Antrim Hurling

[Two Hands FFS]

I thought the idea of this thread was to discuss the issues affecting Antrim hurling, and in my mind this is one of the biggest talking points in recent times, and one I feel compelled to comment on. Is their a better time that would be more suitable to Join?
The facts still remain the player hasn't been in touch with player or club, not good enough.
As for "get even not cross" what fall from grace are you on about?

I would question how you are aware of what has and hasn't went on and what business is it of yours? Michael has denied saying this and also claimed that he was subjected to significant abuse and targeted from the outset. It is not his job to claim or prove his innocence. He has behaved impeccably as he always does. He is quiet , keeps his counsel and is totally dedicated to his sport. There is accusations of racial abuse being directed at st johns players but they are not on here complaining.  Right now he is perhaps the most natural hurler in the province and you through a witchhunt of behind the keyboard warriors are in danger of driving him away. As a friend Michael knows I or his other friends wouldn't defend him if he did it but I am not going to let you or others abuse him for no reason. I am free to discuss this with you at any stage you wish.

There have been other people who heard the comment so it's not just one persons word against another.

As for perhaps the most natural hurler in the province. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that.

[theskull1]

reddog ....... whatever happened ... its pretty hard to believe how anyone could event make up what he is being accused of saying.

Have you any theories about how the disjoint between the accuser and the accused has came about? Are you inferring that accuser is deliberately making it up? After being provoked himself did he say something that may have been totally misinterpreted do you think? If not these reasons...whats your take on it?

Being a decent guy doesn't make you incapable of moments of stupidity BTW.

[reddog]

reddog ....... whatever happened ... its pretty hard to believe how anyone could event make up what he is being accused of saying.

Have you any theories about how the disjoint between the accuser and the accused has came about? Are you inferring that accuser is deliberately making it up? After being provoked himself did he say something that may have been totally misinterpreted do you think? If not these reasons...whats your take on it?

Being a decent guy doesn't make you incapable of moments of stupidity BTW.

By using your vast knowledge of the English language you are not making your argument more valid. These are the same people who famously struck Michael across the chest with a hurl before the ball was even thrown in. I am not inferring anything. Two sides are claiming the opposite. I know Michael well and yes people can make mistakes but because what was claimed was so bad it does not automatically follow that it happened. There are nobody but cdall ones claiming it happened. These are the same ones who kicked Michael when he thrown into the line and fell. This is the same line whose manager fell like a woman when not touched to try and get Michael sent off. This is the same team who targeted Michael by lining out E  Campbell for some bizarre reason. These are the same lads who referred to the colour of st johns player's skin and the same people who taunted Michael over his private life. So do I believe Michael. YES

[NAG1]

reddog ....... whatever happened ... its pretty hard to believe how anyone could event make up what he is being accused of saying.

Have you any theories about how the disjoint between the accuser and the accused has came about? Are you inferring that accuser is deliberately making it up? After being provoked himself did he say something that may have been totally misinterpreted do you think? If not these reasons...whats your take on it?

Being a decent guy doesn't make you incapable of moments of stupidity BTW.

By using your vast knowledge of the English language you are not making your argument more valid. These are the same people who famously struck Michael across the chest with a hurl before the ball was even thrown in. I am not inferring anything. Two sides are claiming the opposite. I know Michael well and yes people can make mistakes but because what was claimed was so bad it does not automatically follow that it happened. There are nobody but cdall ones claiming it happened. These are the same ones who kicked Michael when he thrown into the line and fell. This is the same line whose manager fell like a woman when not touched to try and get Michael sent off. This is the same team who targeted Michael by lining out E  Campbell for some bizarre reason. These are the same lads who referred to the colour of st johns player's skin and the same people who taunted Michael over his private life. So do I believe Michael. YES

This is getting embarrassing actually Reddog. It is clear that your friend said something that he should not have said. All the other stuff that you are mentioning is not related in anyway to this.

He said what he said, he should now be man enough to hold his hands up and say he made the mistake. He would gain more of a modicum of respect by doing that, than by having his friends coming on here and attempting to justify what has gone on.

As his friend and as you say he is a decent guy, I would advise of him of the above instead of trying to defend the indefensible especially with the petty justifications that you have so far attempted.

[CitySlicker11]

I thought there only would have been one outcome and that would be the St John's player apologising in person, and both moving on from a stupid mistake. If this is true that he is now denying it, it just making things much worse for himself and also tarring the image of his great club.

Of course it can only be a Cushendall person claiming this, as that is who was playing, your arguement is petty and childish.

[reddog]

How is it not? You asked how this came about. By saying clearly he said would look pretty amateurish if trying to prove something. The county haven't found any proof . Im not getting into this with you who is anonymously attacking a lad without putting their name to it through fear.

