Conte handed 10 month ban, Leonardo Bonucci and Simone Pepe both acquitted

mtfootball wrote:Is he just banned from matches or from football altogether?

Touchline ban..He cant still train the team.

No sympathy for conte, personally
He made a big mistake, negligence is punishable and it should be

He's not bigger than the club and his actions while managing siena do not reflect juventus in any way

Luca wrote:No sympathy for conte, personally
He made a big mistake, negligence is punishable and it should be

He's not bigger than the club and his actions while managing siena do not reflect juventus in any way

although i agree with you atm, but if you stick by him it says somethig very different

Conte's case was based on the testimony of Filippo Carobbio. Carobbio was deemed credible.

Bonucci and Pepe's case was based on the testimony of Andrea Masiello. Masiello was deemed not credible.

Both are crooks in any case

Urban that Carlo Gargenese's tweet you posted earlier in the day..You got trolled so hard

BREAKING NEWS: Pinocchio has accused Conte of fixing Novara 0-4 Juventus ... Figc increase Conte ban to 20 months

Pinocchio

UrbanRoots

Saeco wrote:You wouldn't try to take a plea bargain unless you had some level of guilt. Justified, IMO.

But then I haven't been following this as closely as most, so my opinion is pretty much worthless. What happens now? Is he banned from any activities or just banned from touchline/press conferences, and still gets to train the team etc?

No in Italy if you make a plea bargain it can not be used as an admission of guilt. He took the plea bargain to try and get it over with and take a relatively small ban.

He deserves ban for not reporting it . The punishment for not reporting match fixing exists there for a reason.

TomJuve wrote:

Saeco wrote:You wouldn't try to take a plea bargain unless you had some level of guilt. Justified, IMO.

But then I haven't been following this as closely as most, so my opinion is pretty much worthless. What happens now? Is he banned from any activities or just banned from touchline/press conferences, and still gets to train the team etc?

No in Italy if you make a plea bargain it can not be used as an admission of guilt. He took the plea bargain to try and get it over with and take a relatively small ban.

If he was innocent then there's nothing to worry about regarding the ban. You would fight it. If someone was accusing you of something that you didn't do, you would NOT roll over and accept any kind of punishment. It's clear as day that he had no faith in being found innocent. Sounds like an odd law system that he tried to take advantage of and was rejected. Justified ban.

Saeco wrote:

TomJuve wrote:

Saeco wrote:You wouldn't try to take a plea bargain unless you had some level of guilt. Justified, IMO.

But then I haven't been following this as closely as most, so my opinion is pretty much worthless. What happens now? Is he banned from any activities or just banned from touchline/press conferences, and still gets to train the team etc?

No in Italy if you make a plea bargain it can not be used as an admission of guilt. He took the plea bargain to try and get it over with and take a relatively small ban.

If he was innocent then there's nothing to worry about regarding the ban. You would fight it. If someone was accusing you of something that you didn't do, you would NOT roll over and accept any kind of punishment. It's clear as day that he had no faith in being found innocent. Sounds like an odd law system that he tried to take advantage of and was rejected. Justified ban.

No matter what he was going to be prosecuted. One person said he was guilty and many others said he was not. The FIGC believed one mans word over many others and there was no further evidence. Not a phone call, not any money exchanged, nothing. The plea bargain was reached and then they pulled the plug on it. You think that's justified?

TomJuve wrote: No matter what he was going to be prosecuted. One person said he was guilty and many others said he was not. The FIGC believed one mans word over many others and there was no further evidence. Not a phone call, not any money exchanged, nothing. The plea bargain was reached and then they pulled the plug on it. You think that's justified?

Precisely the reason why i think this decision is a joke if it is only this.

The other part that is inconsistent is how did they find the other witnesses not credible in relation to Bonucci and Pepe, but found the one implicating Conte to be credible? What were the standards of credibility they applied there?

kiranr wrote:

TomJuve wrote: No matter what he was going to be prosecuted. One person said he was guilty and many others said he was not. The FIGC believed one mans word over many others and there was no further evidence. Not a phone call, not any money exchanged, nothing. The plea bargain was reached and then they pulled the plug on it. You think that's justified?

Precisely the reason why i think this decision is a joke if it is only this.

The other part that is inconsistent is how did they find the other witnesses not credible in relation to Bonucci and Pepe, but found the one implicating Conte to be credible? What were the standards of credibility they applied there?

You've got me there, I have no idea how they chose who's credible and who's not. Like you say the decision is a joke and according to all of the information I have read over this whole subject there really is no true evidence against Conte, just one mans word. Although I am happy Bonucci and Pepe have been cleared I thought they had more going against them than Conte. This whole situation is a witch hunt.

TomJuve wrote:

Saeco wrote:

TomJuve wrote:

Saeco wrote:You wouldn't try to take a plea bargain unless you had some level of guilt. Justified, IMO.

But then I haven't been following this as closely as most, so my opinion is pretty much worthless. What happens now? Is he banned from any activities or just banned from touchline/press conferences, and still gets to train the team etc?

No in Italy if you make a plea bargain it can not be used as an admission of guilt. He took the plea bargain to try and get it over with and take a relatively small ban.

