This one is the second report from a Strong series of reports on FARSOPOLI, the others will follow.
Published on June 20, 2011 on MYJUVENTUS.NET

TV and newspapers deserve a chapter on their own. Who has never read, at least once, the “Gazzetta dello Sport”? Who has never watched “la moviola” [a slow-motion replay of the unclear incidents throughout the match analyzed frame by frame – ed] on Mediaset, RAI or SKY? Who has never heard or read the words of commentators and analysts? Up to here nothing wrong, except that certain expressions or certain episodes, in the media-football history of recent decades, have been told in a somewhat biased, if not suspicious, way. 

We’ll take as a model two “strands” regarding the troubled relationship between some newspapers and Juventus, their bugbear. But first we need some background. Let’s start with some answers taken from the cross-examination of the Lieutenant Colonel Auricchio (yes, after the investigation he was promoted…), which has taken place at the hearing held on March 23, 2010 at the Court of Naples. 
Prioreschi (Moggi’s defense): Juventus-Bologna, the following match, did you watch it? 
Auricchio: I think so. Prioreschi: Have there been any particular incidents?
Auricchio: Yes, according to the “Corriere”, “La Repubblica” and the “Gazzetta dello Sport”: Juve wins with a dubious free-kick from the edge of the penalty box and two dubious penalties are denied to Bologna. 
Prioreschi: These are taken from the newspapers… 
Auricchio: As usual! 
This importance of the topic is paramount. As you can read, in fact, the entire criminal charge is based NOT on facts, but on journalistic assessments!
During the same hearing, the lawyer Prioreschi lists data and comparisons relative to the season under investigation, 2004/2005, reminding that the average of the points gained by Juventus with referees under investigation is equal to 1.89, while with the other referees is 2.63. In addition, many other teams benefited from the so-called “preventing bookings,” i.e. yellow cards given from the referees so that, in the next round, the team will miss for automatic suspension the players booked, advantaging the opponents. Leading this special ranking is Atalanta (!), then Reggina, Juventus, AC Milan, Inter…In short, not even the numbers are on the Prosecution’s side. 
Two other issues capture, during the same deposition, our attention. 
First, Auricchio says he does not know if AC Milan controls (directly or not) some TV, maybe forgetting a broadcaster called Mediaset [Mediaset is a media company owned by Berlusconi, who also owns AC Milan – ed]; then, the media power of Juventus. Exactly. One of the charges against Moggi in the domain of criminal law (this is not a joke, but a real trial, a criminal offence!) relates to the enslavement of the media by Moggi and Giraudo. But do you know what TV was controlled by Juve, according to the claims of the Police? “La7”! Granted that such TV was owned by Telecom, in a “compromising” wiretapped telephone call, Moggi asked the former referee Baldas (“moviola” analyst in the TV programme “Il processo di Biscardi”, aired on La7) to be generous with Juventus. Does anyone have any idea of the La7 average ratings late at night in 2004? In short, we realize how Moggi’s power can, once again, be reduced and brought back to reality.(7)

Juve cheat? Here’s a little snippet of an article, very illustrative, about what it means “creating people’s sentiment”. Written by Pucciogoal87 on, October 6, 2009, talks of the unjust and unnecessary controversy following the match Bologna-Juventus played September 27, 2009, which ended 1-1, with a few mistakes of the referee affecting both teams. 
What I want to strongly emphasize is instead the media aspect of this story, a typical example of the best repertoire of those who prepared the ground for the advent of Farsopoli and who do not seem to have changed their habits despite the “operation liking” practiced by ownership and management of the new Juventus. While surfing on youtube, I found the highlights of the match Juventus-Bologna broadcasted by Rai, Sky and Mediaset Premium. Well, in all the three videos, the action leading to Bologna’s equalizer begins with a cross from the left wing: both the assist of the referee to speed up the resumption of the match and the free-kick taken with the ball still moving were not shown. With a little patience, on youtube one can find the whole action taken from the original commentary: find it and see for yourself the obvious irregularities. Just imagine if the incident had occurred with reversed roles. 

