EPL Matchday 4 - On Optus Sport

[RPCB]

So nothing more to say in response to Ronaldo's email/questionnaire answers?

No, I am not an expert on the law. I will leave that to smarter posters. Like you.

 

[Indie_]

No, I am not an expert on the law. I will leave that to smarter posters. Like you.

Haha, I'm not asking you to pontificate on whether you think that such evidence will lead to a conviction (spoiler: it won't). I'm asking you to assess the evidence in front of you and how it makes you feel about the whole situation. Not that hard really, all you need to ask yourself is a few questions and you don't need a law degree.

1. Do you think the leaked emails have been made up/fabricated?

Given that the football leaks hacks have been proven to be pretty reliable and that a paper like Der Spiegel felt there was enough legitimacy to them to put them to print it seems unlikely. If they weren't legitimate, I suspect that Ronaldo and his team would have already sued Der Spiegel for defamation and put them into bankruptcy given that the leaked email/questionnaire is the most compelling piece of evidence against him.

2. Do you think Ronaldo lied on the questionnaire?

Seems unlikely given how incriminating it was. It doesn't do him an favours to say that she was saying no multiple times. Given that the questionnaire answers was later amended to remove those answers, it seems like his lawyers knew how damning it was too.

3. Is Ronaldo's initial account of the facts of the night sufficient to establish sexual assault/guilt?

Not in a court of law given the issues surrounding privilege, but it's certainly enough for the public to being pretty convinced of his guilt even if a court will never find him guilty.

 

[glenferry23]

Ronaldo wrote all of that on a questionnaire that was emailed? That would be a confession.

Was Ronaldo so powerful in 2009 that he could confess to rape and get away with it?

Yes, that cited exchange was via correspondence between Ronaldo and his representatives. Part of their discovery work in assessing what supposedly occurred and what to do next.

As I said, anyone is welcome to read the original material that was released a few years ago and determine their own position.

 

[Bostonian]

And in the all Ireland final yesterday both sets of fans were mingling before, during and after the game. One was from the North as well

Yeah but green northerners, not orange twats.

 

[RPCB]

Haha, I'm not asking you to pontificate on whether you think that such evidence will lead to a conviction (spoiler: it won't). I'm asking you to assess the evidence in front of you and how it makes you feel about the whole situation. Not that hard really, all you need to ask yourself is a few questions and you don't need a law degree.

1. Do you think the leaked emails have been made up/fabricated?

Given that the football leaks hacks have been proven to be pretty reliable and that a paper like Der Spiegel felt there was enough legitimacy to them to put them to print it seems unlikely. If they weren't legitimate, I suspect that Ronaldo and his team would have already sued Der Spiegel for defamation and put them into bankruptcy given that the leaked email/questionnaire is the most compelling piece of evidence against him.

2. Do you think Ronaldo lied on the questionnaire?

Seems unlikely given how incriminating it was. It doesn't do him an favours to say that she was saying no multiple times. Given that the questionnaire answers was later amended to remove those answers, it seems like his lawyers knew how damning it was too.

3. Is Ronaldo's initial account of the facts of the night sufficient to establish sexual assault/guilt?

Not in a court of law given the issues surrounding privilege, but it's certainly enough for the public to being pretty convinced of his guilt even if a court will never find him guilty.

All very reasonable questions. But questions where my answers are irrelevant on a forum. I will answer them privately.

You might think I am hero worshiping and that’s fine, he plays for my club. But I am kind of uncomfortable calling someone a rapist if that person hasn’t been found guilty of the crime.

 

[moomba]

1. Do you think the leaked emails have been made up/fabricated?

Given that the football leaks hacks have been proven to be pretty reliable

Der Spiegel were slaughtered by CAS in our case for chopping and changing emails. In one of their stories they took parts of two different emails and joined it together to look as if it was one damning email.

They've got form for making s**t up too.

Doesn't mean he's guilty or not guilty, but I wouldn't put too much faith in DS as a source of evidence.

 

[pantskyle]

Der Spiegel were slaughtered by CAS in our case for chopping and changing emails. In one of their stories they took parts of two different emails and joined it together to look as if it was one damning email.

They've got form for making sh*t up too.

Doesn't mean he's guilty or not guilty, but I wouldn't put too much faith in DS as a source of evidence.

