Xtratime Community banner

What punishment should São Caetano receive?

  • The should lose all points since February

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The club should receive a heavy $$$ fine

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Some other form of punishment (which one then?)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Cachorro
Joined
·
18,741 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
After Serginho's death inside the pitch, police investigations discovered – contrary to what São Caetano's president had been saying – that the physical exams the player went through in february had identified heart problems, and the player had been advised to retire from competitive sports because he risked "sudden death". :eekani: :( So the club KNEW the player could die inside the pitch and continued to use him anyway... and now the club's officials want to blame the player for "wanting to play"!!

Yes, the club initially reacted to the revelation of the exams by changing their story and declaring that the player himself had decided to keep playing, conveniently shifting all the responsibility to the dead guy. :yuck: However, that line didn't fly – because according to Brazilian legislation nobody has the right to dispose of their own life, so Serginho's decision to keep playing (which was incentived by his agent, who wanted to negotiate him to an Asian club next year) was irrelevant and didn't affect the club's criminal responsibility for fielding him after the exams' results revealed the deadly heart condition.

And yesterday São Caetano came up with YET ANOTHER line of defense: a document signed by one of SC's doctors and by one of the doctors of INCOR (the heart institute that had conducted the exams) was made public yesterday, and according to that document the heart condition that killed Serginho (cardiac hypertrophy) wasn't one of the conditions identified in the february exams, leading them to conclude that Serginho's death was just a fatality and the club had NO responsibility whatsoever. :rolleyes: Suuure... the club was warned that the player had a heart condition that could kill him, but since he ultimately died of a DIFFERENT heart condition the club had no way to predict what happened!! :wth: :googly: This is a cynical attempt by São Caetano to weasel their way out of the lawsuits, and I'm personally disgusted. UNICOR already released an official note declaring that this "document" only represents the doctor's personal opinion.

Two facts should be noted: first, the SC doctor who signed this shameless document may still be prosecuted for perjury – because in his official police statement from November 22 (after Serginho died, when the police began questioning people) he declared that the club had no idea whatsoever about any heart conditions and that nobody had EVER suggested that the player should stop playing. That was contradicted by official UNICOR documents from february and later, where it was unequivocally stated that the player's life was at risk if he continued plaing. The second relevant fact is that the UNICOR physician who conducted the original exams also examined one of São Caetano's directors TWO WEEKS before Serginho died, and in that encounter he reiterated his appeal that Serginho should not be playing, begging the director to help convince the player's family of the gravity of the situtation. The club director reacted by washing his hands of the whole thing and saying it was the player's decision.

Now there are two lawsuits against São Caetano's directors and doctors – one in criminal courts, determining their responsibilities on the player's demise; and one in the sports justice, because the player's registration before the championship ommitted all the exams that mentioned his heart condition, which is considered a fraudulent registration... and according to Brazilian football law, a fraudulent registration is punishable with the loss of twice the points disputed by the player in question. :undecide: One prosecutor suggested that São Caetano should lose ALL the points they disputed (with Serginho) since february, which would lead them directly to relegation in the Brazilian league; but the head judge already announced that this interpretation won't be pursued. The likely punishment in this case is the loss of twice the points disputed by the player in the two months previous to the discovery of the irregularities, which would be 24 points... throwing SC many places down the league tables, far away from the "Libertadores qualification" zone.

But what do YOU think? I personally believe São Caetano needs an exemplary punishment, that will make other clubs take this kind of thing more seriously in the future. I thought the "losing all points since february" approach was excessive... relegating one of the best teams in the league because of this seemed too much; but fortunately that won't happen anymore. But is the loss of points the best alternative? What other punishment would be reasonable, in your opinion?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
30,826 Posts
Nah, Sveiter is just looking for a reason to cause trouble and turn the tables. His court have no right, no power to judge the matter. It is beyond him and they found a loop about legal conditions rules in the sport code. It will be simple, if Sao Caetano is punished, just like Gama, the commun justice will give him the rights and all confusion is back (funny how this dictador is always around all the last turning the tables) simple because Sao Caetano can be only be punished after all the trials of Normal Justice and the Sport Court have no power to punish him as guilt before the Nornal Justice and anyone know it would happen. That is all about. No fairness.
By the way your laws, the real one, not this joke Sveiter thinks he commands, must punish them,give Serginho's family condition to survive and a legislation of hazard in work must be also created to cover this.
 

