Milan, 22 January (LaPresse) – "The Board considers that the Federal Prosecutor's request regarding President Zappi, given the connection between the two alleged offences, can be deemed appropriate in relation to the position of the accused, who is the president of a body of the highest level and prestige within the FIGC, the seriousness of the facts in relation to the position held and the unfair methods by which, abusing his position, he obtained the resignation of members Ciampi and Pizzi." This is what can be read in a passage of the 23-page statement of reasons with which the National Federal Court, Disciplinary Section, sentenced AIA President Antonio Zappi to 13 months of disqualification. Zappi was accused of exerting undue pressure (in violation of his duties of loyalty) on referees Ciampi and Pizzi to induce them to resign, in order to implement a technical reorganisation desired by the new committee with the appointment of referees Daniele Orsato and Stefano Braschi to the “vacant positions”. The Public Prosecutor's Office considered that Zappi's actions “constituted a violation of the duties of loyalty, probity and fairness (Art. 4 of the Code of Sports Justice)”. According to the Federal Prosecutor's Office, in particular, “the resignations submitted by Messrs Ciampi and Pizzi were not spontaneous, but induced by President Zappi through a series of actions that led to this result”. ‘In fact, the documents prove beyond doubt that President Zappi, for the sole purpose of favouring the appointment of referees Orsato and Braschi as CAN A and B and CAN C managers, induced referees Pizzi and Ciampi to resign,’ reads another passage of the grounds. The Panel further emphasises that Zappi's conduct is ‘in stark contrast to the principles of fairness and loyalty enshrined in sports regulations’ because "although it is true that the president of the AIA has organisational power over the Association he heads, it is equally true that such power cannot be exercised outside the limits set by the principles of fairness, transparency, probity and loyalty. Limits which, in the present case, in view of the above, can only be considered to have been exceeded'.
© Copyright LaPresse
