TAD was resolved this Friday on Lewandowski

This Friday is the day to find out if Robert Lewandowski could be at the Estadio Metropolitano during FC’s league visit Barcelona on Sunday, January 8 (9:00 pm). Because it is after when the Administrative Court of Sport (tad) decide on the precautionary measures requested by FC Barcelona.

The fact that it is finally open is explained in the usual dynamics of the meetings of the sports legal body of Spanish sport. The weekly appointment is every Friday and, since the last day of the year starts on Thursday the 29th, it explains that it will stop before the event begins, and even the FC Barcelona playing on Saturday the 31st, you’ll know if you can count on the Polish striker. From the Barcelona club in fact they rely on tomorrow’s date to know the outcome.

So tomorrow we will know if the three matches are upheld or, on the other hand, the TAD temporarily suspends the sanction while it studies the appeal of boat.

The first punishment was on December 5

On December 5, the RFEF Appeals Committee ratified the sanction of 3 games against the striker of FC Barcelona which was previously imposed by the Competition Committee on Robert Lewandowski as a result of Osasuna-Barcelona. One fight for the double yellow and another two for the behavior of the Polish striker when he left the field of play. Since last week the TAD has a letter in which Barcelona requests precautionary measures for the striker. In other words, temporarily suspend the sanction that would allow him to play in Metropolitan on January 9 against Atlético de Madrid in addition to the derby against spanish of December 31 and even the visit of Getafe for the weekend of January 21-22.

Property Sports Discipline Regulation This possibility of prudential suspension is clarified in its article 30: “At the clear and justified request of the interested party, the sports disciplinary bodies may reasonably suspend the enforcement of sanctions imposed through the ordinary procedure, when no mere presentation of claims. or resources against them match, paralyze or suspend their execution”

The same is stated in Article 117 of the Common Administrative Procedure where it is argued that “the body in charge of resolving the appeal, after weighing, sufficient reasoning, between the damage that the suspension will cause to the public interest or to third parties party and which is caused to the appellant as a result of the immediate effect of the disputed act, may suspend, ex officio or at the request of the appellant, the execution of the disputed act.”

The key: that they consider the irreparable damage to the club and the player

The key for concession or not is collected in the same administrative procedure. And this happens because “That implementation may cause damages that are impossible or difficult to repair”

That is, that if the precautionary measure is not granted and the Pole cannot fulfill the commitments in the league, especially against Atlético de Madrid, the damage will be irreparable for FC Barcelona and for the player. Something that the Barça club must argue, as stated in a letter from the TAD about this proposal: “granting or rejecting the precautionary measure requires sufficient consideration of conflicting interests (STS of June 7 , 2005). It is a consolidated jurisprudential doctrine that the weighing of these interests must be carried out due to the damages caused by the implementation of the act, damages that must be proven and difficult or impossible to repair. The outcome of the appeal is not judged, but it must be sufficient to justify a reasonable resolution”.

So the imposition of a precautionary measure does not spare the Polish striker from having to comply with three sanctioned matches later. They are only suspended while the resource is being studied.

Competition and Appeal dismissed the appeals

In the past, both RFEF’s Competition and Appeals Committees dismissed appeals by FC Barcelona. First, regarding the first of the two yellow cards because they both understand that “it is not possible to appreciate an apparent material error, capable of undermining the presumption of the truth of the arbitration record, since the images are, in any case, is consistent with what appears on record.”

Regarding the second, both consider that the work of Gil Manzano has not been distorted “the presumption of the truth of the record has not been distorted (there is nothing to prove that the acts were not directed at the referees or the interpretation in general by the appellant club)”.

In addition to the Appeal, “besides the fact that it is strange that he expressed it twice in front of the main arbitrator and the assistant, in a specific context and directed to the arbitrators, they can be “inconsiderate” to them”

except Appeals Committee believes that the minutes do not describe anything that did not happen, in addition to the fact that the Barça club did not present videographic evidence to prove the opposite: “this Appeals Committee does not escape the absence of videographic evidence on these points, and the absence of which is important Since their assessments lack an evidentiary basis to undermine the version of the facts recorded in the minutes, therefore the considerations argued by the judge cannot be met. FC Barcelona where he tries to exempt his footballer Mr. Robert Lewandowski. Also, and due to the absence of evidence capable of distorting the version of the facts recorded in the minutes, the interpretation of what happened cannot be classified as impossible or an outright error by the college, all of which are considered from the privileged prism of immediacy . , as well as skills for the evaluation and analysis of a technical arrangement that this disciplinary body lacks”

And finally, the Appeal also dismissed the arguments presented by the club in relation to the existence of extenuating circumstances that could adjust the sanction agreed to by Competition Committeebecause, based on the analysis conducted, it is not possible to contradict the content of the arbitration act, and the provisions of this document shall prevail.