Their manager gets a job with Celtic, they don't win a game in the McKenna Cup and they get relegated in NFL. Spin it whatever way you like, these are the facts.
They now face Tyrone at home in the Ulster Cship. Lose that and the year couldn't get any worse. Or will Jimmy turn it around and get things back on track? No-one will rule them out, but no-one can deny that the year has been a disaster so far.
Jim blaming the ref as well for yesterday's defeat. Sign of a manager feeling the pressure.
It's a bit early to dance on their graves yet lads! ;)
The facts above might be true but facts don't tell the whole story. My own county finished runner up in the All Ireland in 2004 and 2006 but would you say unequivocally they were the second best team in Ireland in those years!Also if the league is such a great indicator of championship form we were runners up in 2007 and 2010 and went nowhere that year with Donegal beating us in 2007 and also failing in that years championship.
Donegal had to give the front line players a rest in the McKenna cup after the herculean effort put in to win the All Ireland over the last two years so I'm not surprised they wrote it off this year.
They might have been relegated but they only finished one point less off than their total in the league from 2012 and Jimmy did say he's only focused on the 26Th of May so personally I'll postpone judging them till after the outcome of the Tyrone match.
What we did find out is that they have a shallow enough pool of top players like 99% of the other counties and a couple of key injuries could derail them this year but they also managed to blood a few new players like Ryan McHugh and Ross Werrity which could bolster their bench for the summer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUNVjsNoE80
Jim McGuinness is so driven. It is almost not Irish how driven he is. That laser focus.
The attention to detail.
They won't be happy with the one all Ireland.
They only have 2 and now is the time to add to that. They won't want to follow Armagh and Derry
back to nowhere without doing more damage.
It's April- I definitely wouldn't write them off yet.
Very dangerous business.
Quote from: trileacman on April 08, 2013, 09:13:12 AM
Jim blaming the ref as well for yesterday's defeat. Sign of a manager feeling the pressure.
Jim said he has never made a comment about Refs and won't begin now. Said the people who came can have their opinion. I'd hardly call that blaming the ref!
Also the foul was committed a yard outside the square!
I reckon Donegal will make the All-Ireland semi after exiting to Tyrone in the Ulster Championship.
I think the point is though that unless donegal Put in a 'Manic herculean' effort they dont have a whole lot to back it up with . and it is very doubtful they reach the same level of Intensty angain esp at the press of a button like mcguiness thinks they can.
winning an AIF buys time but aprt from kerry no one has been able to win back to back Titles in decades and as they will have to use more or less the same 15 again i can see Donegal being any different
They haven't got a bench that the likes of Dublin have, Bar Michael Murphy missing the first round game last year against Cavan they had their strongest team available. Lacey missed the whole League this year, so he will be coming back into the team.
Still I think they will beat Tyrone with home advantage, 7 weeks to prepare for that.
Stupid f**king thread.
They lost all their McKenna Cup.games last year too. They survived on five points last year. There was one point separating semis and relegation this year. And reports say Rory Kavanagh should have had a penalty when fouled clean through on goal towards the end of yesterday's game. Them's the breaks, but if he had got it and Donegal had gone on to win by four or five points and made the semis, would CK be triumphantly sticking the boot into Donegal, yet again?
And another thing... while history shows that teams, outside of Kerry at least, just don't have the effortless talent to carry them through an understandable drop-off in intensity to put back-to-back championship runs together, quite a few people on this board were confidently dismissing Donegal this time last year as lacking enough talent to make up for the fact that they would not be able to repeat the supposed manic intensity and preparation they put in in 2011!
McFadden was supposedly taken off early yesterday after being wrecked from the Championship like training Donegal were doing recently? Fair to say Donegal are fully focused on the Tyrone game.
I think McGuinness said before the league he wasn't going to overly concerned about the League form, just to retain Ulster and Sam.
http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=189469
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 08, 2013, 10:13:30 AM
I reckon Donegal will make the All-Ireland semi after exiting to Tyrone in the Ulster Championship.
Agree.
Jees ck we have enough problems of our own than to be even thinking of donegal. IMO Donegal are not near finished and will have plenty of success over the next few yrs. McGuinness is a genuis and i would love to get meet hime some day, he is totally right focusing on championship and his quotes after yday match were bang on. Sorry for ref yday btw but its kinda karmic when you look at what jimmy white did to us in 2010.
Every team gets shafted or aided by bad refs. Don't think many Donegal people are overly concerned about Duffy's decisions yesterday. I just don't understand the rush to dismiss us when our year, so far, has been identical to last year, with the exception that five points didn't save us this time. If we'd gone down last year on five points, instead of sneaking survival, does that mean we would not have won Ulster and the AI?
Quote from: J70 on April 08, 2013, 04:23:01 PM
Every team gets shafted or aided by bad refs. Don't think many Donegal people are overly concerned about Duffy's decisions yesterday. I just don't understand the rush to dismiss us when our year, so far, has been identical to last year, with the exception that five points didn't save us this time. If we'd gone down last year on five points, instead of sneaking survival, does that mean we would not have won Ulster and the AI?
A three or four win would have gotten Donegal a semi final match. It's hard to read anything into your relegation. Still need to keep McFadden,Murphy fit or the scores will dry up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/northern-ireland/22070922
It's very difficult to replicate the same hunger and intensity the year after winning an All Ireland. It happened to Dublin last year and Cork the year before. Donegal have made all the right noises but subconsciously the players do ease off a bit. Relegation might be the kick up the arse that some players need but I don't see them winning the All Ireland again this year.
Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on April 08, 2013, 06:17:04 PM
It's very difficult to replicate the same hunger and intensity the year after winning an All Ireland. It happened to Dublin last year and Cork the year before. Donegal have made all the right noises but subconsciously the players do ease off a bit. Relegation might be the kick up the arse that some players need but I don't see them winning the All Ireland again this year.
That's a fair comment. Donegal in crisis/downward spiral/slippery slope or whatever is just knee-jerk nonsense.
Quote from: SambaSaffron on April 08, 2013, 06:04:44 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/northern-ireland/22070922
Must have been studs if he has a shoulder cut. Hope he makes the U-21 final!
Quote from: J70 on April 08, 2013, 06:53:21 PM
Quote from: SambaSaffron on April 08, 2013, 06:04:44 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/northern-ireland/22070922
Must have been studs if he has a shoulder cut. Hope he makes the U-21 final!