·
Cachorro
Joined
·
18,741 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Well, the court has decided to punish São Caetano with the loss of 24 points... a well deserved punishment. Now it's up for the penal courts to give their own punishment, parallel and independent to the sport court's decision. IMO São Caetano's doctor should lose his license to practice medicine, and not only in sports – this guy needs to be banned from the medical profession.
JCamilo said:
Nah, Sveiter is just looking for a reason to cause trouble and turn the tables.
Sveiter is following the LAW. One may argue that the law is unfair – I personally don't think taking points from teams is the ideal punishment in this case – but that's the punishment determined by the LAW. We all know that Brasilians don't like to follow laws but Sveiter's job is to enforce the existing laws. If you dislike the law don't blame the judge, blame the legislators. ;)

The Paulista media predictably began to whine, moan and attack the court's decision, but if they don't like the law they need to begin a campaign to change the law for the future. NOW, the law determines the loss of points, and São Caetano got what they deserved for toying with Serginho's life.

JCamilo said:
His court have no right, no power to judge the matter.
Yes, his court does have the right, and the loss of points is established by law as the proper punishment for what São Caetano did. The sports court has the right to punish a club that ommitted essential documentation from the player's registration, committing FRAUD – if they had included the medical reports in the registration documents the registration might be denied, so they simply ommitted the documents that revealed Serginho's condition and hoped that nobody would find out. Well, the player DIED from the condition that the club tried to hide... and SC's fraud was exposed.

About "waiting for the civil court to give their decision"... if Sveiter did THAT, when he tried to have the trial the SP media would start complaining that the court wants to change the league tables after the league had ended, and we would hear accusations about suspicious "tapetão" maneuvers. :rollani: :eek: Not to mention that the civil court probably won't make a final ruling for quite a while – and if São Caetano played the Libertadores before the penal court's sentence, any posterior punishment from the sport courts would be pointless. So really, deciding the matter before the league ends is the best course of action, it's the best solution. The court's commitment to give their decision before the league ends deserves applause and not criticism, but that won't stop the paulista media from bitching.

Not to mention, of course, that the penal lawsuit and the sports lawsuit are about DIFFERENT CHARGES. The penal court will determine the individual responsibilities of director and doctors regarding the player's death. The sport court, on the other hand, was judging whether or not São Caetano was aware of the player's problem when they made the registration. Since it was established beyond doubt that the club DID know, and intentionally ommitted that information from the registration, the club was guilty of making a fraudulent registration – and according to the LAW the proper punishment is the loss of points.

One interesting detail about this imbroglio is that since NO teams from Rio are struggling for the trophy or even Libertadores spots, the pathethic SP media can't resurrect one of their imaginary "conspiracy theories" about the courts wanting to help Rio teams. :mute: I can imagine how that must be cramping Milton Neves' style... not being able to talk crap about the old "conspiracy to help Rio clubs" must be REALLY frustrating for these so-called 'journalists' in their search for scapegoats. Hell, if they really want to invent a conspiracy theory they can always say that the court's decision is meant to benefit PALMEIRAS, the team that inherited São Caetano's position (and Libertadores spot!)... but of course, the Paulista media isn't interested in accusing a paulista team of conspiracies... :yuck:

In my opinion, Sveiter's court did the right thing.
 

·
Second Place Winner, December 2011 Photo Contest
Joined
·
94,480 Posts
Sao Caetano have 24 points deducted :crybaby: over player's death

By Brian Homewood

RIO DE JANEIRO, Dec 7 (Reuters)

- Brazilian club Sao Caetano had 24 points deducted on Tuesday after defender Serginho collapsed on the field and died during a match against Sao Paulo in October.

Brazil's Sports Disciplinary Tribunal also banned the club doctor Paulo Forte for 1,440 days and club president Nairo Ferreira for 720 days.

The four-man tribunal reached its verdict after an eight-hour hearing which ended in the early hours of Tuesday morning.

Sao Caetano's lawyer Joao Zanforlin told reporters that the club would appeal.

Police have launched a separate inquiry to determine whether the club knew that Serginho, whose full name was Paulo Sergio de Oliveira Lima, risked collapse.

The club have denied the allegations, saying that routine examinations at the start of the year showed the player had arrhythmia -- irregularity in the force or rhythm of the heartbeat -- but that further tests did not show any reason why he could not play.

