The DroneGate Thread

[ahmedou]

Canada Soccer Women's National Team (2-0) FIFA

[Big_M]

the document is interesting and gives the reasoning...rules were clear concerning flying drones

canada violated the principles of fair play integrity loyalty and posed a risk to security and safety of others and csa failed to make sure its members abided by the rules

whether or not the footage was used is irrelevent

a heavy sanction was needed and you gotta wonder why we werent expelled from the tournament

also this decision is only for this tournament and they are waiting for csa's investigation and maybe take further action...if we did the same thing in 2021 we could be losing the gold medal

[Meepmeep]

After reading the report I see Blue’s “transparency” as laying the groundwork and building the case for getting rid of the coach for cause.  When you’re cash strapped you don’t have a lot of leeway. I also don’t think it is a coincidence the govt so quickly put out a statement saying they won’t fund the coach’s salary while suspended. Basically the CSA’s $$ won’t be touched. 
 

I also noted that the French Authorities are on record as saying that no footage made it back to the Canadians.  The drone was confiscated before any footage could be shared/viewed. 
 

I’m not at all condoning the practice of drone recording even if it’s widely accepted as being common, but it seems like we’re being punished for something we didn’t do just because some American lawyer feels like it.  Like being convicted and sentenced for first degree murder when the victim didn’t die because the “judge” is personally offended because he feels we tarnished   the Olympics. 

[Meepmeep]

1 hour ago, Big_M said:

the document is interesting and gives the reasoning...rules were clear concerning flying drones

canada violated the principles of fair play integrity loyalty and posed a risk to security and safety of others and csa failed to make sure its members abided by the rules

whether or not the footage was used is irrelevent

a heavy sanction was needed and you gotta wonder why we werent expelled from the tournament

also this decision is only for this tournament and they are waiting for csa's investigation and maybe take further action...if we did the same thing in 2021 we could be losing the gold medal

Until there is evidence that this was a federation sponsored activity I disagree with your take. 
 

I’m all for banning for a significant period anyone involved.  Screw em.  Ban them for life.  Look at the damage they have inflicted on the innocent!
 

But to have one individual carpet bomb the whole set up is a disproportionate punishment as it targets and punishes those who were 100% not involved. 
 

I looked him up and he’s apparently a distinguished lawyer but man that ruling was surprisingly emotional. 

Edited July 30 by Meepmeep

[Big_M]

its not about federation sponsored or not...the csa was responsible for ensuring the rules were respected and they didnt...the guy flew a drone not once but twice and wouldve kept going if he wasnt caught...csa didnt do their job to ensure this didnt happen...and the violation is flying the drone not whether or not the drone footage was used...team sport team penalties...of course there are individual penalties also but you cant avoid the team penalties when the cheating was going to help the team...unfortunately the team gets penalized for something the players didnt know about but sometimes thats how it goes in a team sport...could even happen in an individual sport if the player has a coach/staff

[Ivan]

17 minutes ago, Big_M said:

its not about federation sponsored or not...the csa was responsible for ensuring the rules were respected and they didnt...the guy flew a drone not once but twice and wouldve kept going if he wasnt caught...csa didnt do their job to ensure this didnt happen...and the violation is flying the drone not whether or not the drone footage was used...team sport team penalties...of course there are individual penalties also but you cant avoid the team penalties when the cheating was going to help the team...unfortunately the team gets penalized for something the players didnt know about but sometimes thats how it goes in a team sport...could even happen in an individual sport if the player has a coach/staff

Apparently,  the team staff had drones on their equipment list and were denied by the CSA or COC and the staff brought the drones anyway. Did they not do their job then?  It was the staff who messed up.

[Big_M]

unfortunately when at least two coaches knew and were pushing this and the csa admits it was systemic no the csa didnt do its job to let this go on and on without finding out or knowing and not saying anything

[Ivan]

I'm not sure you can say that. What, is Kevin Blue supposed to check their bags?  The staff fucked up huge.

[Big_M]

thats what fifa said...who knows maybe they remove the six point deduction tomorrow

[Pomoxis]

It would be interesting if the point deduction was reduced in a way that gave Canada an opportunity to qualify for the quarterfinals with a win or draw against Colombia, and not just a win.

[Cheeta]

12 hours ago, Big_M said:

unfortunately when at least two coaches knew and were pushing this and the csa admits it was systemic no the csa didnt do its job to let this go on and on without finding out or knowing and not saying anything

100%.

Priestman & Co. took their lead from their betters on this, of that I have no doubt.  The practice wasn't taken seriously enough and was carried on after a few stern words from HQ.  Expect those stern words were probably followed by the equivelant of a nod and a wink.