Regrettable if he was stood on accidentally - probably a case of the boy who cried wolf though as Gallagher's sole role on match day seems to be shouting at match officials trying to influence them and coming onto the pitch trying to get fellas booked.
Quote from: J70 on April 08, 2013, 06:53:21 PM
Quote from: SambaSaffron on April 08, 2013, 06:04:44 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/northern-ireland/22070922
Must have been studs if he has a shoulder cut. Hope he makes the U-21 final!
Sadly if the rumours are true and I've heard them from reliable source it has nothing to do with studs or anything. He was apparently bit going down the tunnel at half time. Now I not saying this is true just what I have heard so will wit and see if referees report says anything on the matter
Quote from: donegal lad on April 08, 2013, 07:57:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 08, 2013, 06:53:21 PM
Quote from: SambaSaffron on April 08, 2013, 06:04:44 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/northern-ireland/22070922
Must have been studs if he has a shoulder cut. Hope he makes the U-21 final!
Sadly if the rumours are true and I've heard them from reliable source it has nothing to do with studs or anything. He was apparently bit going down the tunnel at half time. Now I not saying this is true just what I have heard so will wit and see if referees report says anything on the matter
Jaysus! Hope there's no truth to that!
Indo have the same story :
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/star-forward-mcbrearty-checked-out-in-hospital-for-wound-to-shoulder-after-dublin-league-clash-29184152.html
Donegal have made claims one of their players was on the receiving end of an alleged bite during Sunday's Division 1 football league match against Dublin in Ballybofey.
McBrearty is understood to have a significant graze consistent with teeth marks on his shoulder which he had checked out in Letterkenny Hospital on Sunday night.
If this is true then whoever did it should get a long ban.
Terrible if it happened and if it did, whoever did it should get a very long ban. But is it just me that thinks someone from Donegal should put their name to this complaint? Not a single person quoted in either of the stories I've read about it. Without a quote it just comes across as hearsay.
Quote from: Ohtoohtobe on April 09, 2013, 10:52:13 AM
Terrible if it happened and if it did, whoever did it should get a very long ban. But is it just me that thinks someone from Donegal should put their name to this complaint? Not a single person quoted in either of the stories I've read about it. Without a quote it just comes across as hearsay.
What stories did you read? Sources included in the stories I've seen.
For example ...
http://donegalnews.com/2013/04/probe-to-be-launched-into-bite-claims/
And people question Dublin's hunger and appetite...
Shocking if true. If guilty a long ban should follow
It was probably young Quinn originally from Tyrone
Sure its almost been a month since we've been in the headlines. ;D
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 09, 2013, 12:38:14 PM
It was probably young Quinn originally from Tyrone
He got the bullet, no fall guy there so
Hold fire on the Dublin lad chaps..............................Jimmy Mc G is up to something here
It was hardly this chap who was biting http://t.co/2NDwPXPGxp
Quote from: rodney trotter on April 09, 2013, 01:39:36 PM
It was hardly this chap who was biting http://t.co/2NDwPXPGxp
No.............................. and there is alot more to that case too
Quote from: RMDrive on April 09, 2013, 10:59:04 AM
Quote from: Ohtoohtobe on April 09, 2013, 10:52:13 AM
Terrible if it happened and if it did, whoever did it should get a very long ban. But is it just me that thinks someone from Donegal should put their name to this complaint? Not a single person quoted in either of the stories I've read about it. Without a quote it just comes across as hearsay.
What stories did you read? Sources included in the stories I've seen.
For example ...
http://donegalnews.com/2013/04/probe-to-be-launched-into-bite-claims/
Fair enough I read it on the score.ie I think. Thanks for the link.
The Dublin county Chairman has denied that the Dublin mgt or officials were informed and that the player in question had a bruise and not a bite mark.
Legs to run on this yet so..
Quote from: heffo on April 09, 2013, 05:57:38 PM
The Dublin county Chairman has denied that the Dublin mgt or officials were informed and that the player in question had a bruise and not a bite mark.
Legs to run on this yet so..
Should be very easy to prove one way or the other as long as they do it now.
Quote from: heffo on April 09, 2013, 05:57:38 PM
The Dublin county Chairman has denied that the Dublin mgt or officials were informed and that the player in question had a bruise and not a bite mark.
Legs to run on this yet so..
How do they know it was a bruise if they weren't informed? The Dublin medical staff are obviously not categorised as Management or Officials.
Fairly simple to me.
Scenario 1: McBrearty made up the claim that he was bitten.
Scenario 2: McBrearty was bitten.
I can't see any reason why McBrearty would make it up.
The medical records (docs, hospital) should prove if it was a bite.
Quote from: RMDrive on April 09, 2013, 07:10:56 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 09, 2013, 05:57:38 PM
The Dublin county Chairman has denied that the Dublin mgt or officials were informed and that the player in question had a bruise and not a bite mark.
Legs to run on this yet so..
How do they know it was a bruise if they weren't informed? The Dublin medical staff are obviously not categorised as Management or Officials.
Fairly simple to me.
Scenario 1: McBrearty made up the claim that he was bitten.
Scenario 2: McBrearty was bitten.
I can't see any reason why McBrearty would make it up.
Medical team are neither Mgt nor officials.
http://www.fm104.ie/News-Sport/Article?itemid=14029
If it did happen it's a disgrace. I recall being bitten in a junior game down in Cork. Me and a boy from a real agricultural club were having a bit of a wrestling match and the **** dug the Gnashers into my arm. I swung back and walloped the head of him. After the dust settled the ref came was for sending me off. He was an army man and very strict on discipline as a ref. Anyways, I showed him my arm and you could clearly see the bite mark. He says 'i would have done the same' and proceeds to send the other lad off and only books me!
Quote from: J70 on April 09, 2013, 07:17:55 PM
The medical records (docs, hospital) should prove if it was a bite.
Exactly.
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2013, 08:34:32 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 09, 2013, 07:17:55 PM
The medical records (docs, hospital) should prove if it was a bite.
Exactly.
Hopefully. Hopefully we'll see them published too.
As I said already if a Dublin player is found to have done this I want a lengthy ban - if he hasn't there should be sanctions the other way.