Exactly. However because it was "leaked" it's all apparently true.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Some comparing Elliott injury to Son’s tackle on Gomes a couple of seasons ago. Son more from behind and Struijk actually touched the ball first. Son’s red was rescinded

 

[Zidane98]

Der Spiegel were slaughtered by CAS in our case for chopping and changing emails. In one of their stories they took parts of two different emails and joined it together to look as if it was one damning email.

They've got form for making sh*t up too.

Doesn't mean he's guilty or not guilty, but I wouldn't put too much faith in DS as a source of evidence.

Interesting claim. Where does it say that Der Spiegel did what you say deliberately to make MCFC look bad in the CAS report? And if that really were the case your club lawyers would have a field day with them in German court if there was no truth to them.

Der Spiegel have done nothing more than publicly release emails obtained by football leaks, they didn't obtain the emails themselves. It is a known fact that Ronaldo entered into a civl settlement with the victim in this case which is entirely consistent with the documentation released by Der Spiegel. No criminal charges due to this so we will probably never get the full story.


Der Spiege also rate reasonably high on media fact checking: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiegel-online/


Of course, this is all down to interpretation and nobody ever truly knows what goes on in the world of journalism.

 

[Zidane98]

Some comparing Elliott injury to Son’s tackle on Gomes a couple of seasons ago. Son more from behind and Struijk actually touched the ball first. Son’s red was rescinded

Completely different. Gomes injury caused by collision with another player after a regulation foul. Not the case here. Very much doubt anything but the standard 3 game ban for Struijk.

 

[jd2010]

If there is evidence of his guilt I'm sure he'll end up in jail

You'd have to admit CR7 with the millions in his bank account behind him has more chance avoiding jail and even a guilty charge regardless of if he did or didn't do something than your normal person on the same charge

 

[Indie_]

Der Spiegel were slaughtered by CAS in our case for chopping and changing emails. In one of their stories they took parts of two different emails and joined it together to look as if it was one damning email.

I just read the part of the judgment which deals with the authenticity of the leaked emails, and it is far less damning than you have just made it out to be. Der Spiegel/Football Leaks are 'slaughtered by CAS' to the extent that they said "although this gives a somewhat distorted impression, the Panel finds that it did not affect the veracity of the Leaked Emails on which UEFA primarily based its case." [84] Again, if Der Spiegel did in fact chop and change the emails/answers that Ronaldo gave - then his team simply could take the paper to Court and bring up the original emails and essentially bankrupt the entire paper.

In the the rest of the judgment relevant to the veracity of the emails we can observe other quotes about football leaks legitimacy such as "MCFC explicitly acknowledged that the original versions of the Leaked Emails produced on 18 May 2020 were authentic" [83] "Mr Widdowson and Mr Pearce acknowledged the veracity of the Leaked Emails by their testimonies" [86].

Reading through the rest of the relevant part of the judgment [and perhaps there is something I'm missing hidden somewhere else in the judgment, but I've only got so much time to spend reading old CAS judgments], most of the Man City lawyers case focuses on the means by which the emails were obtained - not their veracity.

As I said, maybe I've missed something in the judgment which demonstrates why I should be more skeptical about football leaks/DS - and feel free to point me in that direction. Until then, I still feel pretty comfortable about my original position after taking this on board (as well as the Claas Relotius scandal).

 

[Rustin Cohle]

Some comparing Elliott injury to Son’s tackle on Gomes a couple of seasons ago. Son more from behind and Struijk actually touched the ball first. Son’s red was rescinded

Those people would be morons.

 

[Zidane98]

I just read the part of the judgment which deals with the authenticity of the leaked emails, and it is far less damning than you have just made it out to be. Der Spiegel/Football Leaks are 'slaughtered by CAS' to the extent that they said "although this gives a somewhat distorted impression, the Panel finds that it did not affect the veracity of the Leaked Emails on which UEFA primarily based its case." [84] Again, if Der Spiegel did in fact chop and change the emails/answers that Ronaldo gave - then his team simply could take the paper to Court and bring up the original emails and essentially bankrupt the entire paper.

In the the rest of the judgment relevant to the veracity of the emails we can observe other quotes about football leaks legitimacy such as "MCFC explicitly acknowledged that the original versions of the Leaked Emails produced on 18 May 2020 were authentic" [83] "Mr Widdowson and Mr Pearce acknowledged the veracity of the Leaked Emails by their testimonies." [86].