The 30-year-old, who had been at the club since 1999, collapsed after suffering a cardio-respiratory arrest in the 59th minute of the Brazilian championship match at the Morumbi stadium and was pronounced dead after being taken to hospital.

The game was suspended with the score at 0-0.

The remaining 31 minutes were played one week later when Sao Paulo won 4-2.

Sao Caetano are fourth in the Brazilian championship with 77 points from 44 games and two left to play.

The penalty will send them to 14th and will cost them a place in next year's South American Libertadores Cup.

However, they are not in danger of being relegated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,289 Posts
Garrincha said:
One interesting detail about this imbroglio is that since NO teams from Rio are struggling for the trophy or even Libertadores spots, the pathethic SP media can't resurrect one of their imaginary "conspiracy theories" about the courts wanting to help Rio teams. :mute: I can imagine how that must be cramping Milton Neves' style... not being able to talk crap about the old "conspiracy to help Rio clubs" must be REALLY frustrating for these so-called 'journalists' in their search for scapegoats. Hell, if they really want to invent a conspiracy theory they can always say that the court's decision is meant to benefit PALMEIRAS, the team that inherited São Caetano's position (and Libertadores spot!)... but of course, the Paulista media isn't interested in accusing a paulista team of conspiracies... :yuck:

In my opinion, Sveiter's court did the right thing.
Dear Garrincha, there is no such a thing as "conspiracy theories" about Courts packed with Carioca judges helping Carioca clubs. That is simply the (sad) reality of Brazilian soccer. Vasco was saved from relegation in 1986, so was Botafogo, so was Fluminense in different occasions; Vasco did a coup in 1974, they did another coup in 1987... the examples abound, and I do not even want to go into Botafogo 1995...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,289 Posts
JCamilo said:
By the way your laws, the real one, not this joke Sveiter thinks he commands, must punish them,give Serginho's family condition to survive and a legislation of hazard in work must be also created to cover this.
(1) There is already legislation about hazard in work in place.

(2) Who should give Serginho's family condition to survive??!??! He was a well-paid professional, fully aware of his condition, and properly insured.

By the way, if anything, I have a feeling that Serginho frauded its insurer, given the insistence of his wife that he did not know anything about his condition.
 

·
Cachorro
Joined
·
18,741 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
Bordon is gone! said:
Dear Garrincha, there is no such a thing as "conspiracy theories" about Courts packed with Carioca judges helping Carioca clubs. That is simply the (sad) reality of Brazilian soccer. Vasco was saved from relegation in 1986, so was Botafogo, so was Fluminense in different occasions; Vasco did a coup in 1974, they did another coup in 1987... the examples abound, and I do not even want to go into Botafogo 1995...
Please, DO spare me from the 1995 nonsense, some people just can't take defeat like men. :eek: Should Botafogo's fans suggest, then, that a "conspiracy to help Juventude" made Marcio Rezende cancel TWO legitimate Botafogo goals in the 1st leg of the 1999 Brasilian Cup final, against Juventude? NO, Rezende is just a crap referee who fukks up in all directions, all the time.

Should Flamengo's fans scream "conspiracy!" when the referee fails to give a clear penalty for them, as we saw in this weekend's Fla x Coritiba game, when they desperately NEEDED that penalty? NO, it's just another crap referee, we have dozens of them, some even worse than Marcio Rezende. Should Fluminense's fans believe that a "conspiracy" is responsible for the SEVERAL refereeing errors that cost them many points in the first half of this year's league? :rolleyes: And Gremio was also benefitted by the tables being turned before – does that mean that there's a conspiracy to help Gremio too? Again no, it just means that turning the tables used to happen whenever a traditional club fell. But in the tunnel-vision of conspiracy theorists, the real world is just a minor inconvenience; they believe in the "conspiracy" and anyone who tries to reason with them is either biased or naive.