IF it's true (and I really hope its not) then Dublin as well as the player should get the book thrown at them. Dublin do have a tack record in this by the way, have a look at this. It's an old school tactic to get a player to swing round and get sent off..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh6YQBgD-0A
Quote from: ck on April 09, 2013, 09:15:55 PM
IF it's true (and I really hope its not) then Dublin as well as the player should get the book thrown at them. Dublin do have a tack record in this by the way, have a look at this. It's an old school tactic to get a player to swing round and get sent off..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh6YQBgD-0A
The action of a complete kn@(k€r.
Quote from: heffo on April 09, 2013, 08:50:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2013, 08:34:32 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 09, 2013, 07:17:55 PM
The medical records (docs, hospital) should prove if it was a bite.
Exactly.
Hopefully. Hopefully we'll see them published too.
As I said already if a Dublin player is found to have done this I want a lengthy ban - if he hasn't there should be sanctions the other way.
If this is found to be untrue Donegal should have the book thrown at them.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 09, 2013, 10:42:59 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 09, 2013, 08:50:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2013, 08:34:32 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 09, 2013, 07:17:55 PM
The medical records (docs, hospital) should prove if it was a bite.
Exactly.
Hopefully. Hopefully we'll see them published too.
As I said already if a Dublin player is found to have done this I want a lengthy ban - if he hasn't there should be sanctions the other way.
If this is found to be untrue Donegal should have the book thrown at them.
+1
I hope it didnt happen and that if it has been made up then Donegal are in the dock
I think for a major incident like this in a game the match result should be awarded to the victim.
In fact Im sure of it.
Quote from: J70 on April 09, 2013, 07:17:55 PM
The medical records (docs, hospital) should prove if it was a bite.
That's very true but what I don't understand is why would he make it up,go to the hospital get a stitch and a tetanus injectection. Would of been easier to make up a number of other things that could happen in a game in my opinion anyway. And incase people aren't aware county players aren't required to wear a gum shield yet so it is possible to bite someone (honestly hope it's a mistake as its New low for the sport otherwise)
My guess is there was a bite, and if there was, then the Dublin player should be suspended for it.
But I also believe there was an element of "dramatic effect" with Donegal sending him to hospital get a bruise examined. There was no laceration, no blood, no stitching of the "wound".
Quote from: INDIANA on April 09, 2013, 10:42:59 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 09, 2013, 08:50:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2013, 08:34:32 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 09, 2013, 07:17:55 PM
The medical records (docs, hospital) should prove if it was a bite.
Exactly.
Hopefully. Hopefully we'll see them published too.
As I said already if a Dublin player is found to have done this I want a lengthy ban - if he hasn't there should be sanctions the other way.
If this is found to be untrue Donegal should have the book thrown at them.
If this is true I hope the Dublin management team move quickly to get rid of the sc**bag and don't try to engage in some sort of cover up.
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 08:05:19 AM
My guess is there was a bite, and if there was, then the Dublin player should be suspended for it.
But I also believe there was an element of "dramatic effect" with Donegal sending him to hospital get a bruise examined. There was no laceration, no blood, no stitching of the "wound".
Jesus you dubs are unreal. He was sent to the hospital to get a tetanus shot and antibiotics. Which I'd say is standard practice if someone is bitten by an animal.
Give me one reason why McBrearty would make this up?
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 08:14:40 AM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 08:05:19 AM
My guess is there was a bite, and if there was, then the Dublin player should be suspended for it.
But I also believe there was an element of "dramatic effect" with Donegal sending him to hospital get a bruise examined. There was no laceration, no blood, no stitching of the "wound".
Jesus you dubs are unreal. He was sent to the hospital to get a tetanus shot and antibiotics. Which I'd say is standard practice if someone is bitten by an animal.
Give me one reason why McBrearty would make this up?
Personally, I'm not accusing Donegal of making it up. I'm accusing them of exaggerating it. Firstly they called it a laceration to the shoulder. Then they called it a graze.
The Dublin official who examined it, says it was a bruise.
I'd say the hospital staff had an interesting time trying to stitch a bruise.
My own belief is that if Donegal had held on for the win and not been relegated, then there would have been no hospital visit. Even ignoring the phantom laceration and phantom stitch, antibiotics and tetanus for a bite through a jersey which did not break skin is a tad extreme.
Not that I'm excusing the alleged action. As we all know getting spat in the face is a despicable act. Once wiped away it causes absoutely no harm to the victim but the feeling you're left with can last a long time. Biting is worse again, even where little or no damage is done. If its proven to be true I would want a long ban for the player, regardless of whether Donegal have played it up.
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 09:12:52 AM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 08:14:40 AM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 08:05:19 AM
My guess is there was a bite, and if there was, then the Dublin player should be suspended for it.
But I also believe there was an element of "dramatic effect" with Donegal sending him to hospital get a bruise examined. There was no laceration, no blood, no stitching of the "wound".
Jesus you dubs are unreal. He was sent to the hospital to get a tetanus shot and antibiotics. Which I'd say is standard practice if someone is bitten by an animal.
Give me one reason why McBrearty would make this up?
Personally, I'm not accusing Donegal of making it up. I'm accusing them of exaggerating it. Firstly they called it a laceration to the shoulder. Then they called it a graze.
The Dublin official who examined it, says it was a bruise.
I'd say the hospital staff had an interesting time trying to stitch a bruise.
My own belief is that if Donegal had held on for the win and not been relegated, then there would have been no hospital visit. Even ignoring the phantom laceration and phantom stitch, antibiotics and tetanus for a bite through a jersey which did not break skin is a tad extreme.
Not that I'm excusing the alleged action. As we all know getting spat in the face is a despicable act. Once wiped away it causes absoutely no harm to the victim but the feeling you're left with can last a long time. Biting is worse again, even where little or no damage is done. If its proven to be true I would want a long ban for the player, regardless of whether Donegal have played it up.
Your assuming the Dublin version of the injury is the correct one. That's not necessarily true. And if the skin was broken for even a small graze as a result of a bite the team doctor would err on the side of caution and get a tetanus.
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 09:12:52 AM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 08:14:40 AM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 08:05:19 AM
My guess is there was a bite, and if there was, then the Dublin player should be suspended for it.
But I also believe there was an element of "dramatic effect" with Donegal sending him to hospital get a bruise examined. There was no laceration, no blood, no stitching of the "wound".