If you're a staffer or a player who has concerns flying drones over an opposition's closed practices might get your organization some grief where do you go to express that concern?  Your immediate supervisor is in on the scheme and has already dismissed those concerns and you know her immediate betters have been made aware of the practice and yet it is still allowed to continue.  I mean it's not hard to read the room is it?  Don't rock the boat.

Priestman is going to take the bullet for this one, as she should.  And it's probably too late to get her quietly out the door.  It'll be all "who knew what and when" from here.  

[mpg_29]

Appeal dismissed

 

[Big_M]

 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

13 hours ago, Big_M said:

unfortunately when at least two coaches knew and were pushing this and the csa admits it was systemic no the csa didnt do its job to let this go on and on without finding out or knowing and not saying anything

It appears to have been an open secret that this was going on if seventeen CMNT players were shown footage so the higher ups in CSA terms are highly likely to have been fully aware given the complaints that were coming from other national teams. Kristian Jack talked on Onesoccer about how there was anger in Canadian soccer circles at Bev Priestman for trying to throw two underlings under the bus. They knew she knew and directed it in other words. Most of the execs that were around when John Herdman was CWNT and then CMNT head coach are gone so it's only really Bev Priestman's entourage on the women's side and some of the youth national team coaches that will need to be cleared out to be able to have a fresh start.

Edited July 31 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[jonovision]

The appeal being denied was expected, for me.

At some point, it would be nice if FIFA is able to outline exactly the rationale for 6 points in the first place. Clearly the true thinking is "We wanted to make it nearly impossible for Canada to advance, but didn't want to mess up our tournament by kicking them out or send out a team with nothing to play for in two matches". But if this was worth 6 points, what would have been worth 3? Worth 9?

[Allez les Rouges]

35 minutes ago, jonovision said:

The appeal being denied was expected, for me.

At some point, it would be nice if FIFA is able to outline exactly the rationale for 6 points in the first place. Clearly the true thinking is "We wanted to make it nearly impossible for Canada to advance, but didn't want to mess up our tournament by kicking them out or send out a team with nothing to play for in two matches". But if this was worth 6 points, what would have been worth 3? Worth 9?

I don't know FIFA's logic, but 6 points makes sense considering that it's the swing in points between NZ and Canada. Awarding free points to NZ might be unfair for other teams, so the way to remove any possible advantage for Canada with respect to NZ is to deduct 6 points from Canada.

Of course, this ignores goal differential, which we should be glad they didn't touch.

If they had made the Canada/NZ game a 3-0 forfeit, the standings heading into the final day would be:

COL 3 (+1)
NZL 3 (+1)
FRA 3 (0)
CAN 3 (-2)

In that case, a draw against Colombia would still not guarantee qualification: Canada could still be eliminated with a NZL/FRA draw or unfavourable results in the other groups.

So, as it turns out given results so far, the difference between the 6-point penalty and forfeiting the match vs. NZ amounts to at most a single goal in the last game against Colombia (for Canada's qualification purposes). Either way, if you win, you're in, and if you lose, you're out. Only potential difference is in case of a draw.

[AvroArrow]

Looks like Priestman was emailing staff about spying on other teams:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/olympics/article/fifa-reveals-email-from-canada-womens-soccer-coach-bev-priestman-on-spying/

I guess that shows you the level of comfort that the coaching staff had in doing things like this, as no one seemed concerned about discussing this in formats that can easily be pulled from your computer as evidence.

[El Diego]

At a certain level, the sanction will necessarily have some arbitrariness to it. There is nothing enumerated in the FIFA Disciplinary Code or OFT Regulations about what the specific punishment is, so one has to made up. That's why I thought it was weird that the decision didn't reference any other spying scandals -- that's the only thing you can sort of hang your hat on. I always thought 6 points was a little crazy. I can't think of a point deduction at a major international tournament, let alone a 6 point deduction. You're saying that this is, by far, the worst thing to ever happen at an international tournament?

On a different topic, while I do dislike people going after journalists a large part of me does wonder where the journalist class was this whole time. They want to sit here and lecture us about how bad this behaviour is, yet it has apparently been happening for years and years without a journalist either knowing about it at all or having an inkling but not investigating. I've said that after the Honduras incident in Toronto and Herdman's comments I fully assumed we (and others) were using drones to spy. If that's enough to rouse my suspicion on something I don't deem all that morally bankrupt, what were the watchmen up to if they consider such behaviour reprehensible? 

[jonovision]

55 minutes ago, Allez les Rouges said:

So, as it turns out given results so far, the difference between the 6-point penalty and forfeiting the match vs. NZ amounts to at most a single goal in the last game against Colombia (for Canada's qualification purposes). Either way, if you win, you're in, and if you lose, you're out. Only potential difference is in case of a draw.