Here is a test: try to associate your memories with each of the four following situations: 
– Goal of Turone also known as “Er go ‘de Turone” during Juventus-Roma in 1980-1981; 
– Ronaldo’s penalty in Juventus-Inter 1997-1998; 
– Goal of Cannavaro in Juventus-Parma 1999-2000; 
– Bergamo’s text message to the fourth official during Rome-Juventus 2004-2005. 
Write down what you remember of each situation and, if you cannot remember, help yourself with the archives of newspapers or Internet; try to reconstruct carefully the story connected with the four episodes. (…) We will show you that what you have written constitutes the essence of popular sentiment used to kill Juventus in the summer of 2006. Finally, if you have time and desire, try to do the same with these other episodes: 
-The penalty for a foul on Platini during Hamburg-Juventus in 1983; 
 Manfredonia’s goal in Real Madrid-Juventus in 1986; 
– Laudrup’s goal in Napoli-Juventus, 1989; 
– Vieri’s goal in Borussia Dortmund-Juventus, 1997; 
– Mijatovic’s goal in Real Madrid-Juventus, 1998;
– The penalties in Manchester during Milan-Juventus in 2003.(8) 
How many matches were reported their own way? 
In addition: Who does not remember the famous penalty on Ronaldo and the other 5-6 pro-Juve incidents? But who, on the contrary, recalls that in the first round Juventus gave a football lesson, but lost for a Djorkaeff’s goal scored in a dubious position, a disallowed Inzaghi’s goal and a penalty for a foul of West on Inzaghi much clearer even that the Ronaldo-Iuliano contact? (9)
Or Roma-Juve, 2005:…One of the matches on trial in Naples. (…) such a good headline could not be missing: ”The Juventus talisman will direct the match” [alluding to the presence of an allegedly “pro-Juve” referee – ed].(…) 
(ANSA – [italian press agency – ed]) ROME – A Juventus fan was transported to the emergency room of the Olympic Stadium after being stabbed in a leg. (…)
 (ADNKRONOS – [Italian press agency – ed]) Of the three ex’s (Capello, Emerson and Zebina), the coach was mostly hammered and booed. (…) Then a series of irreverent banners: “Capello coniglio, Emerson tuo figlio” [Capello rabbit, Emerson your son – ed]. At the announcement of the line-ups, the well-known speaker of the Olimpico, Carlo Zampa, did not call Zebina, Emerson, and Capello, remaining silent for about a minute each time, allowing this way the public to overwhelm the three with boos. But the Roma fans kicked up also with banners regarding the process of doping against Juventus. (…) These are the circumstances in which that match took place (…), as demanded a clear banner that read “Oggi niente abbracci, mirate ai polpacci” [Today no hugs, aim for the calves – ed]. 72 fouls, 9 yellow cards. 
(…) And the Racalbuto’s decisions on the game episodes, were they really only propitious for Juve, as then wrote and as, even today, say some journalists with no memory? No, let us refresh our memory by drawing on a newspaper certainly not “friend” or “reference” for Juventus. No “Tuttosport” then, but the “Gazzetta dello Sport”, as often done by Auricchio, with an article signed by Olivero Giovanni Battista (…): 
In summary, errors in favor of Juve: goal by Cannavaro was in offside (it could be detected only through the “moviola”) and penalty for Juve for the “clear foul” which “gives the impression” of being “a few inches” outside the box. 
Errors in favor of Rome: with Juve leading 1-0 a penalty not sanctioned for double foul, failure to send Dacourt off, Cassano’s goal made dubious by the positions of two other fellow players, and regular Ibrahimovic’s goal disallowed. In addition, the “Gazzetta” does not report the episode of the famous Cufre’s punch on Del Piero’s face, while the game was stopped. In a normal environment, and not the one we saw that night, maybe Roma would have played half game with nine players. 
Racalbuto paid heavily his refereeing and was halted for 8 matches, since he made mistakes pro-Juve. Or rather, he made more mistakes in favor of Rome, but newspapers and television only amplified the errors in favor of the “Bianconeri”. (10) 
And to finish the show, do you remember these headlines? December 20, 2006, the day of a Bologna-Juventus characterized by Zalayeta’s goals: 
“LA GAZZETTA DELLO SPORT”: “Juve, not this way” emphasizing: “Juventus wins in Bologna with an irregular Zalayeta’s goal”. 
“CORRIERE DELLO SPORT”: “Scandal in Bologna, penalty denied to Bologna, ghost goal with handball for Juve”. 
“LA STAMPA”: “Juve with poison: wins with a contested goal of Zalayeta.
Andy54, 14 September 2008, wrote the article for the online magazine “Inter, referees and Gazzetta: not this way!” Destiny was cynical and cheat and wanted that yesterday was Inter to win a game with a goal much much more “ghost” than the one scored by Zalayeta against Bologna. The today Gazzetta’s headline was: “Inter says thanks.” Do you notice any difference with the treatment accorded to Juve? (…)(11) 
Have you ever seen a title so harsh for mistakes against Juventus (for example Reggina-Juventus, referee Paparesta, 11/06/2004)? Or for Maicon’s goal in Siena-Inter with 4-5 Inter players in offside (20/12/2008)? 
The famous Cannavaro’s goal in Juve-Parma, 05/07/2000, disallowed by De Santis, on the contrary, is remembered by everyone: did you have by any chance double-checked if the corner kick that led to the goal was actually a corner? 
One could go on and on…And for those who do not believe or cannot remember, there are many interesting videos on the web.
Sure, there are episodes in favor and against, it’s true! But some are artfully hidden. 
To avoid any doubt, to be completely impartial, would it not be better to follow the matches and leave alone those newspapers or TV programmes often so biased?
Meanwhile, the same omissions and exaggerations that have continuously palmed us off with for years, created that “people’s sentiment” that helped send us to Serie B. 