As I said – if we want to talk "conspiracies", then Palmeiras is the number one suspect of "conspiring" to punish São Caetano with the loss of points. But some people, and a LOT of people in São Paulo's media circles, see "Rio conspiracies" every time something is beneficial to Rio teams, but – in a fascinating double-standard – never when "traditional" teams from other states are benefitted. When Rio teams get screwed by referees or in the courts it doesn't count either, conspiracy theorists only like the parts of reality that confirm their paranoid beliefs. :wallbang:

And when a Rio team defeated a team from São Paulo in a final where the referee made mistakes AGAINST BOTH SIDES, the "conspiracy theorists" immediately started yelling that it was a "conspiracy". Pitiful behavior from people who can't handle defeat, and prefer to blame invisible "boogeymen" for their failures. The funny thing is, NONE of those "conspiracy theorists" like to mention that in the first game of the 1995 final, played in the Maracana, Wilson Gottardo scored a clean goal that was cancelled due to a inexistent offside. They talk and talk and talk about that final, but THAT cancelled goal NEVER enters the conversation, discarded as irrelevant together with the mistakes against Botafogo that were committed in the 2nd match; only the calls against Santos were bad, and all calls that favoured Santos are shamelessly ignored because they don't fit the imagined "conspiracy".

So when Santos' goals are cancelled the outraged "conspiracy theorists" scream foul and accuse the opponent of dirty maneuvers, but when Botafogo's goals are cancelled it's no big deal? How very, very convenient for someone trying to make up a conspiracy theory. :mute:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,289 Posts
Ok, it is only a mere detail that ALL judges of the court are Carioca and partisan supporters of Carioca teams, and we SHOULD IGNORE that mere detail, or else we live in la-la-land per Mr. Garrincha.
 

·
Cachorro
Joined
·
18,741 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Bordon is gone! said:
Ok, it is only a mere detail that ALL judges of the court are Carioca and partisan supporters of Carioca teams, and we SHOULD IGNORE that mere detail, or else we live in la-la-land per Mr. Garrincha.
There's no need to ignore that detail, mr. Bordon. The judges' personal choices of teams don't necessarily make them corrupt or dishonest, that's a ridiculous generalization. If the tribunal was based in São Paulo and all the judges supported São Paulo clubs in their personal time, would they also be intrinsically corrupt? :rolleyes:

Really, if the basis of your whole "carioca conspiracy" scenario is that the judges – who live in Rio – happen to support Rio teams, it's a feeble basis indeed. The judges are not biased representatives of the respective clubs, and assuming otherwise makes the assemblage of any court impossible. And what's the alternative, anyway? Following the assumption that any judge who supports a football team will defend "his" club dishonestly and with bias, would we need to have one judge from each club to guarantee "equity" in the presumed dishonesty? What about when a club gets promoted from the Segundona, would they need to get a judge who supports that club to mantain "balance"? :googly: :wallbang: :howler:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,289 Posts
Garrincha said:
There's no need to ignore that detail, mr. Bordon. The judges' personal choices of teams don't necessarily make them corrupt or dishonest, that's a ridiculous generalization. If the tribunal was based in São Paulo and all the judges supported São Paulo clubs in their personal time, would they also be intrinsically corrupt? :rolleyes:
Would you be comfortable if the judges were all Paulistas? One of the basis of the rule of law is judgement by one's peers. That is how the jury works when someone is accused of homicide in Brazil. Why? Because that is how the system tries to guarantee a fair trial. That is not how it works at STJD.

It is hard to believe an otherwise smart fellow like you even ask such a rhetorical question: Would you be comfortable if all deputados in Brasilia were Paulistas? Or if all senators were from Alagoas?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,289 Posts
Garrincha said:
Really, if the basis of your whole "carioca conspiracy" scenario is that the judges – who live in Rio – happen to support Rio teams, it's a feeble basis indeed. The judges are not biased representatives of the respective clubs, and assuming otherwise makes the assemblage of any court impossible. And what's the alternative, anyway? Following the assumption that any judge who supports a football team will defend "his" club dishonestly and with bias, would we need to have one judge from each club to guarantee "equity" in the presumed dishonesty? What about when a club gets promoted from the Segundona, would they need to get a judge who supports that club to mantain "balance"? :googly: :wallbang: :howler:
The alternative is a (politically appointed) representative court. That is how Congress works, that is how the Supreme Court works, that is how any democratic political body works.

Think again, Garrincha, you are way off the reservation in this discussion.
 

