L'Explorateur ⭐⭐

@zsnmss @dpssge @Frappe2pavel_ ok snap ton palace stp et ça se voit t eau chaude toi

Affaire 3-MMC (Drogue) : Rima Hassan a expliqué aux enquêteurs que « la drogue lui avait été donnée à son insu » fdesouche.com/2026/04/03/aff…

For the past several days, I had believed that the position defended by @osasuo regarding the CAF Appeals Board’s decision to declare Senegal as having forfeited its final match against Morocco was driven by personal considerations. However, after reading the piece he recently published in The Observer, I am beginning to seriously question whether these are paid pieces intended to advance the agenda of certain parties. In an attempt to support his argument and claim that CAF was wrong to declare Morocco the rightful winner of the AFCON, he engages in a blatant and troubling distortion of the facts. He claims that only a “portion” of the Senegalese players left the pitch, whereas video evidence clearly shows that the entire team walked off, with the exception of Mané, who later also left to bring his teammates back onto the field. What is even more concerning, and raises serious questions about this journalist’s credibility, is his selective and misleading reading of Article 82 of the AFCON regulatory framework. Article 82 clearly states: “If, for any reason whatsoever, a team withdraws from the competition or does not report for a match, or refuses to play or leaves the ground before the regular end of the match without the authorisation of the referee, it shall be considered the loser and shall be eliminated from the current competition. The same shall apply to teams previously disqualified by decision of CAF.” Yet, in order to argue that this provision does not apply, he claims that the article concerns only teams that refuse to show up or start a match. What matters for him is not presenting the full wording of the regulation, but rather constructing a narrative that aligns with his argument and, potentially, with the interests behind it. Furthermore, he argues that Article 84 cannot be applied to Senegal on the grounds that it did not violate Articles 28 and 83 cumulatively. To support this claim, he cites Raymond Hack, chair of the disciplinary committee of South Africa’s Premier Soccer League — a figure whose position on the matter I have already challenged. In a previously published analysis, I addressed and refuted Hack’s arguments in detail. As I said, a fundamental tenet of CAS jurisprudence is that regulatory provisions must be interpreted in a manner that ensures their practical effectiveness, while avoiding interpretations that lead to illogical, contradictory, or unworkable outcomes. Under no circumstances can a rule be construed in a way that deprives it of any meaningful application. Applied to the present case, this principle is decisive. It would be inherently illogical to interpret Articles 82 and 83 cumulatively, as such an interpretation would require the simultaneous occurrence of two mutually exclusive situations: on the one hand, a team withdrawing from the field of play during a match (Article 82), and on the other, the same team failing to show up for the match altogether (Article 83). By definition, these scenarios cannot happen at the same time. It follows that the reference to Articles 82 and 83 in Article 84 concern distinct categories of violations, rather than imposing a cumulative condition. In other words, the occurrence of either scenario is sufficient, in and of itself, to trigger the sanction. Any alternative interpretation would render Article 84 devoid of practical effect and thus legally untenable. In line with well-established principles of regulatory interpretation, whether applied by CAF’s judicial bodies or by CAS, the reference to Articles 82 and 83 must therefore be construed as encompassing alternative forms of misconduct, each independently capable of giving rise to the prescribed sanction. Any contrary reading would lead to an absurd and legally unacceptable outcome. To this journalist, and to all those attempting to delegitimize the CAF Appeals Board, I say this: no matter how you try to spin the facts, Morocco has both the law and the evidence on its side. Senegal committed a serious and blatant violation of the regulatory framework governing the competition and has been subjected to the sanctions it rightfully deserves. Whether you publish one article or a thousand in an attempt to distort the facts will have no bearing on the Court of Arbitration for Sport when it examines the case and recognizes the gravity and the recklessness of the decision taken by the Senegalese players during the AFCON final.

@AmelA7381522387 الأصل جزائري ماعندهمش الارشيف الي يثبت ان أصلها تونسي

Nicolas Sarkozy et "ses amis marocains" : un documentaire ausculte les relations tumultueuses entre la France et le royaume, entretien avec le réalisateur @BenoitBringer par @meganechiecchi 👇 marianne.net/culture/televi…