“La Gazzetta” active part of the investigation against Juve. Well, even this has happened. We’re not kidding, nor exaggerating. The “Gazzetta dello Sport” (among other things, business partner of FC Internazionale and newspaper that more than anyone else fueled the formation of the “people’s sentiment” against Juve) openly sided against Juventus management. However, one wonders why that stance was so strong, so detailed…The answer comes from the depositions of Auricchio and Di Laroni (another officer belonging to the “Magnificent 12” team which carried on the operation): some journalists actively collaborated in the investigation of the Carabinieri. 
It was known that Maj. Auricchio, as mentioned above, used to read the “Gazzetta dello Sport”, and used the newspaper to draft the informative reports and find the evidence of his own work, but only after the testimony of the officers in the courtroom the role of the journalist Galdi was revealed (it’s no accident that he is Gazzetta’s correspondent in charge to follow the Naples trial as well as being the author of a few biased reports often quite close to the prosecution’s thesis). 
Auricchio: “Galdi was a useful source to investigate the world of football, […]. I asked Galdi about the informative reports and he told me that the first one of the three was circulating through the press, without being precise. […] Contacts with Galdi began in late 2003. We are friends and I also used him to learn investigative news within the inquiry concerning football. He called me frequently to keep me informed on all the facts that he knew in the sports world. He did it because he felt gratified to cooperate with the investigators. […] ” 
Di Laroni: “I met Galdi during the investigation on the bank guarantees at the Public Prosecutor of Rome. During the investigation on behalf of the Naples prosecutors we used Galdi to gather information about football, especially to search for websites that would be useful for the investigation, but also information in general. […] He called me frequently asking news about the investigations; I used to call him to get the news I was interested in. During the drafting of the second informative report we tried to understand the procedure of the referee draw; I asked Galdi for some information and he replied to me on the departmental institutional mail, sending an email containing the rules under which the referees’ chiefs had agreed to make the draws. I politely lodged for him an appeal against a sanction for violation of the Highway Code. […] I would add that Galdi, after the news leak, complained to me and Major Auricchio about the fact that he had provided contribution to the investigation without receiving anything, unlike some of his colleagues.” 
Why not making use of institutional sources to conduct the investigation? 

The informative reports disclosed to the press before the closure of the investigation. Typical Italian bad habit. This time though with laws that forbid it, responsibilities and precise related sanctions. However, very often it is not possible tracking down the “little hand” who committed the offence; in this case as well, the investigation on the news-leak was closed as it was not possible to positively identify the perpetrators. Changed file passwords, forced documents cabinet at the police station…Besides, thanks to Auricchio’s depositions, it can be certainly established that many journalists knew about the ongoing investigations and frequently called to get information and hot news (“I think the newspaper “Il Romanista” was the first one to learn the news. This newspaper belongs to Riccardo Luna who I’m told has contacts with institutional environments.” Auricchio, May 22, 2007). 
What is known with certainty is that, once again, was the “Gazzetta dello Sport” the first to report about the police investigation against Moggi and a presumed “cupola” [In Italian language the term “cupola”, literally “dome”, comes from the mafia slang and indicates a body of leading mafia members who decide on criminal activities – ed] (May 6, 2006: “Uproar on Moggi. There is a notification from Naples, and another is coming. A full year of serious wiretaps is under consideration by the magistrates”).
Perhaps the lack of penal relevance, perhaps the need (for whom?) to avoid the expiration of any statutory terms for the “crimes” (strictly in quotes) led the unknown mole to reveal the yet secret reports. Thanks to the leak, the material could then be used by the sporting justice: the right time, no doubt, was carefully and accurately chosen (at the end of the season), allowing the media to offer the decisive assist, for the anti-Juventus public opinion and for the sports courts, to arrange with breathless haste that creepy show which was called Calciopoli and which, in just 19 days, relegated Juventus to Serie B.(12)

Hi everyone, 

We are fans, just like you, of that football team that gave us 29 League Titles won on the pitch, nine Italian Cups, 2 European Cups and an endless series of emotions, men and plays remained in the history of football. And in our minds. A team that…either you hate, or you are madly in love with: Juventus. 