Reading through the rest of the relevant part of the judgment [and perhaps there is something I'm missing hidden somewhere else in the judgment, but I've only got so much time to spend reading old CAS judgments], most of the Man City lawyers case focuses on the means by which the emails were obtained - not their veracity.

As I said, maybe I've missed something in the judgment which demonstrates why I should be more skeptical about football leaks/DS - and feel free to point me in that direction. Until then, I still feel pretty comfortable about my original position after taking this on board (as well as the Claas Relotius scandal).

Boom.

 

[Frank Bunn]

So if his knee/leg doesn’t make contact with Elliotts leg, it should still probably be a red due to him not being able to control the follow through?

I reckon if you slow motioned and freeze framed every game there would be a few tackles like that. As you said, Cooper made a similar tackle on Mane but got the ball cleanly. Struijk jumped into the tackle off the ground and caught Elliot causing him serious injury. He clearly didn't mean it but it's definitely a red card offence.

 

[Jaymin]

I reckon if you slow motioned and freeze framed every game there would be a few tackles like that. As you said, Cooper made a similar tackle on Mane but got the ball cleanly. Struijk jumped into the tackle off the ground and caught Elliot causing him serious injury. He clearly didn't mean it but it's definitely a red card offence.

That was the point I was making that there would be a big increase in red cards if every potential to cause injury was a red card.

 

[SM]

That was the point I was making that there would be a big increase in red cards if every potential to cause injury was a red card.

Not every potential to cause injury, just the reckless challenges. But yes they are reasonably lenient when there is no actual contact resulting.

 

[peternorth]

That was the point I was making that there would be a big increase in red cards if every potential to cause injury was a red card.

AFL likes this

 

[apollo_creed]

Liverpool fans on here being w***ers. Shock.

 

[Frank Bunn]

That was the point I was making that there would be a big increase in red cards if every potential to cause injury was a red card.

I don't think they can go with 'every potential' tackle that might cause injury - because there's so many. But if the tackle is the direct cause of the injury then it has to be looked at.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Liverpool fans on here being w***ers. Shock.

Waiting for the outrage of Salah being booed at Elland Rd, I am sure it's out there lol

 

[SM]

Liverpool fans on here being w***ers. Shock.

Do you mean Leeds?

 

[Bradesmaen]

That was the point I was making that there would be a big increase in red cards if every potential to cause injury was a red card.

Waiting for thinking about tackling to be outlawed.

 

[Jars458]

Liverpool fans on here being w***ers. Shock.

Says the biggest of them all

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Agreed.

I get it, the conversation is uncomfortable to think about. I get it’s inconvenient for United fans to contemplate. I understand many just want the topic to go away and just focus on the football. I get it, it’s just easier that way and to dismiss/evade it accordingly.

However it’s still very very relevant in today’s world. This is literally an excerpt from the material Der Spiegel sourced and cited (which is available for anyone to read to place themselves in a more informed position):

"She said no and stop several times."

"I entered her from behind. It was rude. We didn't change position. 5/7 minutes. She said that she didn't want to, but she made herself available."
The answer continued: "But she kept saying 'No.' 'Don't do it.' 'I'm not like the others.' I apologized afterwards."

The Cristiano Ronaldo rape allegations started with a chance meeting at a Las Vegas nightclub. Here's a timeline of everything that's happened so far.

Here's everything we know so far about the rape allegations which have been made against Cristiano Ronaldo, from 2009 until now.

www.businessinsider.com

Glen,

I understand both sides POV on this and listing evidence on both sides to support ones arguments is helpful. I hope you understand the perspective of others who do not like to label someone a murderer, rapist, or anything else of such a serious nature without the allegations being tested in a court of law.

For me, I am not dismissing the allegations at all and understand the conversation is uncomfortable for many, noting one poster in particular has referenced their own experiences. Whilst I privately make my own judgements on people I certainly won't label them publicly unless the evidence is overwhelming, there is a sense of injustice (OJ Simpson), or it is proven beyond doubt. The Der Spiegel evidence prima facie is damning but for many reasons (which I won't go into in this post but am happy to discuss), I take with a pinch of salt but do not completely dismiss.

I have empathy for people who know more about this stuff than I or have been personally affected. I think it was Jaymin who referenced this. However, I won't give much time for people who imply that United fans support rape or idolise a rapist. You seem to be one of the few willing to discuss the detail as opposed to just slandering people.