Case Cuca makes us think about journalism and the ethics of the football player – 04/27/2023 – PVC

Cássio pulled the race line towards coach Cuca as soon as Roger Guedes scored the penalty goal that gave him a place in the round of 16 of the Copa do Brasil. The entire team followed their captain to embrace the coach. Minutes later, asked about the gesture, Cássio replied: “I won’t go into details, but it’s a guy who was with us”.

What do you mean, I won’t go into detail?

There’s always a question left. Our fault, this journalism that seals more than clears: “What do you think of the case, Cássio?”.

The question is pertinent, because you only embrace those who respect yourself and you only show solidarity with those you trust.

Cássio, then, trusts Cuca’s version? Was that the reason for the hug? Or was it because Cuca, until the moment of the hug, was still the boss?

While the footballer’s ethics is gradually exposed, journalism survives with the brilliance of Adriano Wilkson’s reporting, responsible for answering the necessary question: was it true that the victim had not recognized Cuca as the aggressor?

No, it was a lie, according to the testimony of lawyer Willi Egloff, who followed everything in Bern (Switzerland), from the crime to the trial.

Those who participated in the defense, in 1989, confirm Egloff’s testimony, although there is still a question in the air.

There are testimonies, in Porto Alegre, that the goalkeeper Chico –proper name, Eduardo– would have been sentenced to three years, not the 15 months indicated by the report of the Bernese newspaper Der Bund. We agree that there is still this contradiction. If there were semen from Cuca and Chico, how could the sentence have been only 15 months in prison?

Fifteen months should be for stealing a cell phone, which, in Brazil, can lead to up to four years in prison. A rape has to be worth 30 years in jail! Even if the legislation said that they were from six to ten years, it would still be little.

Which indicates that the case continues with loose ends, requiring further investigation.

It’s not easy to qualify after 36 years. At the time, the Rio Grande do Sul press treated the case with an absolutely sexist bias. Placar magazine does not. It covered its entire length. Reports by Álvaro Almeida and Divino Fonseca already said that the four players were recognized by the victim, Cuca included.

It is important to emphasize that the crime became known, in the 1980s, as the “Scandal of Bern” and involved four men: midfielder Cuca, goalkeeper Chico (Eduardo), defender Henrique and winger Fernando.

Chico, Bahia’s goalkeeper, semifinalist in the 1990 Brazilian Nationals against Corinthians, is now a goalkeeper coach for Grêmio’s under-15 team. He works with teenagers and refuses to give his version of the case. He also refuses to apologize.

The scandal resurfaced because of Robinho’s conviction and the question: if Robinho can’t work, why can Cuca? The only difference is that his punishment prescribed by Swiss law, where the crime took place, Robinho’s has not yet.

But when Cuca says he was not recognized by the victim, he is categorically denied. He also says that he didn’t touch the girl; and there are testimonies in Porto Alegre that it was only goalkeeper Chico who played it. How to believe? If Cuca lies once, he can lie every time, as in the fable of the lying shepherd and the wolf.

But the players believe in their now ex-boss, to the point of running to offer him a public hug, in the midst of Corinthians’ biggest recent institutional crisis.

The debate helps us to think about our everyday machismo.

You have to look in the mirror and try to improve every morning. It also makes one think of journalism and the ethics of the football player.

Information is the most modern thing in this world. Information such as the email address of the victim’s lawyer, who denied Cuca’s version.

PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release five free hits of any link per day. Just click the blue F below.