIGC officially closes the proceedings against Inter for the “Telecom case” due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
July 1, 2007: The new “Code of Sports Justice” comes into force.
March 8, 2008: The journalist Fabio Tamburini writes on the newspaper “Il Sole 24 Ore” that Guido Rossi has been a consultant for FIAT for the last few weeks.
March 10, 2008: The lawyer Berardino Libonati is appointed President of Telecom Italia Media. Among other things, he is Gabetti’s (President of Exor) legal advisor in the lawsuit brought up by Margherita Agnelli to clarify the issues regarding Gianni Agnelli’s inheritance.
This is how probably the high finance works, and presumably all the appointed people are estimated professionals with irreproachable morals. For sure, some of the designations are, it can be said, a bit inappropriate.

2) “LIKE IT OR NOT”, INTER WAS IGNORED
Here is an article published by ANSA (italian news agency) on October 27, 2008:
Naples, October 27 – “The defendants might like it or not but phone calls between Bergamo or Pairetto (the two referees’chiefs - Ed) and Mister Moratti, Mister Sensi (at that time President of Rome – Ed) or Mister Campedelli, President of Chievo, do not exist...”. With these words the Prosecutor
Giuseppe Narducci settles the theory according to which, within the sphere of all the illicit contacts between managers, referees and referees’ chiefs emerged in the Calciopoli investigation, it would simply be an “everyone-solicits-everyone-for-benefits” world. A theory supported by some defendants only to, according to the investigators, downsize the position and the responsibilities of those involved in the judicial proceedings. To disprove this version, suggested several times in interviews and comments, it was the Prosecutor Narducci’s final speech, before the preliminary hearing judge Eduardo De Gregorio, at the opening of the first hearing of the trial against the eleven defendants who requested the shortened trial. A final speech that will require Narducci and his fellow colleague Filippo Beatrice at least two more hearings, beginning next 12th of December. According to the Neapolitan Prosecutor, the theory of a widespread system where everyone had close contacts with everyone is “rubbish proved wrong by the evidence”. In thousands of wiretaps, pointed out the Prosecutor, “only those people (the current defendants - Ed) are present because they only had contacts with the football authorities”. ”Mobile phones were tapped 24/7: the evidence proves that it is untrue that all the team executives used to call Bergamo, Pairetto, Mazzini (FIGC Vice President) or Lanese (President of italian referee association, AIA): the people who established a relationship with them are Moggi, Giraudo, Foti, Lotito, Andrea Della Valle and Diego Della Valle”. And this is also true for the “occult” SIM cards, a bunch of SIMs that Moggi would have given to referees and referees’ chiefs. “There are not SIMs belonging to Mr.Moratti or Mr.Sensi, there are instead the SIMs we already mentioned”, said Narducci.
Two years later, there is no need to add more. Or maybe there is.
Here is Bergamo’s (former referees’ chief - Ed) interview with the newspaper “Repubblica” on the 8th of June 2006:
Q. Did you or did you not use to talk on the phone with Moggi?
A. With Moggi? Sure, with him and with everyone else. As it had to be. I used to talk with Capello, Sacchi...normal, perfectly normal.
Q. The police claim there has been a secret lunch in your house, in Collesalvetti, with the Juventus executives.
A. Nonsense! The championship was almost over, Juventus was playing in Livorno and they had already won the Scudetto. Yes, Moggi and Giraudo came to dinner at my house, so what?
Q. The policemen were posted at the gate...
A. At the gate, down the road, wherever they were...In the past I had invited for dinner also Galliani and managers of Inter as well as other clubs. I am sorry, but what is wrong with it?
On the same day, Borrelli’s (federal prosecutor – Ed) team questions Bergamo from 9.10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Bergamo immediately confesses to the deputies of the Investigation Office, D’Andrea and De Feo, that he was in contact with many other executives. As it can be read in examination report, this is what Bergamo said: “I never refused to talk about the probable grid composition (the grid used to randomly draw the referees and assign them to the different matches - Ed), which anyway needed to be discussed with Pairetto (the referees’ co-chief along with Bergamo – Ed), with all the other executives who made request. The habit of talking about the grid or about the referees to insert in the grid, I confirm once more, involved other team executives as well (among the others Facchetti, Meani, Capello and Sacchi). I am not aware if Pairetto used to talk with others about this matter. And I point out that the grid composition was an “open secret” because the referees were certainly identifiable by the experts”.
The day ends with Bergamo as a guest of the TV programme “Matrix”. “In the TV programme hosted by Enrico Mentana, Paolo Bergamo said that phone calls to him and his colleague Pierluigi Pairetto made by executives of several clubs were very frequent. Bergamo has frankly revealed that he used to talk to everyone and welcome to his house, even for the night, the President of Inter Giacinto Facchetti. In particular, he said he used to receive often phone calls from Inter managers, the team later awarded with the Scudetto 2005-2006. Also in the interview, the former referees’ chief, said that during the 2003-2004 football season he has spoken several times to the former Roma coach, Fabio Capello”.
Let us talk about the former referee Massimo De Santis: this is what he said in a TV programme aired on Antenna3, on the 30th of April 2007.
“I declare that I have never, and I mean never, talked on the phone with Luciano Moggi and that I have never received an international SIM card from him. I am going to say more. I used to talk regularly with other football team executives. I was in contact with Facchetti and Meani. With Giacinto Facchetti I had an excellent relationship and I have to admit that in many circumstances he was very obsessive (...). Moratti is well aware of this. I am sorry I have to mention a person who passed away. I am available to make all my phone records public so that everyone will know that these contacts were real. Meani? We got in touch very often and it makes me laugh when he is treated as a delivery boy or a caregiver.”
Finally, here is Rosario Coppola, former Serie A linesman, interviewed by “calciomercato.com” on the 6th of April 2020, who confirms a deposition in the Naples trial:
Q. First you told the FIGC everything and then, after Calciopoli erupted, you communicated it to the police.
A. “When I met the police officers, I was surprise from their attitude: it seemed like they were not interested in the subject, maybe because what I was saying was not following the direction they had taken. They were very hasty, saying they did not have wiretapping on Inter”.
Q. Now there are.
A. “I am not surprised. Now we talk about Inter, but everyone was involved”.
Q. Why were you the only one to speak out?
A. “Because I have stopped being a linesman”.
Finally, I remind you, thanks to the help of my friend Gabriele Capasso, I realized a dossier to compare the phone calls “nailing down” Luciano Moggi reported in the CAF (the sport federal court – Ed) verdict, with the ones regarding Giacinto Facchetti, at that time President of Inter. Is everyone sure they were not “relevant”?

1) THE APPEALABLE “MORAL” SENTENCE
Juventus was relegated to Serie B with a heavy points penalty, losing two Scudetti with no proof of actually fixing (or attempting to) a single match. No violation of Article 6 of the code of sport conduct (which refers to a sport offence - Ed), but few violations of the Article 1 (unsportsmanlike conduct – Ed) which pooled together formed a new infraction corresponding to a violation of the Article 6. A “structured offence”, as it was named, specifically designed to justify the harshness of the punishment which had to meet the common sentiment, impatient for a general cleaning. No need to say more. The
previous nine points are all relevant, but the truth is that even the new strand of wiretaps was not needed in order to ask for the re-opening of the sporting trial. Striving for it would have been enough.

Antonio Corsa
www.uccellinodidelpiero.com
Translated by Floriano (atomoh)