Olympiacos-Panathinaikos: 40 pages of justification for the “red and white” “bell”

In the four-page rationale, special reference was made to the fact that there could be injury without external shock, while standing on the words while preparing the match sheet, which was subsequently recorded.

The Stoiximan Superleague’s single-member primary disciplinary body has been announced The derby decision between Olympiacos and Panathinaikos The worst scenario for the “Red Whites” was confirmed. According to the decision, the match goes to Panathinaikos with a score of 3-0, and one point was deducted from Piraeus in this year’s tournament, and the team is invited to compete in two matches without its fans in the stands (i.e. in matches against… Panetoliko And PAOK) While a fine of 38 thousand euros was also imposed.

Today, we also had the reasoning behind the decision, which “according to him” seems to have played an important role, and which appears to have been added to the match sheet “not reflected in the written text of the aforementioned medical opinion”. “Match doctor,” as Logic points out.

It is characteristic that on page 30 of the 40-page report with the rationale for the decision, the following is emphasized:

“Physical damage, which may consist in particular of injury or injury, but also of another form of disturbance of a person’s bodily function, does not necessarily and necessarily constitute some external sign and/or manifestation, but may, in this case, constitute injury to some Human organs and/or some internal functions of the human being, namely the sense of hearing. In addition, based on the rules of medical science with the rules of common sense and lessons learned from common experiences, it is possible that physical injuries (such as injuries and bruises, but also other injuries) which lacks external signs (such as bleeding) is sometimes very serious, sometimes fatal. Therefore, already at this stage of the examination of the sick player, if he was transferred to the stadium infirmary, by the match doctor, he had the possibility of providing a final medical opinion, According to which the aforementioned footballer “suffered a physical injury that clearly made him unable to continue participating in the match in question, which justifies the subsequent decision taken by the referee to stop the match permanently.”

The report then focuses on the tests carried out on the player, but also on the interventions that were allegedly made to change some perceptions on the part of Oltbiacu.

“It should be noted that, at the discretion of this disciplinary body, the extended time frame of one (1) hour in no way negates the existence of two (2) consecutive medical findings and diagnoses by the match doctor in reference to the same incident at the expense of the footballer.” What is meant is physical damage, particularly the loss of hearing in his left ear, as a result of throwing the aforementioned near firecrackers. After approximately one (1) hour had passed, the match doctor noticed an improvement in the player’s hearing, but his inability to stand. At this stage, it should be noted that Pointing out that the objective conclusion reached by the match doctor is that there is a player’s inability to stand (“… he could not stand…”), which is a clear weakness equivalent to his inability to play, without trying to record this explicitly and unambiguously. Combat doctor, that is, without the need for absolute adherence to the words, because it is not based on the elementary rules in Sheet No. 280/2023 of the decision of the basic one-member disciplinary body SUPER LEAGUE 1 GREECE A player capable of common sense, unable to stand up, to be able to Participate in any way in a football match.

And adding the phrase “…according to him.”…“(i.e., loosely translated, ‘…in the player’s opinion.’) after the phrase ‘…but he is still unable to stand…'” in the match doctor’s medical opinion, as formulated in English, not at all This is reflected in the written text of the above-mentioned medical opinion of the corresponding physician, which was edited in Greek. This addition is clearly later than the medical opinion originally prepared in English, as the text was viewed with the naked eye and without any necessary special knowledge of graphology, The sentence in question is closed and ended with the punctuation mark of the period [.] At the point “…but he still can’t stand up.” However, on the mentioned punctuation mark he stressed the letter “a” from the word “according to” and in this way an objective medical conclusion was reached first and foremost. It turned into a simple personal opinion of the player, while for the position at this stage of the aforementioned addition, only the insolvent PAE company had a direct legal interest. After all, the latter (PAE OLYMPIAKOS) alone justifies the legal interest of the other additions/deletions in the above English text of the medical opinion of the match doctor, because even though the latter has expressed the opinion/opinion in a free translation that the player who suffers appears (“ appears) in good clinical condition, except that instead of the original term “seems”, the term “is” was finally printed, which means that the player is in good clinical condition, which is clearly not the same, while, later, although The above-mentioned match doctor first explicitly states in English, especially in the last two verses of the ending, that “…his team needs to bring him to the hospital for further examinations.”, meaning that his team (PAE PANATHINAIKOS) (“the need”) must transport him To the hospital for further examinations, after which, he deletes the term “need”, which indicates an objective need, and replaces it with the term “want” (want), which indicates a purely subjective will and desire, changes in which only the established PAE had a legitimate interest. In its investigation through its intervention, which led to downplaying the importance of the incident with such wording. After all, Dr. Race himself is a card number. 280/2023 of the decision of the initial single-member disciplinary body SUPER LEAGUE 1 GREECE expressly acknowledges the necessity for the sick player to go to a nursing institution, in order to undergo further medical examination, in the absence of the necessary laboratory and technological means in the field clinic, this is always done. In order to simply verify the physical damage to the footballer in question, since it had already been clearly identified and diagnosed, in any case, by the match doctor in question, who in this context, above all, and under all the above-mentioned circumstances, after a period of approx. Forty (40) minutes, starting at 10:10 pm on 10-22-2023, he finally edited the disputed matter and attached it to the relevant match and medical opinion sheet.