With this report of a few pages, we would like to trace the origin and the implementation of a farce with no equal in the history of our Country; for years, in fact, some newspapers and TV programmes with self-styled slow-motion replays analysts and commentators have raised the masses against the football power of a team of absolute value, pillorying on the media any conduct of our managers and players and creating this way that “people’s sentiment” that has contributed more than anything else to relegate us to Serie B. We do not want to mouth rhetoric, in fact, quite the contrary. All the statements, as already said, will be briefly analyzed, leaving no space to our comments, surely “biased”. We will go straight to the truth. We will not fling any accusations; we will not name the names or report the facts if not widely documented by laws, sentences, documents, statements (and not hearsays). 

Over recent years, Juventus and its managers have often been investigated, prosecuted…but are we sure we know the events as they really happened? Have we ever been convicted? And are we sure that other clubs that declared themselves “honest” had not committed out-and-out criminal offences over unsuspected years? We believe that only few of you are aware of how things are and only a careful analysis of all the news circulating on internet has led us to uncover the harsh reality. 

Our aim is to spread as much as possible the truth, too often hushed up by the media: the only act of presumption we could be accused of is the willingness to make EVERYONE understand, both Juventus brothers and others, that what was committed in 2006 and all that preceded and followed, is a scandal that should not only concern 2-3000 frantic fans, but an entire people. A Country that declares itself civil, like ours, cannot have concealed a mess so obvious and that includes a series of unheard-of outrages… 

We are confident that soon even those who are in the dark will understand. 

We conclude by thanking the editorial staff of the website (read “juventinovero”), online magazine, our precious and irreplaceable source of information and articles, and all “friends” websites we have drawn from to write these few pages, concise to the bone by necessity, but full of news, perhaps unknown to many of you (repeat: NEWS, OBJECTIVE FACTS, not “rumors”). Any link to the original article may be consulted free of charge on the web. Many websites that carry out our own same battles will be mentioned in the links and bibliography section. 
We do not certainly do it for money, we do not want to pass for a pain in the neck, and we have no copyright. We are doctors, nurses, surveyors, engineers, workers, housewives, clerks, lawyers, students, Juventus small shareholders, journalists…who do not act for profit: print and share as many copies as you can! 
Maybe we have a last wish: we would like that all the Juventus people could finally be close-knit. At stake there is the restitution of the league titles deservedly won on the pitch and, above all, the return of the dignity as well as the rehabilitation before the nation and the world. We would be pleased that, in the event of a favorable outcome, we could all come together to celebrate; and that, if necessary, we would be ready to give full support to the club management, in every possible, available, civil and lawful way. 

Only and forever “Forza Juve”.

Corrado de Biase: (Head of Investigations Office in 1980): “The trial held this summer has given birth to a “juridical abortion”” 
Francesco Cossiga: “I feel ashamed for that travesty of justice which is the Commission of Federal Appeal: I was very surprised that a serious jurist stooped so low as to go to chair it… ” 
Enzo Biagi: “An insane ruling because it was built on nothing, on wiretaps difficult to interpret and unserviceable in a trial worthy of the name (…). It might be that to cover a giant-sized scandal (Laziogate, Telecom, ed) they have identified Moggi as the villain to feed the populace?” 
Piero Ostellino (journalist, formerly director of “Corriere della Sera”): “All of them agreed to a moralistic formula, for a visceral hatred against Juve or just stupidity (…) because the Italian press too often (not just in this respect) is simply obscene.” 

For the dignity, for the history of Juventus, but also for the future of the team and the club For Italy: for the cancellation of an unprecedented farce, which hit the 4th industry in the country (football) 1) Revocation of the of the “cardboard” 2005/2006 Scudetto, awarded to Inter in 2006; 2) Complete revision of the sports sentences; 3) Return of the titles for lack of crimes (along with any penalties for other clubs found guilty); 4) Compensation under the civil law; 

– URGE THE OWNERS, WITH THE AVAILABLE MEANS (letters, e-mail, banners, …) SHOULD THEY NOT COMPLITELY COMMIT IN THE DISPUTE (but finally, after four years of devastating management, with the arrival of Andrea Agnelli, signs of a strong and determined club presence can be seen).