By Andrew Warshaw at the Leaders in Football Conference at Stamford Bridge in London
October 10 – One of Italy’s most influential football officials, Juventus President Andrea Agnelli, waded into the John Terry racism row today by saying he didn’t understand why the former England captain had to face two separate hearings.
Terry, who was acquitted of racial abuse by a Magistrates’ court in July, was banned for four matches by an independent Football Association (FA) panel on similar charges last month and is still debating whether to appeal.
But speaking here, Agnelli (pictured top) said he didn’t understand why the Chelsea defender had to be investigated twice.
When is a free man, he asked, not a free man.
“When you talk about how sports justice works against civil justice, the same accusation against John Terry proved the guy not guilty in one and guilty in the other on the same accusation,” Agnelli said.
“I find that very weird.
“Sport is autonomous but not independent.
“I find it very difficult to understand.”
Italy has its own controversial case with Juventus coach Antonio Conte, whose original 10-month ban by the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) over match-fixing allegations was supported by FIFA before being reduced to four.
Conte (pictured top) guided Juventus to the Serie A title unbeaten last season in his first year in charge but had his reputation shattered when he was sanctioned for allegedly permitting illegal betting while he was coach at Siena during the 2010-2011 season.
Agnelli has consistently defended Conte on the basis that he didn’t get a fair hearing.
“The word of one person was put against the word of another,” he said.
“The disqualification came on the basis that he could not not (sic) know.
“With that in mind anyone can be guilty of anything.
“I spoke to Mr Conte for just one or two minutes and we decided to give him our full support.
“He’ll be back on the bench on December 9 but we have to find a way of reforming this.
“I totally share the view that sport has to be clean but you have to be 100 per cent sure when you are accusing someone.
“At the end of the day our coach was disqualified for four months with the line that he could not not (sic) know rather than actual proof – without being able to defend himself.”
Contact the writer of this story at zib.l1734852844labto1734852844ofdlr1734852844owedi1734852844sni@w1734852844ahsra1734852844w.wer1734852844dna1734852844