Donegal on slippery slope?

[J70]

Why does it have to be a con? It could simply be that McBrearty was bitten, but there wasn't enough evidence, either due to McBrearty's reluctance and/or the physical evidence being too inconclusive to prove identity.

If there wasn't e4nough evidence why did the CCC propose the ban in the first instance ?


What is the level of proof when making these allegations ?


What's to stop anyone at any match from now on making an allegation, getting his mate to back him up etc ?

It's one sorry mess and another indictment of the GAA disciplinary system, even if some are lauding this as an example of how the GAA system is fair and that those charged with infractions receive justice.

I agree with the last part.

I was under the impression that they reviewed the evidence from Donegal and ref at first meeting, then invited player to defend himself or have proposed suspension imposed i.e. bite established, suspension proposed, then accused is given time to prepare a defense. It seems a strange way of doing it. Not Donegal's fault though.

[donegal lad]

Just heard the word about this on my way home from colleg and tbh it didn't ome as a surprise. Unlike most on here I had first hand contact with members of the Donegal back room team after this incident (1 infact is my neighbour) and I can say mcbearty was bitten. But have been saying since day 1 that nothing would come of it as there was nothing to prove what player did it

[heffo]

Why does it have to be a con? It could simply be that McBrearty was bitten, but there wasn't enough evidence, either due to McBrearty's reluctance and/or the physical evidence being too inconclusive to prove identity.

If there wasn't e4nough evidence why did the CCC propose the ban in the first instance ?


What is the level of proof when making these allegations ?


What's to stop anyone at any match from now on making an allegation, getting his mate to back him up etc ?

It's one sorry mess and another indictment of the GAA disciplinary system, even if some are lauding this as an example of how the GAA system is fair and that those charged with infractions receive justice.

I agree with the last part.

I was under the impression that they reviewed the evidence from Donegal and ref at first meeting, then invited player to defend himself or have proposed suspension imposed i.e. bite established, suspension proposed, then accused is given time to prepare a defense. It seems a strange way of doing it.

There was no bite established.

The referee included a verbal complaint in his report that a Donegal player was bitten.

On this ice thin basis under media pressure, the CCCC proposed a suspension that would never pass any hearing.

[J70]

Why does it have to be a con? It could simply be that McBrearty was bitten, but there wasn't enough evidence, either due to McBrearty's reluctance and/or the physical evidence being too inconclusive to prove identity.

If there wasn't e4nough evidence why did the CCC propose the ban in the first instance ?


What is the level of proof when making these allegations ?


What's to stop anyone at any match from now on making an allegation, getting his mate to back him up etc ?

It's one sorry mess and another indictment of the GAA disciplinary system, even if some are lauding this as an example of how the GAA system is fair and that those charged with infractions receive justice.

I agree with the last part.

I was under the impression that they reviewed the evidence from Donegal and ref at first meeting, then invited player to defend himself or have proposed suspension imposed i.e. bite established, suspension proposed, then accused is given time to prepare a defense. It seems a strange way of doing it.

There was no bite established.

The referee included a verbal complaint in his report that a Donegal player was bitten.

On this ice thin basis under media pressure, the CCCC proposed a suspension that would never pass any hearing.

You know that for certain?

[heffo]

Why does it have to be a con? It could simply be that McBrearty was bitten, but there wasn't enough evidence, either due to McBrearty's reluctance and/or the physical evidence being too inconclusive to prove identity.

If there wasn't e4nough evidence why did the CCC propose the ban in the first instance ?


What is the level of proof when making these allegations ?


What's to stop anyone at any match from now on making an allegation, getting his mate to back him up etc ?

It's one sorry mess and another indictment of the GAA disciplinary system, even if some are lauding this as an example of how the GAA system is fair and that those charged with infractions receive justice.

I agree with the last part.

I was under the impression that they reviewed the evidence from Donegal and ref at first meeting, then invited player to defend himself or have proposed suspension imposed i.e. bite established, suspension proposed, then accused is given time to prepare a defense. It seems a strange way of doing it.

There was no bite established.

The referee included a verbal complaint in his report that a Donegal player was bitten.

On this ice thin basis under media pressure, the CCCC proposed a suspension that would never pass any hearing.

You know that for certain?

Know what for certain?

[Declan]

We have Donegal people saying for certain that they know people on the panel and they can say for certain that McBrearty was bitten. I've seen comments on other forums from Dublin people saying that they know the person mentioned in the Times and that they categorically deny biting anyone hence the appeal to an original sentence that was based on a referee's report. So based on that they issued a three match ban to a player and then asked him to prove his innocence and then throw out the finding of not proven again leaving room for the doubters to say ah yeah he must have done it we just can't prove it.

A fuckin shambles from start to finish and so now we have the situation whereby anyone can make an allegation against another player , provide "evidence" and then say nothing when it's dismissed

[heffo]

We have Donegal people saying for certain that they know people on the panel and they can say for certain that McBrearty was bitten. I've seen comments on other forums from Dublin people saying that they know the person mentioned in the Times and that they categorically deny biting anyone hence the appeal to an original sentence that was based on a referee's report. So based on that they issued a three match ban to a player and then asked him to prove his innocence and then throw out the finding of not proven again leaving room for the doubters to say ah yeah he must have done it we just can't prove it.

A fuckin shambles from start to finish and so now we have the situation whereby anyone can make an allegation against another player , provide "evidence" and then say nothing when it's dismissed

Not a shred of evidence. To quote media reports:

There was no evidence.

Not the evidence was inclusive.

Not there was a grey area.

There was no evidence.

