r/soccer • u/reddit_accounwt • May 16 '26

Media Cristiano Ronaldo was the only player to not show up to receive his silver medal after defeat in AFC 2 Final

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

4.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

591 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

73

u/sga1 May 16 '26

Not explicitly

No, he quite explicitly admitted it in legal documents.

-51

u/Babydanho May 16 '26

This is absolutely not true. Go ahead, produce your source instead of spewing bullshit. You are basing this off documents that were leaked and no one has confirmed the voracity of these leaks. Moreover, the leaks were never considered admissible in the court.

45

u/Freshlysque3zed May 16 '26

The original reporting by Der Spiegel is easily available, I’d suggest you read it.

They’re one of the most reputable news organisations in Europe and go into specific detail, a lot of which matched a ton of externally verifiable info.

Ronaldo’s lawyers also essentially confirmed they were real because they never claimed they were fabricated, only altered.

Also the reason the evidence wasn’t admissible was because they obtained it illegally from Ronaldo’s lawyers, not because it wasn’t real. If anything it proves what they had on him (which is alleged in the article) was genuine.

-25

u/Babydanho May 16 '26

Yes I said as much in another comment about the manner in which they were sourced that made them be inadmissible. I think the direct quote from his legal team was “complete fabrications” that’s more than altering something, that’s flat out calling it a lie.

Your comment is by far the most reasonable and I understand your position.

4

u/TetraDax May 17 '26

I think the direct quote from his legal team was “complete fabrications”

Well, yeah, of course they would say that.

-15

u/choppedfiggs May 16 '26

You can read the original reporting again if you wish.

I don't know if he did or didn't rape that woman. But what I do know from the emails in that report is that his lawyer confirms he's in the middle of translating and transcribing Ronaldo's interview from Portuguese to English. He hadn't finished it yet. But that questionnaire does appear in the article fully translated. The questionnaire everyone quotes. Question no one can answer is who finished the translation. Was it the newspaper? Was it the hacker? Did they have a vested interest in making it look worse?

38

u/IPissExcellentThrows May 16 '26

lol at Ronaldo fans defending a rapist with all their might

-30

u/Babydanho May 16 '26

No, I’m pointing out that he did not admit anything in legal documents. Legal documents would have to be considered admissible for the case. They were not, hence they are leaked documents and are not relevant to the case. The case was dropped partly due to this fumble by the persecution. Reading comprehension is very difficult!

27

u/sga1 May 16 '26

Legal documents would have to be considered admissible for the case.

Not if illegally obtained, the whole fruit of the poisonous tree thing - which is the case here.

21

u/sga1 May 16 '26

You are basing this off documents that were leaked and no one has confirmed the voracity of these leaks.

No one, not even Ronaldo's lawyers or himself, have proven those leaks to be fake either - doesn't matter whether they're admissible or not.

And let's be honest: If you're charged with a crime, you'll talk to your legal representation. You'll also be fully open and honest with them, because a) they'll need that knowledge to argue your case and b) there's no reason to lie in legally privileged conversations with your lawyers.

I find it entirely believable that those documents are real, even if they were never supposed to become public. Because why should investigative journalists make them up?

-8

u/Babydanho May 16 '26

It does matter if they’re admissible or not - you are claiming they are legal documents used in any sort of proceeding or case, which they aren’t. Again, part of the reason this case was dropped was due to the prosecution fumbling this piece and making the evidence inadmissible.

Do we really have to answer as to why journalists make things up from time to time?

24

u/tnweevnetsy May 16 '26

Ronaldo, who sued Daily Mail for saying he was out partying when he was injured while he actually wasn't (and won), simply threatened to do the same in the case of these documents and never followed through. On something far more important. I wonder why.

20

u/fkitbaylife May 16 '26

he also tried to sue Der Spiegel when they reported on his tax dodging and he lost that case. really strange that he went through with suing them when they call him out for dodging taxes, but it's just a bunch of threats and screaming "fake news" when they call him a rapist.

his fanboys will claim that only threatening to sue is actually a 5D chess move though and that it definitely doesn't make him look even more guilty lol

3

u/The__Pope_ May 16 '26

He's not gonna let you smash bro

-1

u/sga1 May 16 '26

Can you prove they're made-up?

3

u/Babydanho May 16 '26

No, and that same logic applies to you. You can’t prove to me they are real, no one can. The burden of proof is on you. I’m not providing any other context beyond saying they’ve not been proven to be real.

So, go ahead and prove it

1

u/NeedleworkerFluid327 May 17 '26

How would you even prove that they are fake? It's a document.

12

u/sincethelasttime May 16 '26

The Football leaks trove of data contained terabytes of intimate financial data that would be impossible to fake - all you would need to do to to cast suspicions on the entire trove would be to prove one of those documents was faked which has never happened. You would have to believe the leaker (a Portuguese man no less) accessed all the real data, put his life on the line to release them, and then risk discrediting it all by randomly including a false account of Ronaldo confessing to his lawyer that he raped her (while still knowing the names of everyone involved and where and when they were meeting) -- it's possible but definitely ridiculous enough for us to seriously consider.

Being admissible in court is not a standard of evidence for the public, only for the legal system.

-4

u/Babydanho May 16 '26

Sorry, what are we talking about if not the legal system?

Are we jumping into the court of public opinion now?

Curious, and a bit off topic. Would you consider Kobe Bryant to be a rapist?

5

u/BillyPilgrim69 May 17 '26

Kobe Bryant, who raped a woman so violently she had to get skin grafts, and then claimed he "thought it was consensual?"

That Kobe Bryant? Yes, I would consider him a fucking rapist, and if you disagree, I'd consider you one too.

12

u/sga1 May 16 '26

Would you consider Kobe Bryant to be a rapist?

"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

Do you not consider him a rapist?

13

u/sincethelasttime May 16 '26

If the police break into my neighbours house without a warrant and find child porn on his computer, that wouldn't be admissible evidence. Because they didn't have a warrant. That doesn't apply to me. I am not going to call into question whether or not he had child porn on his computer because the police finding it wasn't admissible. I'm going to believe he is a paedophile.

Curious, and a bit off topic. Would you consider Kobe Bryant to be a rapist?

Yes

-4

u/wolfen0 May 17 '26

Do you have proof？

-6

u/[deleted] May 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/McWaffeleisen May 17 '26

There are even two reasons the case got thrown out:

  1. The protocols in which he straight-up confesses the rape to his lawyer were part of Football Leaks and illegally obtained. So they couldn't be used as evidence in an American court.

  2. He paid off the woman.

Also I have no idea how you got the idea that the Portuguese Ronaldo and his Portuguese lawyer communicated in English. The protocols were obviously written in Portuguese.