·
Fourth Place Winner, February 2013 XT Photo Conte
Joined
·
7,783 Posts
havent read it all.....

i dunno...my first thoughts....were wtf (just read this today) a news article - but skim read some of garrins posts...and it made me more of i dunno...hmm speechless
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
30,826 Posts
Sveiter is following the LAW.
I am not arguing about the 6 points/game, where you are right , it is in the law.
However, the only argument to do this is the argument that he is not legal to play when the law does not ask medical exams to make the register of a player in CBF and the relatory to allow the player to play before the game does not ask it as well. (A doctor must take responsability but that is not make the player illegal). That was loop (rather humanistic, but not covered yet) of interpretation of what is legal to play.

Yes, his court does have the right, and the loss of points is established by law as the proper punishment for what São Caetano did.
They do not have. They have the right of punishment but the court (which is a allegory of our justice courts, not a real one) does not have the right to judge the crimes done (if there is) by Sao Caetano and the doctor. Both are civil crimes and can be only judged - only our Civil Justice - have competence to say if they are guilty or not. When Sveiter punishes the president and the doctor (which I agree, if guilty must be punished) before their real judgement is acting beyond his boundaries. The loss of point is another matter, just looking if he is legal or not (and this is the only competence of Sveiter's tribunal) is basead on an entire new interpretation of what is legal to play or not.

About "waiting for the civil court to give their decision"... if Sveiter did THAT, when he tried to have the trial the SP media would start complaining that the court wants to change the league tables after the league had ended, and we would hear accusations about suspicious "tapetão" maneuvers.
Please, Garrincha.
I do not care about what the media says, but all turning the tables of the last years started with the Sport Tribunal, we never had with civil justice doing anything.

Not to mention that the civil court probably won't make a final ruling for quite a while – and if São Caetano played the Libertadores before the penal court's sentence
Of course, The Justice here is shit because it is slow. But that does not mean that Sveiter can fix it by acting pass it. Fix the speed of justice, not to ignore it.
And plus, the sittuation may still be the same. If the medical council judge the SC doctor to be inocent ? Sveiter would have punished someone for a crime that they are inocent! The absurd would be the same.

The court's commitment to give their decision before the league ends deserves applause and not criticism, but that won't stop the paulista media from bitching.
Garrincha, please, I am not paulista media.
Sveiter tribunal is made of representants of the referees, they are not even judge. This crime is a capital crime, Sveiter tribunal is made to judge technical aspects of the law of the game, not capital crimes. He can not say there was a crime in Serginho death's (While he can judge the matter of register of player, but I already explained he is using a loop to allow such interpretation and since the legality of his inscrition or not seems to be related to the crime or not, it is scaring he taking the matter with his own hand).
I am all for speed of justice, the institution must be changed. Sveiter is not the institutions and he is not competente to change it.

Not to mention, of course, that the penal lawsuit and the sports lawsuit are about DIFFERENT CHARGES. The penal court will determine the individual responsibilities of director and doctors regarding the player's death.
Indeed, but The doctor and president are already found as guilty , since they are already punished. They must be judged by the our civil justice first.

The sport court, on the other hand, was judging whether or not São Caetano was aware of the player's problem when they made the registration.
To make the registration is not asked medical exams. In fact, a player can be registered without medical conditions to play.

Since it was established beyond doubt that the club DID know, and intentionally ommitted that information from the registration, the club was guilty of making a fraudulent registration – and according to the LAW the proper punishment is the loss of points.
It was really ? So, without the judgement for a capital crime, we already know ?

There's no need to ignore that detail, mr. Bordon. The judges' personal choices of teams don't necessarily make them corrupt or dishonest, that's a ridiculous generalization. If the tribunal was based in São Paulo and all the judges supported São Paulo clubs in their personal time, would they also be intrinsically corrupt?
Sveiter is a jerk, his attitude in the field bans clearly showed some odd tendencies to show not neutral ground and ignore's botafogo sittuation in the case.
There is not a huge conspiracy but you can not say in the background history teams of Rio and Sao Paulo have more than often in the good side of CBF or the tribunal "Mistakes"
About having a team, in 1997 the confusion started with Atletico-PR and Corinthians, there was no help to any team (it did not changed the final table in any way, almost like now) but in the following year they used this as excuse to turn the table (and not have relegated teams) because he could not "trust" the final result.
With this past and 3 top teams (and more Fla and Vasco) in danger, seeing this as begining of tumult (because Sao Caetano will probally go to the commum justice) to justify a similar attitude , I get very bad feelings. Since Sveiter (who have done illegal things in the past and have no idea of what democracy means) is not someone to be trusted (I do not understand how this can be argued) is around again, I fear the confusion. Even with Atletico being one of the teams that would love such ending.

