metalalloy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 4:12 am
Enugu II wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 3:34 am
metalalloy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 3:01 am
metalalloy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 2:55 am
What has been posted thus far indicates that Siasia was in contract talks with the club, was on the verge of signing on but that talks broke down after the club failed to agree to pay a sign--on fee to Siasia. Is that a wrong interpretation? Did that show that he (1) signed a contract? (2) agreed to receive inducement to throw games? (3) in fact, threw games? The answer for me is that NONE OF THOSE THINGS EVER HAPPENED> I stand corrected if you can provide information that shows otherwise.
The point you are missing is that in contract talks for a coaching job, Siasia compromised his integrity by agreeing to allow a third party to control 6 of his players in order to manipulate and influence games, in exchange of a promise to receive money. That was enough to violate his FIFA ethics and that is all there is to it. Questions 1 and 3 are irrelevant to the charge at hand. Question 2 is yes to manipulate games. (there was no discussion/accusation about throwing games).
Ps. You do not need to sign a contract for it to be considered legally binding.
Metalalloy
What I think is that none of these matter at all.
He did not sign a contract nor had he received inducement to sign one. This is what I have gathered so far.
What, however, happened is that he was in a contract talk which supposedly broke off because of his demand that was not met. Did he realize that there was a violation if he signed this contract. I believe he did. Why did he not immediately report all of this during or after the contract broke off is a mystery to me. Worse still, why he did not answer the invitation by investigators was critical as well. It may have been due to issues that I stated earlier.
Would he have been able to do what Perumal and his aids wanted, if he had no contract with the club? I do not believe so. To me, that aspect is critical.
Except that it does. His lack of signing or lack of receipt of an inducement is irrelevant. Siasia was a Fifa Official subject to the FIFA Code of Ethics (the "FCE"). That is what he violated when he accepted the offer of a "Bribe" as defined by the FCE. That is what he was convicted of and banned for by FIFA.
Look at the definition of Bribery (page 10) that was in effect at the time in the link below to see that receipt was not required.
https://law.marquette.edu/assets/sports ... ethics.pdf
IIRC it's quite similar to what Amos Adamu got banned for as well.
Metalalloy,
I have looked at the
Code of Ethics that you cited.
You noted passage 11.1 on Bribery but I do not think that was the key passage in CAS findings. Take a look at the statement from CAS on this issue. The more relevant passage in the Code of conduct that you posted is
not 11.1 but 14.1 & 14.2. Again, let me post what CAS ruled that Siasia was guilty of off and let mer know if it dovetails with 11.1 or 14.1 & 2:
While the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) ruled that Siasia did not receive any bribe and did not fix any match, the court said he erred by not reporting the matter when he was asked to fix matches by a club official at a club he sought to coach.
There is no argument on whether Siasia was in violation. What the debate is, concerns
whether or not he received a bribe. I feel that his failure in
not reporting the matter was his downfall. When he did not agree with the contract, he should have promptly reported the matter. I assume here that he was aware of the rule but even if he was not, by not reporting, he was clearly in violation. But what should not be in dispute is that
Siasia never received any bribe nor did agree to receive one. That much is clearly specified in CAS' ruling which I have reposted here. It is not based on my own conjecture but based on the transcript cited by reports on CAS ruling.
Now,
FIFA ruling which preceded CAS ruling is what you are evidently relying on. Now, recall that CAS ruling would have taken into consideration the earlier FIFA ruling. That ruling by FIFA clearly is based on the evidence which they had before them that Siasia agreed to receive an inducement to field players. However, note that Siasia never answered FIFA's request to appear before them during investigation. Thus,
he never defended himself and FIFA had to rule based on the evidence that it had before it. We have already mused on several reasons why Siasia may not have appeared and that decision ended up to be at his own detriment.
Subsequently, however, when FIFA's hammer came down it appeared that
Siasia realized how serious this was and appealed to CAS and only then did he have representation. It clearly mattered but a tad too late. Why did it matter? evidently,
he clearly convinced CAS that he never accepted any bribe and that is clearly demonstrated in CAS' ruling. However, it also does not absolve him from reporting the matter to FIFA at the time of its occurrence. I believe, CAS took those into consideration in the reduction of the sentence.
It will be helpful if you can rely on CAS' ruling to indicate that the passage that I have cited above is in fact incorrect. Why have I stated this? You rely on FIFA's ruling. However, note that FIFA's ruling was actually reviewed by CAS. CAShad opportunity (unlike FIFA) to hear Siasia' side of the matter, and CAS has far more information than you and I in making their final ruling on this matter. Not so?