Jesus you dubs are unreal. He was sent to the hospital to get a tetanus shot and antibiotics. Which I'd say is standard practice if someone is bitten by an animal.
Give me one reason why McBrearty would make this up?
Personally, I'm not accusing Donegal of making it up. I'm accusing them of exaggerating it. Firstly they called it a laceration to the shoulder. Then they called it a graze.
The Dublin official who examined it, says it was a bruise.
I'd say the hospital staff had an interesting time trying to stitch a bruise.
My own belief is that if Donegal had held on for the win and not been relegated, then there would have been no hospital visit. Even ignoring the phantom laceration and phantom stitch, antibiotics and tetanus for a bite through a jersey which did not break skin is a tad extreme.
Not that I'm excusing the alleged action. As we all know getting spat in the face is a despicable act. Once wiped away it causes absoutely no harm to the victim but the feeling you're left with can last a long time. Biting is worse again, even where little or no damage is done. If its proven to be true I would want a long ban for the player, regardless of whether Donegal have played it up.
Because dali lama mc Guinness and his pet gallagher told the impressionable teenage too............
In all seriousness Donegal need to name names here............................if its true, then he will suffer his faith, not good, desperate infact.................Ive a feeling theres more to this
It sounds like there was some sort of incident as the Dublin doctor admitted there was a bruise.
Now naturally enough he's gonna be defensive and say its not too bad and usually when you see a bite mark it is very rarely broken skin unless it was a VERY serious bite. If it had been then I think Donegal would be a LOT more vocal.
I presume nobody saw it during the match so if that is the case you'd have to rule out the stud scenario. With the match being televised you'd imagine that it must have happened off the ball or coming off at half time.
It sure is disgraceful but lets not kid ourselves there have been other similar incidents over the years. I can think of the one when Nicholas Walshe bit Sean Cavanagh back in 2003/2005.
You would imagine it will be hard for Donegal to prove and so I won't be surprised if nothing comes of it
I'd say McBrearty was probably not too keen to go to the hospital and make it into a bigger deal as he knew there would be repercussions for him. Can you imagine now if the two teams meet in the AI final or semi and the amount of abuse he's gonna get from the Dubs.
No wonder he wants to sweep it under the carpet and get back playing ball.
Who says McBrearty wants to sweep it under the carpet?? He obviously brought it to the attention of his management and medical team.
Apparently the northern papers are stating that Dublin are denying it. If they say it didnt happen and know that it did then shame on them and may they suffer a hefty fine and suspension when video is analysed. As a neutral I suspect that it may not have happened, St.Jimmy is no saint and any game I've seen his side kick Gallagher is an absolute shit stirrer, running on to the pitch mouthing and bumping into opposition players. He gets away with allot at times, egged on by St.Jimmy. I suspect Donegal are exaggerating this but if there is a bite then there is a bite and Dublin will and should suffer at the hands of a disciplinary investigation as a result. Either way this is a very serious situation.
Who the f**k ever claimed Jim McGuinness is a "saint"?? ;D
As a neutral too, why would you doubt it happened? It is being dealt with by the CCCC, they aren't going to name somebody until they have looked at the case
Unless it was caught on camera, I doubt if we'll ever know who did it.
Quote from: ck on April 10, 2013, 01:59:38 PM
Who says McBrearty wants to sweep it under the carpet?? He obviously brought it to the attention of his management and medical team.
So that means he wanted a big investigation and media circus? Perhaps he just wanted his wound looked at. And even a 19 year old kid saying "Jim, that cnut bit me" is hardly saying "let's go on national television"!
And it was in the Indo that I read that McBrearty wanted to move on. The lad does have an Ulster U-21 final tonight.
As a neutral from Tyrone who obviously see Donegal as the new rivals on the block, I am shocked how many of ye on here are suspecting Donegal here of telling lies.
The lad definitely had at least a bruise and if they used the word bite then they must know it would look bad on them if that turned out to be a lie.
They reported it to the ref and to the Dublin doctor but just not to the media yet so why are ye all so doubting that it ever happened.
Quote from: rodney trotter on April 10, 2013, 02:13:53 PM
As a neutral too, why would you doubt it happened? It is being dealt with by the CCCC, they aren't going to name somebody until they have looked at the case
There is no such thing as a neutral culchie ;)
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 10, 2013, 03:15:45 PM
As a neutral from Tyrone who obviously see Donegal as the new rivals on the block, I am shocked how many of ye on here are suspecting Donegal here of telling lies.
The lad definitely had at least a bruise and if they used the word bite then they must know it would look bad on them if that turned out to be a lie.
They reported it to the ref and to the Dublin doctor but just not to the media yet so why are ye all so doubting that it ever happened.
The doubt arises because the Donegal county secretary, Aodh Mairtin O'Fearraigh, confirmed to the Donegal Democrat that McBrearty was treated at Letterkenny General Hospital for a laceration of his shoulder.
His injury has moved from a laceration to a graze to a bruise.
Nobody is doubting he has a bruise, but there's definitely an element of exaggeration that's going on, the question is how much of an exaggeration. Anyone with a Dublin bias is going to assume there was gross exaggeration, unless/until Donegal come up with better evidence.
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 10, 2013, 03:15:45 PM
As a neutral from Tyrone who obviously see Donegal as the new rivals on the block, I am shocked how many of ye on here are suspecting Donegal here of telling lies.
The lad definitely had at least a bruise and if they used the word bite then they must know it would look bad on them if that turned out to be a lie.
They reported it to the ref and to the Dublin doctor but just not to the media yet so why are ye all so doubting that it ever happened.
The doubt arises because the Donegal county secretary, Aodh Mairtin O'Fearraigh, confirmed to the Donegal Democrat that McBrearty was treated at Letterkenny General Hospital for a laceration of his shoulder.
His injury has moved from a laceration to a graze to a bruise.
Nobody is doubting he has a bruise, but there's definitely an element of exaggeration that's going on, the question is how much of an exaggeration. Anyone with a Dublin bias is going to assume there was gross exaggeration, unless/until Donegal come up with better evidence.
Where is the exaggeration? The lad was bitten and all you can focus on is the terminology that different journalists have used to describe it? Show me the quotes from the Donegal camp using these different terms. Shameful nitpicking going on here as an excuse to avoid the heart of the problem.
