The DroneGate Thread

[Joe MacCarthy]

Thinking this topic should have a proper place to put info seeing as it will probably drone on forever and have a Dubin like commission or something equally stupid

Probably should gave started this days ago.

 

[reggietfc]

thk god for the drone footage...we would of never scored that goal without it...chillout jack kinda melodramatic

[Canuckia]

I kind of wish KJ would go MIA again.

[narduch]

2 hours ago, Canuckia said:

I kind of wish KJ would go MIA again.

Just wait til CPL off season lol

[Bison44]

Self entitled charletons who are in it for themselves and themselves only???  Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Cadeau]

7 hours ago, reggietfc said:

thk god for the drone footage...we would of never scored that goal without it...chillout jack kinda melodramatic

Im kinda stunned by how melodramatic he is. Defending people who seemingly try to destroy (more than help anyway) canadian soccer.

[narduch]

55 minutes ago, Cadeau said:

Im kinda stunned by how melodramatic he is. Defending people who seemingly try to destroy (more than help anyway) canadian soccer.

There's a journalist version of the thin blue line basically 

[TGAA_Star]

I mean I wonder if post Olympics if there will be further consequences for our women's national team when it comes to international competitions like the CONCACAF Women's Gold Cup or trying to qualify for the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup in Brazil?

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

2 hours ago, Cadeau said:

Im kinda stunned by how melodramatic he is. Defending people who seemingly try to destroy (more than help anyway) canadian soccer.

He's enough of an insider that he is likely to have heard rumours about the drone angle given the incidents that led to complaints from opposing teams such as Honduras.

It didn't take long for his Onesoccer colleague Garth Wheeler to feel comfortable talking about Bev Priestman being highly unlikely not to know and how multiple sources were telling them that both the CMNT or CWNT had been doing this in the past. Kevin Blue appears to have also been tipped off to that effect very quickly by people on the inside.

If the federal government goes full Dubin Inquiry in the aftermath there's going to be a lot of people who will have to explain why they didn't blow the whistle. That's why the CSA needs to clean house and get rid of staff members who were part of that culture so they would be providing those explanations as former rather than current staff members.

[Cadeau]

34 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

He's enough of an insider that he is likely to have heard rumours about the drone angle given the incidents that led to complaints from opposing teams such as Honduras.

It didn't take long for his Onesoccer colleague Garth Wheeler to feel comfortable talking about Bev Priestman being highly unlikely not to know and how multiple sources were telling them that both the CMNT or CWNT had been doing this in the past. Kevin Blue appears to have also been tipped off to that effect very quickly by people on the inside.

If the federal government goes full Dubin Inquiry in the aftermath there's going to be a lot of people who will have to explain why they didn't blow the whistle. That's why the CSA needs to clean house and get rid of staff members who were part of that culture so they would be providing those explanations as former rather than current staff members.

The whole thing is ridiculous. Our media is acting like it’s a national crisis! Like when the Quebec media acts if the Canadiens coach doesn’t speak French. And here I thought Canada was slowly shedding its loser mentality.

[jonovision]

An appeal is the correct and expected move. I don't expect it to be successful, and even if it were it might not change the calculus going into the final match, depending on how far the penalty is reduced.

[RS]

1 hour ago, jonovision said:

An appeal is the correct and expected move. I don't expect it to be successful, and even if it were it might not change the calculus going into the final match, depending on how far the penalty is reduced.

If they get three points back they could win the group outright, although France will likely pummel New Zealand regardless.

[Treppy2]

One thing that I could see going in Canada's favour is that FIFA did not follow their own regulations in docking Canada the six points. That punishment was made by the FIFA Appeal Committee rather than the FIFA Disciplinary Committee. Canada didn't have a chance to appeal the sanction (which should have been made by the Disciplinary Committee) to the Appeal Committee because the normal process wasn't followed by FIFA.

Courts (like the Court of Arbitration for Sport) like to see due and proper process being followed. No idea if it will make a difference, but I could see the points being reinstated because of this technicality.

[Joe MacCarthy]

This reminds me of a World Championship or U20 was it?, in the Far East.  The Canadian goalie went out to stop a player on a break and the player went flying over her.  We were then penalized four ways

Going on memory so someone correct me

1 The starting goalie is red carded so she's out of the game
2 We're down a man
3 The goalie can't play the next game
4 We give up a penalty shot

Am I missing one?  How many times can you punish someone?

