NYON: Michel Platini’s legal team, clearly still failing to understanding the meaning of a provisional suspension, has dismissed as “outrageous” the rejection of his appeal.

He will appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport though thjis may be overtaken by a final verdict in his case.

Last month the French president of European governing body UEFA was handed a provisional 90-day suspension by the FIFA ethics committee pending the outcome of an investigation into allegations of misconduct in office.

These concerned Platini’s acceptance of a SFr2m payment from the world federation, authorised by president Sepp Blatter in February 2011. The money had been declared a ‘disloyal payment’ by Swiss investigators.

On Wednesday, the appeals committee, chaired by Larry Mussenden, rejected the appeals against the suspensions of both Platini and Blatter.

Thomas Clay, a member of Platini’s legal team, said he had not expected the ban to be lifted but remained confident that Platini would be cleared in time to stand at next year’s FIFA election.


He said: “It’s a kind of grand slam of violations of all the principles of a fair trial. I’ve never seen that, even in totalitarian countries. It’s outrageous.

“Michel Platini wasn’t able to explain himself because he was heard by an investigator who doesn’t listen to anyone and judged by an appeals committee made up of people who all live in completely different time zones.

“In fact, there’s a clear willingness to do everything to prevent Michel Platini from standing in the FIFA presidential election on Feb. 26.”

Platini’s lawyers are also unhappy that the appeals committee apparently came to their decision on November 3 but that it took over two weeks to communicate it to their client.

Clay said he was confident that, at CAS, the case would be viewed differently by a more “impartial and independent” body.

He said: “It’s probable that the CAS will reverse FIFA’s judgement. What’s happening to Michel Platini is a Kafkaesque trial.

“Someone says to him that he’s suspended, they don’t say why, and then they ask him to prove his innocence.”

# # # #