WWC23 | England v Spain - Spain win WWC - Rubiales sacked, now found guilty and fined

criticalanalysis said:
Why are you so certain Hermoso was the one who initiated or wanted to lift Rubiales? Because if that's not the case, then your 'camaraderie' angle falls flat. Not that it changes anything anyways even if she was the one, who did.

For me, it looks like Rubiales hugged her tightly and then raised his own feet to put all of his weight on her and then it was her natural reaction to brace herself for that. Plenty of people do this unprompted like when you jumped on someone's back and the person adjusts as they feel your weight. However, that doesn't mean the person holding the other person/bracing their weight is doing some kind of initiating because if they didn't hold on, both of them would fall.

In Hermoso's position, if she did want to initiate, she would be hugging tightly and leaning backwards on her heels to hold his weight and not tip toeing forwards unbalanced (because who lifts someone on their toes?), as she didn't probably expect to be carrying his weight unpromoted.
Click to expand...

She does lean back initially before she is pulled forward in a hug.
 
Trial verdict New
Luis Rubiales, the former president of the Spanish Football Federation, has been found guilty of sexually assaulting the footballer Jenni Hermoso by kissing her on the lips after Spain’s women’s team won the World Cup.

Rubiales, who was acquitted of coercion, was ordered to pay a fine of more than €10,000. He was also ordered not to go within 200 metres of Hermoso for a year, and to refrain from contacting her for 12 months. Rubiales can appeal against the sentence before the same court.
Click to expand...

...
 
SilentWitness said:
...
Click to expand...
I presume 10k is peanuts for that guy.
In a way fines need to be commiserate with the wealth a person has and then use some of those funds to go to a charity, perhaps a fund to help those without the means to go after their abusers. Having said that - clearing him of coercion clearly allowed him to get a lesser penalty than otherwise he might have.
 
Redplane said:
I presume 10k is peanuts for that guy.
In a way fines need to be commiserate with the wealth a person has and then use some of those funds to go to a charity, perhaps a fund to help those without the means to go after their abusers. Having said that - clearing him of coercion clearly allowed him to get a lesser penalty than otherwise he might have.
Click to expand...
The coercion case was always the one that was most dangerous for him and the other accused in terms of criminal court punishment. It was also the toughest bit of the case to prove.

The 10k fine isn't much of a punishment for Rubiales at all.

The next bit of the story is almost certainly Rubiales and the others complaining about unfair dismissal etc. The coercion case being proven would have basically protected RFEF and the players' union etc against most complaints. I'm not sure how this will play out in practice - I'm just not quite convinced that it's really over.
 
Did they actually explain the not guilty verdict for the co-conspirators of the coercion charges or they just deliver a verdict without any explanations? Some media reports are not even mentioning Jorge Vilda and the others.
 
Lightbringer said:
Did they actually explain the not guilty verdict for the co-conspirators of the coercion charges or they just deliver a verdict without any explanations? Some media reports are not even mentioning Jorge Vilda and the others.
Click to expand...

The coercion case wasn't proven, the judge ruled there was insufficient evidence and didn't demonstrate “any act of violence or intimidation carried out by any of the defendants or third parties”.

The sentence states that the only phrase which “could have a threatening content” was Vilda speaking of “consequences” for Hermoso, as her brother Rafael testified during the trial. But the court said that this could not “be more abstract and generic” as the consequences were “unknown” given Vilda “did not state them”.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/61...dict-jenni-hermoso?source=user-shared-article

I question whether the power dynamics of the situation are really being taken into account there, but that might be as much about the actual wording of the law as the judge's interpretation of the evidence.

Fundamentally Rubiales was the boss had always maintained his position by sacking underlings, threatening opponents with expensive legal action (typically using RFEF's money) and freezing out players and officials who stepped out of line.

In other words, what was said could well have been ambiguous. What was heard sounded like threats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.