Talk:1996 UEFA Champions League final

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the discussion on the use of doping, please go to the talk page of Juventus: [1]. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost five years latter...

This edit by

WP:BRD. Thirdly, the entire statement of a hematologist (who denounced doping by then non-Juventus players like Dimas, Montero and Birindelli, despite the first two were signed in 1996-97 season and the later, in 1997-98 season and one who hasn't played in the 1996 CL final neither in the shoot-out as Tacchinardi) who was actually a witness of the accusatory part was noted at trial, including the "practically certain" and "very probable" claims, and was explicitly dismissed by the verdict in the third and final degree (pp. 40-42), uphelding the previous verdict in 2005. The "sources" and the user who uses it for edit this article also don't know also that not emerged any positivity in the anti-doping controls carried out by UEFA and that exists additionally a TAS verdict related with this case (p. 27 and see also this

).

Finally, if anyone thinks a section in that state is "acceptable" and/or "accurate", the same could be done, among others, with the

ISBN 1-56858-963-8

.; and this is not the only that report that).

I ping @

CityOfSilver:, having all them leaved comments about this in the previously discussions, both linked here.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The content may need rewriting a little bit, but from my point of view, it seems pretty neutral. The content presented in the article accurately reflects the sources provided. If further sources refute the claims presented, then add those to the article, don't just delete the content. – PeeJay 20:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretty neutral"? Ignore the verdicts of Italian justice and the 2005 TAS about this (and the latter was decisive for the sporting trial's verdict) and I linked the sources here and in the 2017 discussions; that claims for "doping" in this match for players that not take part in it as Tacchinardi (what moron would "dope" any player and after not using?), and for footballers that joined Juventus in the following seasons as Montero in 1996-97 and others in 1997-98; regards Ajax "feelled cheated" but after this Davids and van der Sar joined Juventus, and after Grygera and De Ligt as well as the young player loaned from Juventus to Ajax, I mean why the relations between both clubs have not changed if Ajax "feelled cheated"? Because all these are biased articles as I explained lines above. There are better sources than these but presapocchismo is a problem in the football articles published in this website...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you don't just add the contradictory information to the article instead of deleting sourced content. We should be telling the full story, not telling less of it. – PeeJay 09:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "tell the whole story" with sources, as those added in the article, that seem to be drawn from a fan club or a radical fan group and are obviously biased towards one side, believe it or not. Also, seems that this article is patrolled by a solely user. Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know English isn't your first language, but surely that can't be the reason you're having so much trouble understanding me. I am saying you need to add more information to the article using the sources you have provided. If you delete the current content again, I will consider that to be a non-constructive act and I will consider reporting you to the admins. Thanks. – PeeJay 14:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how the fuck can The Independent and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation be considered "radical fan groups"? Sounds like you're the one with the bias. – PeeJay 15:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Often proven negative things about people and companies get removed on wiki. And yes he seems biased as he made in May https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Postmodern_architecture_in_Italy and the only entery is "Juventus Stadium". 2001:1C03:4918:A100:7C67:A57F:FB02:5A7B (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on