[reddog]

How is it not? You asked how this came about. By saying clearly he said would look pretty amateurish if trying to prove something. The county haven't found any proof . Im not getting into this with you who is anonymously attacking a lad without putting their name to it through fear.

so are you telling me because a cushendall man says it its true. They wouldn't be held in the highest of esteem so their word shouldn't carry more weight. In life it is up to an accuser to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence. You have not proven anything and Michaels word and name carries a lot of weightup here so if he says he didn't do it that's enough for us

[CitySlicker11]

Fair enough Michael.

[Two Hands FFS]

Fair enough Michael.

 

[reddog]

Fair enough Michael.

City Michael wouldn't be seen dead on this. grow up man up and stop attacking people and mixing. Were it not for this libellous muck I wouldn't be on this either. Its for people with chips on their shoulder who aren't good enough to do anything on the pitch

[bannside]

That's 100% right Reddog.  Innocent until proved otherwise.  But let's say an independent witness turned up (totally neutral) and testified to hearing what was allegedly said, would that settle the "whether he said it or not" debate!

You cited "in life" innocent until proved guilty - yes that's true - but often a witness who was present can tip those scales of justice in favour of one side or the other.

It was a county final.  Surely with a referee, four umpires and two linesmen, plus neutral spectators, someone is bound to have heard something.

[Two Hands FFS]

reddog ....... whatever happened ... its pretty hard to believe how anyone could event make up what he is being accused of saying.

Have you any theories about how the disjoint between the accuser and the accused has came about? Are you inferring that accuser is deliberately making it up? After being provoked himself did he say something that may have been totally misinterpreted do you think? If not these reasons...whats your take on it?

Being a decent guy doesn't make you incapable of moments of stupidity BTW.

By using your vast knowledge of the English language you are not making your argument more valid. These are the same people who famously struck Michael across the chest with a hurl before the ball was even thrown in. I am not inferring anything. Two sides are claiming the opposite. I know Michael well and yes people can make mistakes but because what was claimed was so bad it does not automatically follow that it happened. There are nobody but cdall ones claiming it happened. These are the same ones who kicked Michael when he thrown into the line and fell. This is the same line whose manager fell like a woman when not touched to try and get Michael sent off. This is the same team who targeted Michael by lining out E  Campbell for some bizarre reason. These are the same lads who referred to the colour of st johns player's skin and the same people who taunted Michael over his private life. So do I believe Michael. YES

Targetted Bradley by lining out E.Campbell on him?
It's cos Bradley is the most naturally talented hurler in the province. Plus Eoghan has been playing Half back for the senior team recently.

[Na Glinntí Glasa]

reddog ....... whatever happened ... its pretty hard to believe how anyone could event make up what he is being accused of saying.

Have you any theories about how the disjoint between the accuser and the accused has came about? Are you inferring that accuser is deliberately making it up? After being provoked himself did he say something that may have been totally misinterpreted do you think? If not these reasons...whats your take on it?

Being a decent guy doesn't make you incapable of moments of stupidity BTW.

By using your vast knowledge of the English language you are not making your argument more valid. These are the same people who famously struck Michael across the chest with a hurl before the ball was even thrown in. I am not inferring anything. Two sides are claiming the opposite. I know Michael well and yes people can make mistakes but because what was claimed was so bad it does not automatically follow that it happened. There are nobody but cdall ones claiming it happened. These are the same ones who kicked Michael when he thrown into the line and fell. This is the same line whose manager fell like a woman when not touched to try and get Michael sent off. This is the same team who targeted Michael by lining out E  Campbell for some bizarre reason. These are the same lads who referred to the colour of st johns player's skin and the same people who taunted Michael over his private life. So do I believe Michael. YES

Targetted Bradley by lining out E.Campbell on him?
It's cos Bradley is the most naturally talented hurler in the province. Plus Eoghan has been playing Half back for the senior team recently.

I actually laughed at that part.

If he did it then he needs to grow a set and apologize and stop acting like a child. If he didn't then the other fella needs to grow a set as well.

simple as.

Its for people with chips on their shoulder who aren't good enough to do anything on the pitch

this made me laugh even more. Your starting to form opinions of people on here whom i know have done waaaaaaay more than you ever will have both on and off a pitch.

[theskull1]

Taking what you are saying reddog and believing this to be a truth..... I would be up in arms with the accuser and putting the pressure on him and his club to apologize for maliciously concocting such deviously slanderous accusations.

I assume you would agree?

[manballandall]

It's quite ridiculous when some of his team mates have said he said it.

Stop defending the indefensable.
Fair enough it may be out of character but he did say it, apologise , gain some respect from this and learn from it and move on