[RMDrive]

We have Donegal people saying for certain that they know people on the panel and they can say for certain that McBrearty was bitten. I've seen comments on other forums from Dublin people saying that they know the person mentioned in the Times and that they categorically deny biting anyone hence the appeal to an original sentence that was based on a referee's report. So based on that they issued a three match ban to a player and then asked him to prove his innocence and then throw out the finding of not proven again leaving room for the doubters to say ah yeah he must have done it we just can't prove it.

A fuckin shambles from start to finish and so now we have the situation whereby anyone can make an allegation against another player , provide "evidence" and then say nothing when it's dismissed

Not a shred of evidence. To quote media reports:

There was no evidence.

Not the evidence was inclusive.

Not there was a grey area.

There was no evidence.

I agree. There was a bite but no evidence that KOB did it.

[From the Bunker]

A complete shambles! The only winners are the Media who will milk another story or three out of it yet!

[squire_in_navy_slacks]

If somebody bit you on the arse you would know who it was wouldnt you?

[J70]

Why does it have to be a con? It could simply be that McBrearty was bitten, but there wasn't enough evidence, either due to McBrearty's reluctance and/or the physical evidence being too inconclusive to prove identity.

If there wasn't e4nough evidence why did the CCC propose the ban in the first instance ?


What is the level of proof when making these allegations ?


What's to stop anyone at any match from now on making an allegation, getting his mate to back him up etc ?

It's one sorry mess and another indictment of the GAA disciplinary system, even if some are lauding this as an example of how the GAA system is fair and that those charged with infractions receive justice.

I agree with the last part.

I was under the impression that they reviewed the evidence from Donegal and ref at first meeting, then invited player to defend himself or have proposed suspension imposed i.e. bite established, suspension proposed, then accused is given time to prepare a defense. It seems a strange way of doing it.

There was no bite established.

The referee included a verbal complaint in his report that a Donegal player was bitten.

On this ice thin basis under media pressure, the CCCC proposed a suspension that would never pass any hearing.

You know that for certain?

Know what for certain?

Sorry... Know for certain that it was not established that a bite had taken place?

[Zulu]

We have Donegal people saying for certain that they know people on the panel and they can say for certain that McBrearty was bitten. I've seen comments on other forums from Dublin people saying that they know the person mentioned in the Times and that they categorically deny biting anyone hence the appeal to an original sentence that was based on a referee's report. So based on that they issued a three match ban to a player and then asked him to prove his innocence and then throw out the finding of not proven again leaving room for the doubters to say ah yeah he must have done it we just can't prove it.

A fuckin shambles from start to finish and so now we have the situation whereby anyone can make an allegation against another player , provide "evidence" and then say nothing when it's dismissed

Not a shred of evidence. To quote media reports:

There was no evidence.

Not the evidence was inclusive.

Not there was a grey area.

There was no evidence.

I agree. There was a bite but no evidence that KOB did it.

Why was KOB accused of it so?

[J70]

We have Donegal people saying for certain that they know people on the panel and they can say for certain that McBrearty was bitten. I've seen comments on other forums from Dublin people saying that they know the person mentioned in the Times and that they categorically deny biting anyone hence the appeal to an original sentence that was based on a referee's report. So based on that they issued a three match ban to a player and then asked him to prove his innocence and then throw out the finding of not proven again leaving room for the doubters to say ah yeah he must have done it we just can't prove it.

A fuckin shambles from start to finish and so now we have the situation whereby anyone can make an allegation against another player , provide "evidence" and then say nothing when it's dismissed

What are Donegal or McBrearty supposed to say?

If things proceeded as you and heffo indicate, the fault lies with CCCC, not them, unless, of course, they made it up, which is ludicrous.

[INDIANA]

We have Donegal people saying for certain that they know people on the panel and they can say for certain that McBrearty was bitten. I've seen comments on other forums from Dublin people saying that they know the person mentioned in the Times and that they categorically deny biting anyone hence the appeal to an original sentence that was based on a referee's report. So based on that they issued a three match ban to a player and then asked him to prove his innocence and then throw out the finding of not proven again leaving room for the doubters to say ah yeah he must have done it we just can't prove it.

A fuckin shambles from start to finish and so now we have the situation whereby anyone can make an allegation against another player , provide "evidence" and then say nothing when it's dismissed

What are Donegal or McBrearty supposed to say?

If things proceeded as you and heffo indicate, the fault lies with CCCC, not them, unless, of course, they made it up, which is ludicrous.

Donegal need to take a hard look at themselves.

I wonder had they won the game would there have been a complaint?

I don't blame Mc Brearty.

There are others who need to take full responsibility for this.

[J70]

We have Donegal people saying for certain that they know people on the panel and they can say for certain that McBrearty was bitten. I've seen comments on other forums from Dublin people saying that they know the person mentioned in the Times and that they categorically deny biting anyone hence the appeal to an original sentence that was based on a referee's report. So based on that they issued a three match ban to a player and then asked him to prove his innocence and then throw out the finding of not proven again leaving room for the doubters to say ah yeah he must have done it we just can't prove it.

A fuckin shambles from start to finish and so now we have the situation whereby anyone can make an allegation against another player , provide "evidence" and then say nothing when it's dismissed

What are Donegal or McBrearty supposed to say?

If things proceeded as you and heffo indicate, the fault lies with CCCC, not them, unless, of course, they made it up, which is ludicrous.

Donegal need to take a hard look at themselves.

I wonder had they won the game would there have been a complaint?

I don't blame Mc Brearty.

There are others who need to take full responsibility for this.

They first notified the ref at halftime. When they were winning!