Cr150

[Aryagorn]

The overall reaction from football twitter is disgusting. The overall lack of media coverage is embarrassing, but it's slowly getting there.

Fucking slimy piece of filth. Wouldn't be surprised if the accusations from 2005 were true as well.

What accusations in 2005?

 

[BusiTheKing]

At what point?

At the point where the genuinity of none of the very damning evidence has been disputed.

If the documents are real, then it's an open and shut case. If they're fake, why are his lawyers talking about violation of his personal rights instead of ficticious journalism?

 

[BusiTheKing]

What accusations in 2005?

not much was written about it except that the case was thrown out on the basis of insufficient evidence: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2368797/Ronaldo-****-charges-dropped.html

This is of course pure speculation, whereas the Las Vegas case is probably the most substantial and detailed in the history of MeToo.

 

[Aryagorn]

not much was written about it except that the case was thrown out on the basis of insufficient evidence: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2368797/Ronaldo-****-charges-dropped.html

This is of course pure speculation, whereas the Las Vegas case is probably the most substantial and detailed in the history of MeToo.

Thanks

 

[vlad]

if i got it right, that was in 2009. , she recieved big money from him, now 9 years after she is suing him for ******



he does nothing to worry about

 

[Stoichkov1]

Disgusting how literally no one in Italy and Spain is reporting it.

 

[vlad]

she was probably afraid of florentino perez so she is suing him now when he left real

 

[Yannik]

she was probably afraid of florentino perez so she is suing him now when he left real

I sincerely doubt the average American woman watches football or knows who the hell Florentino Perez is

 

[El Gato]

At the point where the genuinity of none of the very damning evidence has been disputed.

If the documents are real, then it's an open and shut case. If they're fake, why are his lawyers talking about violation of his personal rights instead of ficticious journalism?

Don't know. Do you? Or are you pretending to be more informed about the case beyond trusting a few tweets? Who's the evidence not disputed by? Who do you want to question it? If papers aren't picking it up to make scandalous money off it then maybe, just maybe, this is not because every main media outlet (and most of them love a good shitstorm about CR) is taking Ronaldo's side?

If this is legit then in the current political climate it WILL become frontpage news. Not one sane person would stake their reputation on this though so 2-3 days from the announcement of a lawsuit via social media is not exactly a surprising timeframe for nothing to be happening in.

 

[BusiTheKing]

Don't know. Do you? Or are you pretending to be more informed about the case beyond trusting a few tweets? Who's the evidence not disputed by? Who do you want to question it? If papers aren't picking it up to make scandalous money off it then maybe, just maybe, this is not because every main media outlet (and most of them love a good shitstorm about CR) is taking Ronaldo's side?

If this is legit then in the current political climate it WILL become frontpage news. Not one sane person would stake their reputation on this though so 2-3 days from the announcement of a lawsuit via social media is not exactly a surprising timeframe for nothing to be happening in.

Who's the evidence not disputed by? Who do you want to question it?
- Ronaldo's lawyers obviously

A few tweets? You mean that re-cap of weeks of investigation by a team of 20 Der Spiegel journalists, based on hundreds of documents that all went through authenticity checks and legal teams?

 

[El Gato]

Who's the evidence not disputed by? Who do you want to question it?
- Ronaldo's lawyers obviously

A few tweets? You mean that re-cap of weeks of investigation by a team of 20 Der Spiegel journalists, based on hundreds of documents that all went through authenticity checks and legal teams?

That's great and all. So basically your conclusion is that mainstream media are protecting Ronaldo from criminal prosecution. Only problem is, what benefit do they have in doing that? Every self-respecting journal would be onto it if it was all checked, proofread and stonewall evidence that would hold up in court of law. You're expecting these self-respecting journals to make that decision within 3 days just because Der Spiegel say they've gone over it?

Lolz.

 

[Zuza66]

That's great and all. So basically your conclusion is that mainstream media are protecting Ronaldo from criminal prosecution. Only problem is, what benefit do they have in doing that? Every self-respecting journal would be onto it if it was all checked, proofread and stonewall evidence that would hold up in court of law. You're expecting these self-respecting journals to make that decision within 3 days just because Der Spiegel say they've gone over it?

Lolz.

Here's why:

Ronaldo's lawyer said he would seek legal redress from the magazine for reporting he described as "blatantly illegal".

Christian Schertz said in a statement: "It violates the personal rights of our client Cristiano Ronaldo in an exceptionally serious way.

"This is an inadmissible reporting of suspicions in the area of privacy.

"It would therefore already be unlawful to reproduce this reporting.

https://www.skysports.com/football/...says-allegations-in-der-spiegel-are-fake-news

 

[BusiTheKing]

That's great and all. So basically your conclusion is that mainstream media are protecting Ronaldo from criminal prosecution.

Wait, what? How did you get that from what I said?

 

[BusiTheKing]

I mean, yeah, it's still being underreported, but are you saying it hasn't hit front page of any major publications? have you checked CNN? BBC? Wall Street Journal? The Sun?

 

[El Gato]

Wait, what? How did you get that from what I said?

It's the inevitable conclusion of your argument. You're assuming evidence has been checked by teams of experts and the case is somehow not gaining ground even though it should because evidence is stonewall (just because Der Spiegel says so). That 'somehow' is easily substituted by 'intentionally' given the tone of your position on the issue. If that's not what you're saying then do feel free to clarify.

My point is, the reason it's not on front page news of Sky is because it's a big fucking deal and not one reliable outlet will report the case if there's anything at all wrong with it. That's why it takes more than just a couple of days for every outlet to look over the whole thing and make sure they're not onto a global smear campaign of one of the best players who ever lived. Same shit happened to Lance Armstrong back in the day and dude hasn't even hurt anybody, just their wallets.

I mean, yeah, it's still being underreported, but are you saying it hasn't hit front page of any major publications? have you checked CNN? BBC? Wall Street Journal? The Sun?

Nope, I haven't in fairness. Has it? Then what's all the fuss about? It's making rounds and if he's guilty he will be prosecuted. Or as the user above suggested, it won't because it might not have been obtained by legal means. Much like Donald Sterling debacle who albeit hasn't done anything illegal, but the mode by which tapes on him were obtained was.

at The Sun getting a mention though