The league described this Saturday as an “interested leak” the news published by some media that affirm, according to a police report, that the Fuenlabrada and the institution chaired by Javier Tebas acted negligently on the last day of the SmartBank League last year.
For LaLiga, this information has been obtained from an “undue partial and interested leak” of a document that, as part of the investigation, is subject to “the duty of reserve and secrecy.”
In addition, it indicates that it was issued at a time when the “solvent” technical health reports contributed to the case had not been assessed and that they prove that none of the facts under investigation have criminal relevance.
“This leak shows a desire to hinder and influence the proper functioning of the administration of justice, a circumstance that we want to highlight, without prejudice to the requirement of a timely judicial investigation in this regard,” adds LaLiga.
Likewise, it explains that the report constitutes “a clear excess” of the judicial order carried out and is “plagued” with “subjective” statements and conjectures that are “not supported by any casual reasoning.”
For this reason, he adds, “proof of this” is that the same report conditions said conclusions to the essential subsequent analysis or expert opinions already provided and that “they are not the object of the same” given the evident lack of technical qualification of the authors of said report.
“Specifically, the reports provided by LaLiga disavow these conclusions from a technical, health and regulatory point of view and confirm the recent resolutions issued, both by the Administrative Court of Sport and the Higher Sports Council itself, on these events” , aim.
He also recalls that the expert report signed by Professor Ángel Gil de Miguel, professor of Preventive Medicine and Public Health at the Rey Juan Carlos University, in which “verbatim” four points can be concluded.
The first, that Fuenlabrada and LaLiga complied with all public and private health protocols regarding communication and mandatory reporting of cases of asymptomatic people infected by coronavirus.
The second, that LaLiga complied with its own protocols, “more demanding in terms of carrying out RT-PCRs on asymptomatic patients than those published by the health authorities and which allowed the identification of a greater number of cases than would have been possible if they had been restricted its actions to what is established by the health authorities.
The third, that the performance of the third RT-PCR, which was not protocolized anywhere, was the one that allowed to contain the situation and is the best evidence of diligence and orientation to the protection of public health that can be deduced from the performances of Fuenlabrada and LaLiga.
And, fourth, that the decision to fly could only have been aborted in the case of having had the knowledge obtained after the decision-making.
For this reason, LaLiga concludes, due to the current state of the proceedings and in the absence of any criminal act, it will request “the filing of them.”