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 04:29:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 10, 2013, 03:15:45 PM
As a neutral from Tyrone who obviously see Donegal as the new rivals on the block, I am shocked how many of ye on here are suspecting Donegal here of telling lies.
The lad definitely had at least a bruise and if they used the word bite then they must know it would look bad on them if that turned out to be a lie.
They reported it to the ref and to the Dublin doctor but just not to the media yet so why are ye all so doubting that it ever happened.
The doubt arises because the Donegal county secretary, Aodh Mairtin O'Fearraigh, confirmed to the Donegal Democrat that McBrearty was treated at Letterkenny General Hospital for a laceration of his shoulder.
His injury has moved from a laceration to a graze to a bruise.
Nobody is doubting he has a bruise, but there's definitely an element of exaggeration that's going on, the question is how much of an exaggeration. Anyone with a Dublin bias is going to assume there was gross exaggeration, unless/until Donegal come up with better evidence.
Where is the exaggeration? The lad was bitten and all you can focus on is the terminology that different journalists have used to describe it? Show me the quotes from the Donegal camp using these different terms. Shameful nitpicking going on here as an excuse to avoid the heart of the problem.
That's absolute bullshit.
Nobody from Dublin has used any excuse.
As to your question "where is the exaggeration"? The reporter is on record as saying he asked O'Fearraigh was a laceration an accuarate description of the injury. To which O'Fearraigh outright lied and said Yes.
There is the exaggeraton.
Quote from: squire_in_navy_slacks on April 10, 2013, 04:17:48 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on April 10, 2013, 02:13:53 PM
As a neutral too, why would you doubt it happened? It is being dealt with by the CCCC, they aren't going to name somebody until they have looked at the case
There is no such thing as a neutral culchie ;)
Ah yes indeed, anywhere outside of Baile Atha Cliath and you're stuck in the stone - age.
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 04:36:46 PM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 04:29:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 10, 2013, 03:15:45 PM
As a neutral from Tyrone who obviously see Donegal as the new rivals on the block, I am shocked how many of ye on here are suspecting Donegal here of telling lies.
The lad definitely had at least a bruise and if they used the word bite then they must know it would look bad on them if that turned out to be a lie.
They reported it to the ref and to the Dublin doctor but just not to the media yet so why are ye all so doubting that it ever happened.
The doubt arises because the Donegal county secretary, Aodh Mairtin O'Fearraigh, confirmed to the Donegal Democrat that McBrearty was treated at Letterkenny General Hospital for a laceration of his shoulder.
His injury has moved from a laceration to a graze to a bruise.
Nobody is doubting he has a bruise, but there's definitely an element of exaggeration that's going on, the question is how much of an exaggeration. Anyone with a Dublin bias is going to assume there was gross exaggeration, unless/until Donegal come up with better evidence.
Where is the exaggeration? The lad was bitten and all you can focus on is the terminology that different journalists have used to describe it? Show me the quotes from the Donegal camp using these different terms. Shameful nitpicking going on here as an excuse to avoid the heart of the problem.
That's absolute bullshit.
Nobody from Dublin has used any excuse.
As to your question "where is the exaggeration"? The reporter is on record as saying he asked O'Fearraigh was a laceration an accuarate description of the injury. To which O'Fearraigh outright lied and said Yes.
There is the exaggeraton.
What reporter and what record. Stick up a link if you don't mind.
And why would using the term laceration necessarily be an exaggeration? You have accused O'Fearraigh of lying. Explain the lie please.
Who was playing at No.2 for Dublin? Was talking to a friend from Donegal who was at the match, and lets just said he said he had a feisty game....
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 04:42:52 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 04:36:46 PM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 04:29:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 10, 2013, 03:15:45 PM
As a neutral from Tyrone who obviously see Donegal as the new rivals on the block, I am shocked how many of ye on here are suspecting Donegal here of telling lies.
The lad definitely had at least a bruise and if they used the word bite then they must know it would look bad on them if that turned out to be a lie.
They reported it to the ref and to the Dublin doctor but just not to the media yet so why are ye all so doubting that it ever happened.
The doubt arises because the Donegal county secretary, Aodh Mairtin O'Fearraigh, confirmed to the Donegal Democrat that McBrearty was treated at Letterkenny General Hospital for a laceration of his shoulder.
His injury has moved from a laceration to a graze to a bruise.
Nobody is doubting he has a bruise, but there's definitely an element of exaggeration that's going on, the question is how much of an exaggeration. Anyone with a Dublin bias is going to assume there was gross exaggeration, unless/until Donegal come up with better evidence.
Where is the exaggeration? The lad was bitten and all you can focus on is the terminology that different journalists have used to describe it? Show me the quotes from the Donegal camp using these different terms. Shameful nitpicking going on here as an excuse to avoid the heart of the problem.
That's absolute bullshit.
Nobody from Dublin has used any excuse.
As to your question "where is the exaggeration"? The reporter is on record as saying he asked O'Fearraigh was a laceration an accuarate description of the injury. To which O'Fearraigh outright lied and said Yes.
There is the exaggeraton.
What reporter and what record. Stick up a link if you don't mind.
And why would using the term laceration necessarily be an exaggeration? You have accused O'Fearraigh of lying. Explain the lie please.
Here's the report:
http://www.donegaldemocrat.ie/sport/local-sport/mcbrearty-injury-annoys-officials-1-4974471
The reporter was on Newstalk saying he talked to O'Fearraigh to confirm the laceration point as well as everything else in the report, which is why he used his name as his source of the story.
Yes, O'Fearraigh told a lie/fib and thus exaggerated the story. There was no laceration. Hence you won't have seen the word used in any report since Monday. I'm sure he'd recant if asked (and perhaps already has).
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 05:10:48 PM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 04:42:52 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 04:36:46 PM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 04:29:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 10, 2013, 03:15:45 PM
As a neutral from Tyrone who obviously see Donegal as the new rivals on the block, I am shocked how many of ye on here are suspecting Donegal here of telling lies.
The lad definitely had at least a bruise and if they used the word bite then they must know it would look bad on them if that turned out to be a lie.
They reported it to the ref and to the Dublin doctor but just not to the media yet so why are ye all so doubting that it ever happened.
