More to the Jack Warner scandal than in the CONCACAF Integrity Report


Contributed by Heavy Duty

Making the rounds, in case you have not seen it yet, is the Integrity Committee Report of Investigation as presented to the Executive Committee of CONCACAF – The Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football.

Barbados’ former Chief Justice was the Chairman of the Committee. (photo above) Yes, Sir David Anthony Cathcart Simmons himself was in charge of an inquiry into integrity issues. I’ll leave that fact without further observation and get to the meat of what I want to say:

Having perused the report very, very briefly I have the following comments:

1)      The conclusions of the Committee are based on “a balance of probabilities”. Yet the authors say that in determining the facts “it applied various legal standards…”. The obvious question is what legal standards? In criminal law the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt!
2)      Although Jack tells the Committee bluntly to go jump in the lake, he ain’t co-operatin’, Blazer’s lawyers tell the Committee that Blazer has issues with FIFA and that Blazer is not prepared only to discuss the issues that FIFA wants, but he wants to discuss everything. The Committee ignores this and says that Blazer and Warner wouldn’t co-operate at all! This is not quite true.
3)      The Committee appears to have reached its conclusions on the basis of unsworn statements and documents which were not introduced to the Committee via sworn statements. In other words, the conclusions of the Committee are not necessarily based on justiciable evidence.
4)      The Committee does not refer at all to what I call the Havelange correspondence where Jack says that he got the Centre of Excellence as a gift. The obvious conclusions from this are (a) FIFA hid the correspondence from the Committee; or (b) The Committee saw it but suppressed it; or
(c)  The Committee saw it but did not understand it. In other words, the Committee is incompetent.

Choose any one or more of the above and you realise that problems arise with the whole report.

I raise these points not by way of defence for Jack, but because it is absolutely clear to me that there is a lot more … a whole lot more … to this story than we are being told. One thing is clear: this ain’t over by a loooonnnngggggg shot!! I predict that the Simmons Committee will end up with quite a lot of mud not only being thrown at it but also sticking to it!!

Life in the Tropics!!!

Download the Committee’s Report here in PDF: Concacaf Report


Filed under Barbados, Sports

3 responses to “More to the Jack Warner scandal than in the CONCACAF Integrity Report

  1. A policy holder

    Your comments leave so much unsaid… Trying to read between the lines, not a wise idea. There are just too many tracks for my train of thought! Some times, straight tracks, other times devious tracks with many seemingly unnavigable twists and turns. Others heading right into a maize. Did Sir DACS design his report with the intent to confuse?


    Sir David Anthony Cathcart Simmons himself was in charge of an inquiry into integrity issues. I’ll leave that fact without further observation and get to the meat of what I want to say:@ Well we can see it all started out on the wrong foot, The Ex CJ was the wrong person to deal with integrity issues..
    We post this before, wrong for Violet Beckels and Barbados and for CONCACAF INTEGRITY REPORT. He is the other leg of the Violet case and now the other foot drop shoe with Dottin out the door. Lets hope he sues and they have a cat fight on who is more of a fraud man in high places.
    These 2 people call Violet near every night before she died , Lets hope there are tapes to show their lack of integrity for the post they both held. Best title for them both XXXXXEX EX and EX

  3. St George's Dragon

    Now this post is either just plain silly, or is from a paid or otherwise biased supporter of Mr Jones.
    I have read the CONCACAF report and I would encourage Heavy Duty to do the same rather than “peruse….. the report very, very briefly”. It was prepared by a heavy-weight team who appear to have been very thorough.
    In response to Heavy Duty’s points:
    1. What are the legal standards?
    The report explains the legal basis well:
    “Because this matter potentially implicates a number of jurisdictions, both inside and outside of the United States, the Committee employed broad, general definitions for fraud and misappropriation that are intended to capture conduct prohibited by law in most, if not all, jurisdictions. The Committee then applied a “balance of probabilities” standard (also known as a “preponderance of the evidence”) to reach conclusions about the facts.”
    Debating whether the conclusion was founded on the “balance of probabilities” or “beyond reasonable doubt” is splitting hairs. Read the report and consider the evidence. You suggest you will be hard pressed to say he was innocent, on any basis.
    2. The Committee …. says that Blazer and Warner wouldn’t co-operate at all.
    Warner is not an issue; he said he was not going to co-operate. That is his right, but any jury faced with a similar situation would be told to make their own minds up about why someone had made that decision.
    Blazer, though, adopted an interesting tactic. He said he would not cooperate “so long as CONCACAF left unresolved his claim that CONCACAF owed him additional compensation”.
    The problem with this is that the additional compensation is at the heart of the accusations against Blazer. He was accused of claiming payment without obtaining proper authorisation for “rent on his residence in the Trump Tower in New York; … purchase … apartments at the Mondrian, a luxury hotel and residence in Miami; ….. purchase agreements and …. down payments on apartments at the Atlantis resort in the Bahamas; and … insurance coverage for his personal residence and automobile and employee health insurance for himself and his girlfriend.”
    It is not acceptable to refuse to cooperate in an investigation on the basis that it questions your entitlement to the payment which is the subject of the investigation.
    3. The report was not based on sworn statements.
    This is not a court action. I do not hear Mr Jones telling us about any factual inaccuracies. Read the report and let us know where it is factually incorrect.
    4. The Committee does not refer at all to the “…Havelange correspondence where Jack says that he got the Centre of Excellence as a gift”.
    That is incorrect. The report goes into some detail on Warner’s contention that the COE was a gift. The Committee asked for but did not receive any evidence of this assertion. The relevant section of the report says “The Committee also attempted to obtain information from former FIFA President João Havelange (“Havelange”) related to the ownership and development of the COE. On February 20, 2013, CONCACAF’s General Secretary sent a letter via email to Havelange requesting that he assist with the investigation by speaking to counsel to the Committee. In a letter dated February 25, 2013, Havelange responded explaining that he was unable to assist with the Committee’s investigation due to health issues. On February 28, 2013, prior to receiving Havelange’s response, counsel to the Committee sent an email to Havelange to follow up on the General Secretary’s initial request. In a letter dated March 5, 2013, Havelange responded to the email reiterating his inability to assist with the Committee’s investigation.”. A sceptic would say that the lack of cooperation by Havelange showed that no evidence could be produced.

    The report makes it quite clear that they consider Warner to be guilty of fraud, misappropriation of funds, breach of fiduciary duties, violations of statutes and ethics codes. Blazer breached of fiduciary duties and violated statutes.

    What exactly are the problems with the report?