Bordon:

(1) There is already legislation about hazard in work in place.

(2) Who should give Serginho's family condition to survive??!??! He was a well-paid professional, fully aware of his condition, and properly insured.

By the way, if anything, I have a feeling that Serginho frauded its insurer, given the insistence of his wife that he did not know anything about his condition.
the legislation does not cover this exactly sittuation, the only thing it says is that all players must have insuranse given by the club, for what I know.
If the club had a good insuranse, that will be enough in my opinion.
 

·
Cachorro
Joined
·
18,741 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I'm not saying the court is perfect or that questionable decisions have never happened. But it has become too easy and convenient for everyone to cast a shadow of suspicion over any court resolution that seems to benefit a Rio club – and often similar decisions are made benefitting clubs from other states, without inspiring the same noise. :rolleyes:

You KNOW that if Palmeiras were a Rio club, there would be a deafening outcry about a "Rio conspiracy" making São Caetano lose the 24 points... however, as it's a São Paulo club, not a word is said. This weekend there was a penalty for Flamengo that wasn't given by the ref, and not giving it benefitted the other teams that are trying to avoid relegation. If that penalty had been denied to one of the other relegation candidates, like Atletico-MG or Vitoria, I guarantee that people would be talking about a conspiracy to help Bota and Fla escape relegation. :googly:

It's unfair to presume malice when the decisions go ONE way, but not when they go the OTHER way. Especially when Rio teams get screwed by referees just like everybody else, and court decisions damage Rio teams just as much as the others. Example: This year, both Flamengo and Botafogo had players suspended over common game discussions that the referees hadn't even mentioned in their "sumulas" (!), just because Sveiter saw the discussions on TV and thought the players were too rude to each other... :wth: :wallbang: Now I ask you: if Sveiter and the court are so fiercely determined to help Rio's teams, why the hell did he suspend players for committing infractions that the referee didn't even consider relevant enough to mention??

Is the court distributing stadium-bans and suspensions like the Easter Bunny distributes chocolate eggs? Oh yeah, there are excesses – and vanity is the cause of most of them. But I honestly don't see where the Rio teams are being benefitted so greatly. Hell, Fluminense was one of the most robbed teams in the competition, they lost a truckload of points to bad refereeing... and with those points, Flu could be considerably closer to the Libertadores zone today.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
30,826 Posts
I cast shadows to Sveiter. I do not trust him a bit.
The refering is quite poor, and Atletico have a lot to complain. But I am not arguing against refering conspiracies, I just say Sveiter is searching problem, either because he have a historic of causing problems and because he is a facist that thinks have power over everyone.
There is 18 years player, Rodrigo, from Atletico who got 3 Games Ban in his first judgement ever for faking to be hit by something that Atletico-Pr fans throw at him and did not hit him. That is exageration if I ever saw one but I do not complain (either way, the media here complain more about Atletico than against it, and I wont ever start about the historic of Atletico and CBF. I do not see people complaining about what Sveiter did to Alexandre Kalil or when he said he would increase - without judgment - the 3 games ban because our president said the decision was unfair and atletico would fight against it - the punishment, or how he did not said anything when botafogo managed to nullify the punishment and he delayed judgement of the appeal made in the same day of atletico to the next thursday making impossible to have time to change the game of morumbi, btw, the same stadium of the team that caused atletico-mg punishment and no one talked about it either)...That makes little cause for the argument, this is the same Sveiter that created the Gama case when he helped Botafogo. The same Sveiter that helped Fluminense, that is why he is suspicious when he makes such decisions that are beyond he area of justice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,289 Posts
What I am afraid is that the punishment to Sao Caetano is all designed to generate a "virada de mesa" if needed. In other words, Zveiter's kangaroo court unduly punishes Sao Caetano, which rightfully will seek unending appeals, in the end all becomes an excuse to change the rules and to rescue whichever "big" Carioca team is relegated.

Garrincha: tell me the Carioca court has not done that before!
 