The doubt arises because the Donegal county secretary, Aodh Mairtin O'Fearraigh, confirmed to the Donegal Democrat that McBrearty was treated at Letterkenny General Hospital for a laceration of his shoulder.
His injury has moved from a laceration to a graze to a bruise.
Nobody is doubting he has a bruise, but there's definitely an element of exaggeration that's going on, the question is how much of an exaggeration. Anyone with a Dublin bias is going to assume there was gross exaggeration, unless/until Donegal come up with better evidence.
Where is the exaggeration? The lad was bitten and all you can focus on is the terminology that different journalists have used to describe it? Show me the quotes from the Donegal camp using these different terms. Shameful nitpicking going on here as an excuse to avoid the heart of the problem.
That's absolute bullshit.
Nobody from Dublin has used any excuse.
As to your question "where is the exaggeration"? The reporter is on record as saying he asked O'Fearraigh was a laceration an accuarate description of the injury. To which O'Fearraigh outright lied and said Yes.
There is the exaggeraton.
What reporter and what record. Stick up a link if you don't mind.
And why would using the term laceration necessarily be an exaggeration? You have accused O'Fearraigh of lying. Explain the lie please.
Here's the report:
http://www.donegaldemocrat.ie/sport/local-sport/mcbrearty-injury-annoys-officials-1-4974471
The reporter was on Newstalk saying he talked to O'Fearraigh to confirm the laceration point as well as everything else in the report, which is why he used his name as his source of the story.
Yes, O'Fearraigh told a lie/fib and thus exaggerated the story. There was no laceration. Hence you won't have seen the word used in any report since Monday. I'm sure he'd recant if asked (and perhaps already has).
Thanks for the link.
If all you are hanging your coat on is the (potentially) incorrect use of the word laceration then I don't know what to say. And how has the "His injury has moved from a laceration to a graze to a bruise". Was the other terminology not used by Dublin rather than Donegal?
Why not focus on what caused the laceration / bruise / graze / etc? Or why the Donegal setup saw fit to report it to the ref at half time (when they were leading by 3 points)? Or why they saw fit to bring the Dublin doctor in to see it.
As I said above, to me this appears to be nitpicking in order to distract from the incident itself.
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 05:23:11 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 05:10:48 PM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 04:42:52 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 04:36:46 PM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 04:29:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 10, 2013, 03:15:45 PM
As a neutral from Tyrone who obviously see Donegal as the new rivals on the block, I am shocked how many of ye on here are suspecting Donegal here of telling lies.
The lad definitely had at least a bruise and if they used the word bite then they must know it would look bad on them if that turned out to be a lie.
They reported it to the ref and to the Dublin doctor but just not to the media yet so why are ye all so doubting that it ever happened.
The doubt arises because the Donegal county secretary, Aodh Mairtin O'Fearraigh, confirmed to the Donegal Democrat that McBrearty was treated at Letterkenny General Hospital for a laceration of his shoulder.
His injury has moved from a laceration to a graze to a bruise.
Nobody is doubting he has a bruise, but there's definitely an element of exaggeration that's going on, the question is how much of an exaggeration. Anyone with a Dublin bias is going to assume there was gross exaggeration, unless/until Donegal come up with better evidence.
Where is the exaggeration? The lad was bitten and all you can focus on is the terminology that different journalists have used to describe it? Show me the quotes from the Donegal camp using these different terms. Shameful nitpicking going on here as an excuse to avoid the heart of the problem.
That's absolute bullshit.
Nobody from Dublin has used any excuse.
As to your question "where is the exaggeration"? The reporter is on record as saying he asked O'Fearraigh was a laceration an accuarate description of the injury. To which O'Fearraigh outright lied and said Yes.
There is the exaggeraton.
What reporter and what record. Stick up a link if you don't mind.
And why would using the term laceration necessarily be an exaggeration? You have accused O'Fearraigh of lying. Explain the lie please.
Here's the report:
http://www.donegaldemocrat.ie/sport/local-sport/mcbrearty-injury-annoys-officials-1-4974471
The reporter was on Newstalk saying he talked to O'Fearraigh to confirm the laceration point as well as everything else in the report, which is why he used his name as his source of the story.
Yes, O'Fearraigh told a lie/fib and thus exaggerated the story. There was no laceration. Hence you won't have seen the word used in any report since Monday. I'm sure he'd recant if asked (and perhaps already has).
Thanks for the link.
If all you are hanging your coat on is the (potentially) incorrect use of the word laceration then I don't know what to say. And how has the "His injury has moved from a laceration to a graze to a bruise". Was the other terminology not used by Dublin rather than Donegal?
Why not focus on what caused the laceration / bruise / graze / etc? Or why the Donegal setup saw fit to report it to the ref at half time (when they were leading by 3 points)? Or why they saw fit to bring the Dublin doctor in to see it.
As I said above, to me this appears to be nitpicking in order to distract from the incident itself.
I think you could at least accept Hound has a point. You asked for evidence he provided it, so you go marching down a different route on your high horse.
I can't understand why the Dublin management and/or county board were not informed of the allegation at half time or full time.
What is the Dublin doctor supposed to do/say. Can just see him standing in the middle of Donegal dressing room when he is told of this acqusation. Wouldn't want to do/say anything just get out of there.
To have Donegal reveal the allegation to the media first is a petty act which frankly brings moree attention to Dublin, Donegal & the player involved. Will only lead to bad blood & bad relations in the future.
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 04:29:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 10, 2013, 03:15:45 PM
As a neutral from Tyrone who obviously see Donegal as the new rivals on the block, I am shocked how many of ye on here are suspecting Donegal here of telling lies.
The lad definitely had at least a bruise and if they used the word bite then they must know it would look bad on them if that turned out to be a lie.
They reported it to the ref and to the Dublin doctor but just not to the media yet so why are ye all so doubting that it ever happened.
The doubt arises because the Donegal county secretary, Aodh Mairtin O'Fearraigh, confirmed to the Donegal Democrat that McBrearty was treated at Letterkenny General Hospital for a laceration of his shoulder.
His injury has moved from a laceration to a graze to a bruise.
Nobody is doubting he has a bruise, but there's definitely an element of exaggeration that's going on, the question is how much of an exaggeration. Anyone with a Dublin bias is going to assume there was gross exaggeration, unless/until Donegal come up with better evidence.
