7
match fixing kısmında sayfa 9 -20ler aras epey türkiye ligi ile ilgili yapılan soruşturmalar vs vs den bahsediyor. çok fazla takımın şikeye bulaşması sebebiyle tsl'nin lig düşürme cezası uygulayamadığı da vurgulanıyor. ("... sheer number of clubs...") 20 küsür sayfadan sonra diğer sporlara geçiyor.
sayfa 16.
--- alıntı ---
30. nonetheless, some national federations
have moved in the other direction
–
the
turkish football federation, in response to
the sheer number of clubs implicated in the
2010/2011 süper lig fixing, limited the
sanction of relegation (to a lower league) to
circumstances where the impugned party had
“effectively influenc[ed]”
the match (and removed
the sanction from parties that had only
“attempt[ed] to influence”
matches).
56
--- alıntı ---
sonraki maddeler daha vahim
--- alıntı ---
31. further, uefa’s (and other federations’)
intervention remains at their discretion.
others aggrieved by match-fixing, including
‘clean’ competitors, have limited power to
trigger intervention from the federation, such
as in the case of
trabzonspor
, where the ‘clean’
runner-up in the 2010/2011 turkish süper
lig unsuccessfully sought the title given the
original title holder (fenerbahçe) had been
implicated in match-fixing.
57
32. as noted above, the proliferation of
controls (and civil and criminal proceedings)
has produced new issues at the cas phase:
a. what is the res judicata effect of findings in
respect of the same conduct, but at a
different level (national/international),
58
and/or at a different phase
(administrative/disciplinary)?
b. what is the res judicata
effect of findings in respect of different parties involved in the
same conduct (e.g. two clubs that have
fixed a match)?
59
c. what is the impact of criminal convictions
(or findings of innocence) on disciplinary
proceedings? what is the effect of an
appeal against conviction?
--- alıntı ---
31. maddenin ilk cümlesi : uefa müdahale etme hakkını saklı tutar demekte. yani bu dava dönüp dolaşıp önümüze gelecektir. (olması gereken olmayabiliyor malum)
devamında temiz şampiyon trabzonspor'a başvurusuna(yerel federasyona) rağmen şampiyonluk ünvanını almada başarısız olduğu belirtiliyor.
sayfa 16.
--- alıntı ---
30. nonetheless, some national federations
have moved in the other direction
–
the
turkish football federation, in response to
the sheer number of clubs implicated in the
2010/2011 süper lig fixing, limited the
sanction of relegation (to a lower league) to
circumstances where the impugned party had
“effectively influenc[ed]”
the match (and removed
the sanction from parties that had only
“attempt[ed] to influence”
matches).
56
--- alıntı ---
sonraki maddeler daha vahim
--- alıntı ---
31. further, uefa’s (and other federations’)
intervention remains at their discretion.
others aggrieved by match-fixing, including
‘clean’ competitors, have limited power to
trigger intervention from the federation, such
as in the case of
trabzonspor
, where the ‘clean’
runner-up in the 2010/2011 turkish süper
lig unsuccessfully sought the title given the
original title holder (fenerbahçe) had been
implicated in match-fixing.
57
32. as noted above, the proliferation of
controls (and civil and criminal proceedings)
has produced new issues at the cas phase:
a. what is the res judicata effect of findings in
respect of the same conduct, but at a
different level (national/international),
58
and/or at a different phase
(administrative/disciplinary)?
b. what is the res judicata
effect of findings in respect of different parties involved in the
same conduct (e.g. two clubs that have
fixed a match)?
59
c. what is the impact of criminal convictions
(or findings of innocence) on disciplinary
proceedings? what is the effect of an
appeal against conviction?
--- alıntı ---
31. maddenin ilk cümlesi : uefa müdahale etme hakkını saklı tutar demekte. yani bu dava dönüp dolaşıp önümüze gelecektir. (olması gereken olmayabiliyor malum)
devamında temiz şampiyon trabzonspor'a başvurusuna(yerel federasyona) rağmen şampiyonluk ünvanını almada başarısız olduğu belirtiliyor.