The extra three points of six was unnecessary. 
 

[Kent]

For fun, some permutations for the possibilities after the appeal.

Getting the deduction reduced to 5 from 6 doesn't seem to change anything. We still need a win. Maybe it could help with placing in some scenarios, but I'm not sure.

If we are only docked 4 points, a tie could get us through to the knockouts if New Zealand beats France.

If our deduction changes to 3 points, a tie would be enough for us to advance. We could advance with a loss if New Zealand beats France.

If our deduction falls to 2 points, we would advance with a 1 goal loss if New Zealand ties France.

If we are only deducted 1 point we advance with a loss if France draws or loses.

If we get our deduction completely erased we would at the very least be in a tie breaker as one of the best 3rd place teams.

[Kent]

1 hour ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

This reminds me of a World Championship or U20 was it?, in the Far East.  The Canadian goalie went out to stop a player on a break and the player went flying over her.  We were then penalized four ways

Going on memory so someone correct me

1 The starting goalie is red carded so she's out of the game
2 We're down a man
3 The goalie can't play the next game
4 We give up a penalty shot

Am I missing one?  How many times can you punish someone?

The extra three points of six was unnecessary. 
 

I really think at the very least they should reduce suspensions for players red carded before a certain point in the game. Like in the first half or the first 20 minutes or something. Because a red card in the 5th minute is a much, much harsher penalty than a red card in the 85th minute.

[Acid-Tone]

There's been an inverse relationship between how much someone follows soccer and how upset they are about this scandal. But don't take it from me, take it from USMNT's Tyler Adams:

https://x.com/YahooSports/status/1818018805588836406

[Acid-Tone]

-

Edited July 30 by Acid-Tone

[Gian-Luca]

9 hours ago, Treppy2 said:

One thing that I could see going in Canada's favour is that FIFA did not follow their own regulations in docking Canada the six points. That punishment was made by the FIFA Appeal Committee rather than the FIFA Disciplinary Committee. Canada didn't have a chance to appeal the sanction (which should have been made by the Disciplinary Committee) to the Appeal Committee because the normal process wasn't followed by FIFA.

Courts (like the Court of Arbitration for Sport) like to see due and proper process being followed. No idea if it will make a difference, but I could see the points being reinstated because of this technicality.

I want to know what the "sentencing range" is. What would warrant, say, a 2-point deduction? If attempted cheating via scouting by a non-athlete (and thus non-competitor) is worth six points, what would warrant a 2-point deduction - perhaps the team's waterboy thinking about cheating by spiking the other team's water supply with a laxative, but then changing his mind and not actually doing the deed in question?

 

[Joe MacCarthy]

9 hours ago, Treppy2 said:

but I could see the points being reinstated because of this technicality.

After the tournament is over.

[El Diego]

21 hours ago, Treppy2 said:

One thing that I could see going in Canada's favour is that FIFA did not follow their own regulations in docking Canada the six points. That punishment was made by the FIFA Appeal Committee rather than the FIFA Disciplinary Committee. Canada didn't have a chance to appeal the sanction (which should have been made by the Disciplinary Committee) to the Appeal Committee because the normal process wasn't followed by FIFA.

Courts (like the Court of Arbitration for Sport) like to see due and proper process being followed. No idea if it will make a difference, but I could see the points being reinstated because of this technicality.

The FIFA Disciplinary Code section 56.3 states:

"If deemed appropriate, the chairperson or their deputy may refer a case, regardless of the matter involved, directly to the Appeal Committee for consideration and decision."

The decision-maker references this at the beginning of their decision, saying due to how fast this all has to happen that it is appropriate. Canada didn't challenge the jurisdiction either, so I don't think this will be a fruitful avenue. There are a few interesting things to pick out from the decision, I want to do a post soon about it.

[mpg_29]

12 hours ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

After the tournament is over.

Isn't the ruling today or tommorow?

[Obinna]

11 minutes ago, mpg_29 said:

Isn't the ruling today or tommorow?

believe hearing is today and ruling tmr

Edited July 30 by Obinna

[El Diego]

I encourage everyone to read the FIFA Appeal Committe decision available here: Inside FIFA

Here are some things I thought were noteworthy.