Where is the exaggeration? The lad was bitten and all you can focus on is the terminology that different journalists have used to describe it? Show me the quotes from the Donegal camp using these different terms. Shameful nitpicking going on here as an excuse to avoid the heart of the problem.
I tell you what's ironic. Ulster lads playing the poor mouth when it comes to dirtbird tactics.
You pioneered most of it for the last decade!
When it comes to discussing Gallagher and the rest of what Donegal get up to- you don't want to know.
Nobody from dublin is brushing anything under the carpet.. We just want to see the evidence.
I haven't been home in three years and so haven't seen the "new" Donegal live. Never even heard of the alleged misbehaviour by Rory Gallagher till you Dublin lads brought it up in this thread!
Quote from: dublin7 on April 10, 2013, 06:06:15 PM
I think you could at least accept Hound has a point. You asked for evidence he provided it, so you go marching down a different route on your high horse.
I can't understand why the Dublin management and/or county board were not informed of the allegation at half time or full time.
What is the Dublin doctor supposed to do/say. Can just see him standing in the middle of Donegal dressing room when he is told of this acqusation. Wouldn't want to do/say anything just get out of there.
To have Donegal reveal the allegation to the media first is a petty act which frankly brings moree attention to Dublin, Donegal & the player involved. Will only lead to bad blood & bad relations in the future.
I haven't seen Hound's point made yet. He said that "His injury has moved from a laceration to a graze to a bruise" and I just want to understand where he is coming from.
If the only issue to discuss Aodh's use of the word laceration when it was not the right word to use ... well I'll give you that one if it makes anyone feel better.
Why would Donegal have gone to Dublin with their complaint? How exactly would that work? The correct authority to report it to is the ref and that's what was done. Don't see what the issue is there.
I agree that the Dublin doctor was probably in a difficult situation and maybe would wish that he had never gone to see the injury/scrape/ bruise/laceration/ mark or whatever it was.
Donegal didn't reveal anything to the media first. They reported it to the ref at half time. I'd look forward to a meeting between the 2 teams and I don't agree that there would be bad blood.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 10, 2013, 06:54:15 PM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 04:29:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 10, 2013, 03:15:45 PM
As a neutral from Tyrone who obviously see Donegal as the new rivals on the block, I am shocked how many of ye on here are suspecting Donegal here of telling lies.
The lad definitely had at least a bruise and if they used the word bite then they must know it would look bad on them if that turned out to be a lie.
They reported it to the ref and to the Dublin doctor but just not to the media yet so why are ye all so doubting that it ever happened.
The doubt arises because the Donegal county secretary, Aodh Mairtin O'Fearraigh, confirmed to the Donegal Democrat that McBrearty was treated at Letterkenny General Hospital for a laceration of his shoulder.
His injury has moved from a laceration to a graze to a bruise.
Nobody is doubting he has a bruise, but there's definitely an element of exaggeration that's going on, the question is how much of an exaggeration. Anyone with a Dublin bias is going to assume there was gross exaggeration, unless/until Donegal come up with better evidence.
Where is the exaggeration? The lad was bitten and all you can focus on is the terminology that different journalists have used to describe it? Show me the quotes from the Donegal camp using these different terms. Shameful nitpicking going on here as an excuse to avoid the heart of the problem.
I tell you what's ironic. Ulster lads playing the poor mouth when it comes to dirtbird tactics.
You pioneered most of it for the last decade!
When it comes to discussing Gallagher and the rest of what Donegal get up to- you don't want to know.
Nobody from dublin is brushing anything under the carpet.. We just want to see the evidence.
As I see. If you open the discussion out to the whole of Ulster and talk about "dirtbird" tactics, it will further serve to take focus away from the alleged biting incident?
Any evidence (if it exists) will be provided to the authorities. Are you looking for the evidence to be published by Donegal or something? Who would be served by that?
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 07:18:05 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 10, 2013, 06:54:15 PM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 04:29:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 10, 2013, 03:15:45 PM
As a neutral from Tyrone who obviously see Donegal as the new rivals on the block, I am shocked how many of ye on here are suspecting Donegal here of telling lies.
The lad definitely had at least a bruise and if they used the word bite then they must know it would look bad on them if that turned out to be a lie.
They reported it to the ref and to the Dublin doctor but just not to the media yet so why are ye all so doubting that it ever happened.
The doubt arises because the Donegal county secretary, Aodh Mairtin O'Fearraigh, confirmed to the Donegal Democrat that McBrearty was treated at Letterkenny General Hospital for a laceration of his shoulder.
His injury has moved from a laceration to a graze to a bruise.
Nobody is doubting he has a bruise, but there's definitely an element of exaggeration that's going on, the question is how much of an exaggeration. Anyone with a Dublin bias is going to assume there was gross exaggeration, unless/until Donegal come up with better evidence.
Where is the exaggeration? The lad was bitten and all you can focus on is the terminology that different journalists have used to describe it? Show me the quotes from the Donegal camp using these different terms. Shameful nitpicking going on here as an excuse to avoid the heart of the problem.
I tell you what's ironic. Ulster lads playing the poor mouth when it comes to dirtbird tactics.
You pioneered most of it for the last decade!
When it comes to discussing Gallagher and the rest of what Donegal get up to- you don't want to know.
Nobody from dublin is brushing anything under the carpet.. We just want to see the evidence.
As I see. If you open the discussion out to the whole of Ulster and talk about "dirtbird" tactics, it will further serve to take focus away from the alleged biting incident?
Any evidence (if it exists) will be provided to the authorities. Are you looking for the evidence to be published by Donegal or something? Who would be served by that?
Not deflecting anything- simply referring to the fact that innocence till proven guilty means nothing to you and the rest of your merry men
So pigs don't just grunt anymore, they bite now as well....
The title of this thread is "Donegal on slippery slope?" and if the whinging coming out of the north west since last Sunday is anything to go on they certainly are on that slope.
The game had hardly finished when they were blaming the ref for their collapse. It wasn't the ref's fault that Donegal didn't score from play in the second half, and the ref can hardly be blamed for Jack McCaffrey's and Paul Mannion's super points that drew the game. And what about the "penalty"? Having watched the reply of the incident it seems to me that:
1. The tackle was 50/50 and could have gone either way (you win some you lose some)
2. The tackle was made just outside the penalty area and would not have been a penalty even if a free had been awarded.
Donegal should stop looking in the rear-view mirror and focus all their energy on the showdown with Tyrone.