·
Cachorro
Joined
·
18,741 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Bordon is gone! said:
What I am afraid is that the punishment to Sao Caetano is all designed to generate a "virada de mesa" if needed. In other words, Zveiter's kangaroo court unduly punishes Sao Caetano, which rightfully will seek unending appeals, in the end all becomes an excuse to change the rules and to rescue whichever "big" Carioca team is relegated.
I'm not saying that it won't happen – it would hardly be surprising if São Caetano appealed in civil courts – but I don't agree that this punishment is undue or inspired by suspicious motives. I personally think the punishment is fully deserved, São Caetano DESERVES to be punished.

Now, I'd prefer some other punishment, preferably a heavy financial fine (for example, SC could lose half of next year's TV money and it should go to some institution for people with heart diseases – hurt 'em in the pocket where it stings!)... but the laws determine the loss of points as punishment, so that's the chosen punishment until the sports laws are changed.

But of course, in Brasil nobody likes to follow laws; here, laws are an inconvenience that are only "fair" when applied to OTHER people. São Caetano is simply trying to avoid their just punishment – like a reckless driver who gets fined for speeding and then appeals to avoid losing his driver's license, even though he deserves to lose it. If São Caetano does appeal in civil courts, hopefully FIFA will apply their own laws and cancel the club's affiliation. :skull:

And what happens if NO carioca teams are relegated and that "virada de mesa" only helps Atletico-MG and Gremio, JCamilo? Will the court be accused of cynically conspiring to help Atletico-MG and Gremio? Or is the court only corrupt when it benefits Rio teams, while benefitting teams from other states is dismissed as purely coincidental? :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,289 Posts
What you are saying Garrincha is similar to
"if the Nazis also killed Gypsies, they cannot be called anti-semites".

I and JCamilo have a justified fear that the Carioca court is trying to stack the deck so no supposedly big team from Rio goes to Segundona; whether Gremio, Atletico Mineiro or anybody else may also benefit does not change the point that they probably did that to help the Cariocas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
[/QUOTE]So when Santos' goals are cancelled the outraged "conspiracy theorists" scream foul and accuse the opponent of dirty maneuvers, but when Botafogo's goals are cancelled it's no big deal?
11 of them to be exact, not a goal here or a goal there, 11 goals, in a single season. 8 by Deivid alone. Not a conspiracy? That adds up to a disallowed goal every 4 games!!! And these weren't "questionable" calls, they were obvious, as seen on the replays. Botafogo would be in the second division already had they received as many poor calls.


On the Sao Caetano subject, I find it extremely awkward to see Santos, Sao Paulo, and Palmeiras supporters argue in favor of Sao Caetano. Aren't these 3 teams the ones who benefit the most from this suspension? Sao Caetano, in all fairness, is probably the most just club in the country. Players love it, nobody wants to leave them, its not a coincidence that a player as gifted as Dininho has been there for such a long time. They're the only club in the country that pay their players always on time, they owe nothing to anyone, and they stay away from the corrupt domestic political arena. In the worst case scenario, if enough evidence is brought up to prove that this was neglect by the doctors, then the doctors should be punished. Not the club and the players who have fought hard the entire year to get to where they are.
 

·
Cachorro
Joined
·
18,741 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Bordon is gone! said:
What you are saying Garrincha is similar to
"if the Nazis also killed Gypsies, they cannot be called anti-semites".
:wth: The comparison is inadequate, ridiculous and more than a little offensive. What I'm saying is that the widespread suspicion directed at Rio's clubs is based on double standards. Decisions that cause no outrage whatsoever when benefitting teams from outside RJ, seem to generate a tidal wave of deranged conspiracy-theories when they happen to benefit Rio clubs. I say again, if a Rio club were in Palmeiras' position the footie shows would be FILLED with retarded accusations and lameass conspiracy theories after São Caetano lost those 24 points. :wallbang:

And all this for NO reason better than pure geography – the court is in Rio, so the general assumption is that a Rio-based court NATURALLY "fixes" everything to make sure Rio's teams continue to enjoy the smashing national success they have been enjoying for the past few years, conquering every trophy they play. :googly: :stress: :depress: :hangover: By the same rationale, these rabid 'conspiracy theorists' probably also believe that God will save Poland from the Apocalypse before any other nation (because the Pope is polish!), that Ricardo Teixeira constantly favours Atletico-MG (because he supports them!) and Lula will donate the Ibirapuera Park to Corinthians so they can build their stadium there (after all Lula is corintiano, and for these "conspiracy theorists" a supporter of one club will ALWAYS do anything he can to benefit his club). :eekani:
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top