If he was innocent then there's nothing to worry about regarding the ban. You would fight it. If someone was accusing you of something that you didn't do, you would NOT roll over and accept any kind of punishment. It's clear as day that he had no faith in being found innocent. Sounds like an odd law system that he tried to take advantage of and was rejected. Justified ban.

No matter what he was going to be prosecuted. One person said he was guilty and many others said he was not. The FIGC believed one mans word over many others and there was no further evidence. Not a phone call, not any money exchanged, nothing. The plea bargain was reached and then they pulled the plug on it. You think that's justified?

The charge is that Conte knew and didn't report it. So, there wouldn't be any money or a phone call necessarily. It's a lot less to prove than in Bonucci's case for example.

We can't scrutinize the evidence that much, obviously it was admissible and deemed credible. That's all that really matters, negligence was proved and now Conte will face punishment.

Luca wrote:
The charge is that Conte knew and didn't report it. So, there wouldn't be any money or a phone call necessarily. It's a lot less to prove than in Bonucci's case for example.

We can't scrutinize the evidence that much, obviously it was admissible and deemed credible. That's all that really matters, negligence was proved and now Conte will face punishment.

What is so obvious about one man's testimony against many others?

@Luca I know what you're saying but the only proof he knew is the words of a single man against the words of many other men. That is terrible evidence and I have no idea how it has been deemed credible.

The FIGC themselves are crooked, especially against Juventus. I thought that was pretty well known. Out of 24 people, 23 said Conte was innocent, yet he still gsts a ban for over an entire season. Thats some crooked shit right there.

Anyways, since Conte can still train the team and still basically be the coach, he just cant stand on the sideline, i say we keep.him and use the assistant coach on the sideline just like against Malaga.

So it was just one out of many that accused Conte and his first thoughts are to take a plea bargain... that sounds like a guilty man to me. Did any of the other players try to accept a plea bargain, Pepe/Bonucci?

Saeco wrote:So it was just one out of many that accused Conte and his first thoughts are to take a plea bargain... that sounds like a guilty man to me. Did any of the other players try to accept a plea bargain, Pepe/Bonucci?

He was convinced by his lawyers to do it and he specifically said it is not an admission of guilt. How can you use this as evidence?

Saeco wrote:So it was just one out of many that accused Conte and his first thoughts are to take a plea bargain... that sounds like a guilty man to me. Did any of the other players try to accept a plea bargain, Pepe/Bonucci?

Now you're just adding things in. It was not his first though at all. He was told it would be the best thing to do and Conte made sure it did NOT mean he was guilty. He simply went for the better of the two options at the time. Take a plea bargain or fight against it and get a 1 year suspension. Then the FIGC screwed him again and he was left with no option.

10 month touchline ban lmao.

Teleconference in the dressing room at half time.
NFL headset, or some sort of headset.

Good to go.

Le Samourai wrote:10 month touchline ban lmao.

Teleconference in the dressing room at half time.
NFL headset, or some sort of headset.

Good to go.

I hope it works out that way.

What a joke, why was my post removed? Since when has expressing our opinions been forbidden? That was my opinion on Juve and their actions and ALL that I said was based by FACTS and TRUTH. Juve did cheat in 2006, Juve is now protecting a cheater <--- as honest as it can get

How come accusing a club for cheating (jiopsis 103027490324790 scandal in la ligas) doesn't get removed but telling the TRUTH and your opinion on something = removed immedietly and called trolling

disgrace tbh, disgrace

@Se7en

Your post was removed because it contained blatantly insulting expressions and such are not allowed. If you state facts, then do that without vulgar expressions and insults. If you use one more vulgar expression and I catch it, you will find your warning bar reduced by 25%.

@Nameless

You know, opinions are not a problem as long as they are stated matter of factly. It is not the *what*, but the *how* that is the problem here.

kiranr wrote:

Luca wrote:
The charge is that Conte knew and didn't report it. So, there wouldn't be any money or a phone call necessarily. It's a lot less to prove than in Bonucci's case for example.

We can't scrutinize the evidence that much, obviously it was admissible and deemed credible. That's all that really matters, negligence was proved and now Conte will face punishment.

What is so obvious about one man's testimony against many others?

Obviously something
I refuse to believe it's one great big conspiracy

I think it's just more likely that Conte did in fact know and not report a potential match fix

Se7en wrote:What a joke, why was my post removed? Since when has expressing our opinions been forbidden? That was my opinion on Juve and their actions and ALL that I said was based by FACTS and TRUTH. Juve did cheat in 2006, Juve is now protecting a cheater <--- as honest as it can get

How come accusing a club for cheating (jiopsis 103027490324790 scandal in la ligas) doesn't get removed but telling the TRUTH and your opinion on something = removed immedietly and called trolling

disgrace tbh, disgrace

Se7en wrote:What a joke, why was my post removed? Since when has expressing our opinions been forbidden? That was my opinion on Juve and their actions and ALL that I said was based by FACTS and TRUTH. Juve did cheat in 2006, Juve is now protecting a cheater <--- as honest as it can get

How come accusing a club for cheating (jiopsis 103027490324790 scandal in la ligas) doesn't get removed but telling the TRUTH and your opinion on something = removed immedietly and called trolling

disgrace tbh, disgrace

Conte didn't fix a match, he didn't report a potentially fixed match
Big difference