COC, CSA AND KEVIN BLUE COMMENTS

After the public comments of the CSA/Kevin Blue, the Secretariat (at para 22) requested "all materials, documentation and/or information currently in its possession concerning the matter at hand and in particular regarding the purported use(s) of a drone by the Canadian women’s team and staff in the context of the OFT". The decision also referenced article 12 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code about the duty to collaborate.

The CSA, in an effort to appear transparent I suppose, swiftly conducted an investigation and released their public statement. These statements "tipped off" the Secretariat as to what information the CSA had in their possession. It's possible that this request would have been made to the CSA anyway, but my view is that the CSA, while have a duty to collaborate, also has a duty to their national team. These statements introduced tremendous risk.

BEV IS A REAL PIECE OF SHIT

Due to the above, an e-mail exchange was provided to the Appeal Committee and reproduced in the decision. My pasting formatting is wonky, but on March 20, 2024 a performance analyst e-mailed Bev Priestman and reiterated what she told her in person, that being that they wouldn't engage in "spying" for moral and reputational reasons. Bev then emails an HR person the following:

“Hi [HR person] Seeking your advice and input here regarding this formal email on spying. It's something the analyst has always done and I know there is a whole operation on the Men's side with regards to it (we had [guy] in with us recently and he was outstanding in this area)

Yesterday in a meeting when discussing, I asked [analyst] to propose a alternative solution as for scouting it can be the difference between winning and losing and all top 10 teams do it. I received this more 'formal' email this morning and so just after guidance really as to what from a HR stand point I can do or do I need to find another solution in resourcing? It's a tricky one and it's formal for a reason I feel...

Thanks Bev”

Lombardi and Mander, the two staff who did engage in the droning, then state that they did it on their own accord which yeah, ok.

CLEAR DRONES NOT ALLOWED

Lots of people (including myself) were curious as to the specific provisions that say drones are prohibited. There are provisions in the FIFA Disciplinary Code and Olympic Football Tournament Regulations that generally talk about fair play, but don't specifically mention drones or spying. The decision provides more info regarding this. They reference three things that specifically mention drones:

1. FIFA Circular 7 states "Please note that it is prohibited to fly drones over any tournament training sites and stadiums.”

2. FIFA Team Handbook at page 50 states "Please note that it is prohibited to fly drones over any tournament training site"

3. The Team Workshop in advance of the tournament contained a slide in its presentation that stated "Drones will not be allowed in accordance with the banned (sic) imposed by the State.”

Clearly, drones are not allowed and everyone team knows this.

OLYMPIC GAMES AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION

In the reasons for the sanction, the Chairperson "could not stress enough that the Respondents’ actions are inexcusable and unacceptable, even more so since the incident occurred at the Olympic Games, the most prestigious multi-sport event in the world which is viewed by millions globally". They added that "the breaches committed by the Respondents are particularly tarnishing to the reputation of football because they occurred during the Olympic Games."

Interestingly, they seemed to deem that Canada had an extra responsibility as the defending champ: "CSA’s responsibility is only heightened in this case considering that it is the reigning champion of the OFT for the Women’s game, having won gold in the Games of the XXXII Olympiad Tokyo 2020 edition (played in 2021)". This strikes me as arbitrary.

UNPRECEDENTED CONDUCT

A reason given for the sanction was because of the "unprecedented and egregious conduct engaged by the Respondents, aggravated in the Chairperson’s opinion by the circumstances of the global setting in which they took place". No other instances of spying were referenced, so it appears that the Chairperson essentially took notice of this. Bielsa's spying was not mentioned, and while that was not in the international context, I don't understand why no other examples were provided by the Chairperson. They could have distinguished them if they wanted to.

The decision concludes by saying that more discipline may be coming after the CSA provides FIFA with the results of their internal investigation.

CONCLUSION

Kevin Blue's comments really sewered the women at this tournament. Bev Priestman is a piece of crap. More sanctions may be coming. FIFA decisions are arbitrary -- I don't know how CAS operates but this is the ground of appeal I would focus on (if its even allowed, idk what you're allowed to appeal).

[rkomar]

The appeal isn't about whether they flew a drone, it is about the size of the penalty.  None of the above convinces me that you shouldn't try to appeal the latter.  The appeal may fail, but you have to try.