Good analysis, though the highlighted is a pretty huge potential difference. Your rationale may be the reason 6 points was chosen, but the reasoning should be published in writing at some point.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

21 minutes ago, El Diego said:

...They want to sit here and lecture us about how bad this behaviour is, yet it has apparently been happening for years and years without a journalist either knowing about it at all or having an inkling but not investigating...

The soccer oriented journalists need access so are not going to rock the boat. I'd be very surprised if some of them didn't know what was happening. Rick Westhead draws as much flak as he does because influential people in Canadian soccer and many of the most avid fans have been used to flying under the radar in mainstream media terms and not being subject to the sort of media scrutiny that goes with the territory in countries where soccer is the dominant spectator sport.

[Obinna]

3 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

The soccer oriented journalists need access so are not going to rock the boat. I'd be very surprised if some of them didn't know what was happening. Rick Westhead draws as much flak as he does because influential people in Canadian soccer and many of the most avid fans have been used to flying under the radar in mainstream media terms and not being subject to the sort of media scrutiny that goes with the territory in countries where soccer is the dominant spectator sport.

I can't speak for others, but for myself I give Rick Westhead flak because he's not a soccer person and doesn't seem interested in the growth of the game. I suppose you could say he's not invested in the growth of any game, because that's not his style of journalism.

I don't have any particular issue with his reporting on any other sport. I don't follow his work beyond soccer, but from what I can tell his work with sexual abuse and hockey seems like very important work. My gripe is not that he's exposing problems in Canadian soccer, because we need problems to be exposed. It's the way he does it with disregard for the reputation of the game.

And while it's not necessarily his job to be a tactful and insightful soccer person, it's not my job to automatically like him, or give him a pass, or automatically view the his work as a "good thing". Sure, he's filling a void that our soccer journalists haven't been filling (to your point about flying under the mainstram media) by uncovering inconvienent facts, but that doesn't mean he's an overall net positive to the soccer landscape for doing so. In fact, for me he's a net negative, but that's just my opinoin. 

[BearcatSA]

11 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

The soccer oriented journalists need access so are not going to rock the boat. I'd be very surprised if some of them didn't know what was happening. Rick Westhead draws as much flak as he does because influential people in Canadian soccer and many of the most avid fans have been used to flying under the radar in mainstream media terms and not being subject to the sort of media scrutiny that goes with the territory in countries where soccer is the dominant spectator sport.

After Zambrano got canned and Herdman hired, a bunch of these journos came out of the woodwork to report that there were widespread problems with the Ecuadorian's tenure.  Prior to that, nothing.

[shortofbrillant]

20 minutes ago, El Diego said:

On a different topic, while I do dislike people going after journalists a large part of me does wonder where the journalist class was this whole time. They want to sit here and lecture us about how bad this behaviour is, yet it has apparently been happening for years and years without a journalist either knowing about it at all or having an inkling but not investigating. I've said that after the Honduras incident in Toronto and Herdman's comments I fully assumed we (and others) were using drones to spy. If that's enough to rouse my suspicion on something I don't deem all that morally bankrupt, what were the watchmen up to if they consider such behaviour reprehensible? 

Journalists can investigate stories, but what actually gets printed is up to the editors and higher ups. There is also a huge burden of prove that falls on a journalist, so they need unassailable evidence before bringing the infraction to light. I don't think blowing the whistle on this one early was worth it for most journalists. However the way some of the media are treating this as a reprehensible act is disgusting. Especially when most of them had knowledge of it before it came to light 

[El Diego]

Someone mentioned a journalistic thin blue line, I think there's a good chance that truly exists. Canadian soccer is a small community, and Canadian soccer journalism is even smaller. I just don't like the lecturing and pontificating after the fact. You can't use the neutrality and importance of journalism as a shield while not fulfilling your role as a journalist.

[narduch]

22 minutes ago, El Diego said:

Someone mentioned a journalistic thin blue line, I think there's a good chance that truly exists. Canadian soccer is a small community, and Canadian soccer journalism is even smaller. I just don't like the lecturing and pontificating after the fact. You can't use the neutrality and importance of journalism as a shield while not fulfilling your role as a journalist.

Westhead still hasn't retracted or followed up on this 'Canada will lose money if they do well at the Copa America' story. Despite it having many factual errors. He is more interested in salacious stories and pushing his career forward than having any real integrity. Yes, he has done some important reporting on sexual assault in hockey, kudos to him for that. But he is no angel and we should be allowed to call him out when its deserved.

Edited July 31 by narduch