Heads up, Sporting! Updates on Alvalade ban after Porto complaints | OneFootball

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to suspend the partial ban on the José Alvalade Stadium after reviewing the appeal submitted by Sporting as a result of a complaint from Porto following the Classic match played on August 30. The entity considered the "precautionary request to be valid" and decreed that sector A17 will not be closed for now.

Thus, until the main and final decision of the project in question is known, nothing will happen. Porto's complaint concerns the throwing of objects onto the field during the celebrations of the rival players, such as lighters.

In the initial decision, the Disciplinary Board of the FPF considered it proven that “during the second half of the game, around the 61st minute of regular time,” Sporting fans located in the sector in question threw “several objects, namely lighters, in the direction of FC Porto, SAD players, who were celebrating their team's first goal.” "One of the thrown lighters hit the FC Porto player, SAD, Zaidu (shirt no. 12), requiring medical assistance, which led the match referee to delay the restart of the game by about 2 minutes.

In its defense, Sporting argues that "the appealed decision is based on profoundly incorrect assumptions", is "fraught with serious and evident flaws that resulted in an inadmissible and deliberate violation of the claimant's defense rights" and is also "the result of a series of blatant illegalities signed by the Disciplinary Board. We are, in short, facing a disciplinary procedure and a decision that are the antithesis of a fair and equitable process".

More specifically, the club contends that "(i) the claimant's right to a fair and equitable process was violated, (ii) the guarantees of administrative impartiality and neutrality were violated, (iii) the principle of ne bis in idem was violated, (iv) the appealed decision errs in the evaluation of evidence and violates the presumption of innocence principle, (v) the typical elements of the disciplinary offenses attributed to the claimant are not met for several and evident reasons, (vi) there is no breach by the claimant of the duties of training and supervision over its fans and supporters, and (vii) the typical event (result disvalue) is not attributable to the claimant".

"We are dealing with a process in which (i) evidence requests made by the claimant were unjustifiably denied; (ii) evidence elements were not made available to the claimant at the procedurally relevant time; (iii) evidence was produced against the claimant beyond the limits allowed in the RDLPFP; (iv) a lawyer from the participant's legal department acted as an interpreter during the questioning of one of the witnesses; (v) the appealed decision is riddled with factual distortions fully contradicted by the case elements; and (vi) the disciplinary procedure and the appealed decision were, respectively, conducted and issued by those who had already formed their conviction regarding the thema decidendum and the claimant's guilt", reads the defense presented.

Regarding the incident involving Zaidu, Sporting claims that "none of the indicated evidence elements is capable of indicating or supporting the typical result in question in the case, making it impossible to state, with a minimum of certainty, that the object was thrown by Sporting SAD fans present in sector A17; that the object that allegedly hit player Zaidu was a lighter; that player Zaidu felt pain; and that player Zaidu actually needed medical assistance".

Sporting's defense consists of 77 points, with the FPF countering and defending the initially presented position in another three: "1. The Portuguese Football Federation expresses, from the outset, its position not to oppose the granting of the requested precautionary measure regarding the sanction of sector interdiction of the sports venue; 2. However, the Portuguese Football Federation also makes it clear that such procedural position assumed within the scope of the precautionary process does not imply any admission of the facts alleged by the Claimant, either in the precautionary process, particularly regarding the fulfillment of the appearance of good right criterion, or in the main action; 3. Discussion that we will refer exclusively to the contestation to be presented in the main arbitration action".

Finally, and in summary, the CAS understood "to uphold the precautionary request formulated by the Claimant, decreeing, consequently, as appropriate and proportional, the suspension of the disciplinary sanction applied, by resolution of the Professional Section of the Disciplinary Board of the Requested Entity" and determined that the costs "should be borne by the Requested Entity, referring to the arbitration decision to be issued in the main action the determination of the final costs of the entire present process, considering that the value of €30,000.01 was assigned to the present case and that the process costs include the arbitration fee and the arbitration process charges".

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇵🇹 here.