I believe that the pressure exerted on the match doctor by representatives of the two competing teams is true [ΠΑΕ ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΚΟΣ και ΠΑΕ ΠΑΝΑΘΗΝΑΙΚΟΣ αντιστοίχως] With reference to the wording of the final medical conclusion, according to the opinion of each of these (teams), as this will be reflected in writing in the text of the medical opinion prepared by (Match Doctor), there is no dispute about it, as this was proven in the relevant match sheet by the arbitrator, which is In fact, he repeats this in his explanatory report dated 10/2/2023, which he presented before us permissibly and legally, after No. Minutes 324/23-10-2023 document of this disciplinary body.”

The main intervention of Panathinaikos was rejected

“However, the main intervention in question must be rejected in advance as illegal, since it is directed against the disciplinary prosecution per se of the disgruntled PAE OLYMPIAKOS club, as it was summoned to testify before us under No. 329/24-10-2023 summons to apologise, without intervening to offer Complaint or objection pursuant to Section 23 of the EPO Criminal Procedure Code, such that these matters are pending discussion and, therefore, legally possible, PAE PANATHINAIKOS mainly intervenes in the current disciplinary procedure.

This is because it is in accordance with what was stated in the fourth point [Β] Legal Considerations Here, according to the Procedural Regulations, there is no legal right of intervention (neither additional nor main, let alone main) in the context of the disciplinary proceedings under consideration against the accused PE Olympiacos, because in the disciplinary proceedings in question it was withdrawn from the above-mentioned disciplinary proceedings and based on To it, there is no evidence of a dispute. On the contrary, only one party, in this case the accused PAE, participates in this (proceeding) as the legal entity subject to trial. Disciplinary monitoring – by this disciplinary body.”

“There is no doubt as to the veracity of the declaratory judgment report.”

The above-mentioned declaratory referee report, necessarily completed with the relevant match sheet, is competently and acceptably submitted before the current disciplinary body, and is lawful in all respects based on the relevant regulations (PC of EPO and CAP of EPO), while acting in a manner Purely illustrative with reference to the reasons for which the referee decided to stop the match permanently, specifying the term “conditions” that in his ruling were not available to him to order, as only the sovereign has the authority for this resumption of the struggle. It should be noted that the allegations made by the disgruntled PAE regarding its questioning of the validity of the aforementioned explanatory report of the match referee, as it was sent via email to this disciplinary body and especially within the framework of the official exchange, Sheet No. No. 280/2023 of the Decision of the Single-Member Initial Disciplinary Body SUPER LEAGUE 1 GREECE by email after we sent the relevant document, in any case, the insolvent PAE had, based on the provisions of Article 26 of the Procedural Regulations and under the detailed provisions contained in These conditions, the possibility of challenging the relevant explanatory document issued by the match referee as a forgery, a fact which the victim herself never did, with the following result on which no doubt should be raised about the authenticity of this (document) as attached to the problem case file – within the framework of Disciplinary procedures involved –

“Huancar suffered bodily harm.”

In conclusion, according to the justification, “Huancar suffered a physical injury that caused hearing loss in his left ear, an injury whose sole effective cause was the alleged throwing, near him, and the explosion of firecrackers, from this upcoming throwing.” Of the fans at door 28″.