Лавеци доби бан од три натпревари пред дербито со Милан:
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
Napoli released a statement condemning Ezequiel Lavezzi’s three-match ban, “an extremely serious decision that sets a dangerous precedent.”
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
The striker and Roma’s Aleandro Rosi were both handed three-match suspensions for spitting at each other in an off-the-ball incident during Napoli’s 2-0 victory at the Olimpico.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
His appeal was rejected on Friday evening and lawyers complained that new video evidence was used.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
In the original case, the Disciplinary Commission viewed footage from Sky Sport Italia, whereas the appeal jury also saw a zoomed-in version from Mediaset.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
“SSC Napoli are bitter and disconcerted at the sentence from the appeals court who, without even explaining the motivation, confirmed Lavezzi’s three-match ban by considering the video evidence to be admissible and beyond reasonable doubt,” read a statement.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
“The club consider this an extremely serious decision, purely in terms of legal procedure, that the court wanted to view and presumably base its response upon a different video clip from the one the first decision was made on. It is also a clip not previously seen by the Napoli legal team.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
“This move, done with no request to the authorities, risks setting a dangerous precedent.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
“SSC Napoli consider that the sporting justice system, in such a difficult moment for our football, has to above all be credible and follow certain, clear guidelines enabling prosecution and defence to protect their rights.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
“These are guarantees that in this case were not provided.”[/FONT]