Their timing on this is impeccable. I like how other teams trials have now been pushed back to after the start of the season. Now they don't have to worry about not playing in Europe, having players banned, loss of points, etc.
It amazes me that Preziosi is found guilty of fixing a match and gets banned from the stadium for 6 months, YEARS after he FIXED a game. Then there's this scommessopoli bull. It's all politics.
Forgot the other news flash ..... Prosecutors look to make political career moves with big headline cases.
OK, here's the thing: If someone comes to Di Martino and say, "We'll give you 100,000 to make the result finish 4-3." Di Martino says, "No, thanks." He has a duty to report this information to the authorities. He went and told Conte. It is also Conte's duty to report this information. If he neglected to report it, then he's just as guilty as Di Martino is. Once you know about it, it is your duty to report it. This sounds similar to the Penn State thing. Assistant sees a crime being committed. He reports it to the head coach, but not the police. Head coach keeps internally, but doesn't go to the police. Problem lingers for several years, and gets progressively worse. I'm not saying that the two are directly related, but they are similar in the sense that both had a duty to report the crimes, and neither one did.
Let's not compare coconuts to pineapples here. In the Penn State situation, there was a crime committed. An attempt to ask a player to fix a match is not. We do not have any details of how far that attempt went. If Di Martino turned down an offer, he did not commit a crime. If the prosecutors want info on who made that offer, he should give it. Creating this burden that he is a criminal because he did the right thing by refusing but did not run to the authorities is ridiculous. If there is a criminal element trying to fix these matches, the players have enough to worry about their own personal safety.
What are the rules? According to the FIGC the rules are pretty straight forward: If you know of an attempted fix, you have to alert us. Failing to alert us of a potential fix is against the rules and subject to a ban. It seems to be pretty clear on that.
i don't think that's why we got Lucio, Lucio was brought in for depth and he's ********ing awful. Another CB is needed
So if I ask you to go rob a bank and you tell me no and it ends there, it is a crime that you failed to report something that never happened? Here is the dilemma for a player. If we are looking at some mafioso who is looking to fix the match and the player already feels enough heat by refusing, how likely you think he wants to go running to authorities? It is not as if he can get a transfer to a witness protection team and continue his soccer career. It is not that black & white.
Falc, what are the rules? I'm not talking about criminally. I'm talking about the rules of the FIGC. The rules of the FIGC state that if you have knowledge of a potential fix, then you must report it, or face a ban. This isn't my opinion. These are the rules of the FIGC. Do I want to see Conte banned? Of course not. However, if he didn't follow the rules, then he deserves his punishment. By the way, the "fear that the mafioso are going to come after you if you refuse" is bullshit. That didn't stop Simone Farina from saying no, and then reporting it to the authorities. These players have choices, and their choice was to not say anything.