Quote from: The Hill is Blue on April 11, 2013, 12:21:25 AM
The title of this thread is "Donegal on slippery slope?" and if the whinging coming out of the north west since last Sunday is anything to go on they certainly are on that slope.
The game had hardly finished when they were blaming the ref for their collapse. It wasn't the ref's fault that Donegal didn't score from play in the second half, and the ref can hardly be blamed for Jack McCaffrey's and Paul Mannion's super points that drew the game. And what about the "penalty"? Having watched the reply of the incident it seems to me that:
1. The tackle was 50/50 and could have gone either way (you win some you lose some)
2. The tackle was made just outside the penalty area and would not have been a penalty even if a free had been awarded.
Donegal should stop looking in the rear-view mirror and focus all their energy on the showdown with Tyrone.
What whinging? McGuinness said nothing about the ref except for people to look at it and make up their own mind, as you've done. Even if it was a veiled criticism, so what? He hardly broke with GAA tradition. That aside, have there been other comments from the Donegal camp about the game? I think most people in Donegal had moved on by Monday, especially with the U-21 game tonight. But I trust that we won't hear a peep from the Dubs if and when you suffer some perceived injustice on account of the referee this summer?
The alleged bite is a completely separate issue. And that will probably die pretty quickly too as I doubt if the player in question will be identified unless the incident was witnessed by a third party. Short of that type of revelation, just about everything that can be said about it has at this point.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 10, 2013, 06:54:15 PM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 10, 2013, 04:29:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 10, 2013, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 10, 2013, 03:15:45 PM
As a neutral from Tyrone who obviously see Donegal as the new rivals on the block, I am shocked how many of ye on here are suspecting Donegal here of telling lies.
The lad definitely had at least a bruise and if they used the word bite then they must know it would look bad on them if that turned out to be a lie.
They reported it to the ref and to the Dublin doctor but just not to the media yet so why are ye all so doubting that it ever happened.
The doubt arises because the Donegal county secretary, Aodh Mairtin O'Fearraigh, confirmed to the Donegal Democrat that McBrearty was treated at Letterkenny General Hospital for a laceration of his shoulder.
His injury has moved from a laceration to a graze to a bruise.
Nobody is doubting he has a bruise, but there's definitely an element of exaggeration that's going on, the question is how much of an exaggeration. Anyone with a Dublin bias is going to assume there was gross exaggeration, unless/until Donegal come up with better evidence.
Where is the exaggeration? The lad was bitten and all you can focus on is the terminology that different journalists have used to describe it? Show me the quotes from the Donegal camp using these different terms. Shameful nitpicking going on here as an excuse to avoid the heart of the problem.
I tell you what's ironic. Ulster lads playing the poor mouth when it comes to dirtbird tactics.
You pioneered most of it for the last decade!
When it comes to discussing Gallagher and the rest of what Donegal get up to- you don't want to know.
Nobody from dublin is brushing anything under the carpet.. We just want to see the evidence.
Such a load of Crap. Dublin were well used to using underhand tactics themselves over the last decade. And usually better at getting away with it. There's been plenty of threads on here discussing what Donegal, Tyrone, Armagh etc get up to. You just don't like it when the light is shone back on Dublin.
Funny I've yet to see the "Warrior against the dark arts" Dubsforsam make any comment. Usually he's the first one on to comment when it's any other team.
Jimmy's circling the wagons in an attempt to rouse the team from their slumbers and get focused for championship. He's not the first manager to create a them and us culture and he won't be the last.
Any request for dental records yet or do them auld gumshields render dental records useless?
Quote from: J70 on April 11, 2013, 03:12:35 AM
Quote from: The Hill is Blue on April 11, 2013, 12:21:25 AM
The title of this thread is "Donegal on slippery slope?" and if the whinging coming out of the north west since last Sunday is anything to go on they certainly are on that slope.
The game had hardly finished when they were blaming the ref for their collapse. It wasn't the ref's fault that Donegal didn't score from play in the second half, and the ref can hardly be blamed for Jack McCaffrey's and Paul Mannion's super points that drew the game. And what about the "penalty"? Having watched the reply of the incident it seems to me that:
1. The tackle was 50/50 and could have gone either way (you win some you lose some)
2. The tackle was made just outside the penalty area and would not have been a penalty even if a free had been awarded.
Donegal should stop looking in the rear-view mirror and focus all their energy on the showdown with Tyrone.
The alleged bite is a completely separate issue. And that will probably die pretty quickly too as I doubt if the player in question will be identified unless the incident was witnessed by a third party. Short of that type of revelation, just about everything that can be said about it has at this point.
Personally I don't agree.
It should be fully investigated - if the allegation is found to be true there should be heavy sanctions.
If it's found to be false there should be sanctions for Donegal for making this allegation through the media.
There is a lot more to be said on this imo.
Quote from: johnneycool on April 11, 2013, 09:07:25 AM
Jimmy's circling the wagons in an attempt to rouse the team from their slumbers and get focused for championship. He's not the first manager to create a them and us culture and he won't be the last.
Allegation was made at half time allegedly though - when Donegal were ahead
yeah so i read.
But the whole media circus after it is more I'm getting at but it seems to be the norm now, not just in Donegal.
Why not wait on the referee's report if he'd been informed and wait on the CCCCCCC to react whatever way they see fit
The report has been put in to the CCC and outlines the allegations.
Quote
Donegal have made an official complaint that one of their players was on the receiving end of a bite during Sunday's Division One NFL draw with Dublin.
Paddy McBrearty is understood to have a significant graze consistent with teeth marks on his shoulder, which he had to have checked out in Letterkenny hospital on Sunday night.
Referee Padraig Hughes was formally notified of the allegation at half-time by Donegal officials and it has been mentioned in his report on the match.
But since neither he nor any of his officials witnessed the alleged incident happening, building a case will be difficult.
Hughes himself was in the wars when he twisted ankle ligaments and had to be stretchered off and replaced by Michael Duffy in the 45th minute.
It is also believed that Dublin were made aware of the allegation after the match through contact between the medical staff of both teams.
Donegal are angered by the alleged incident but apart from confirming that the referee was informed they do not want to make an issue of it and were happy to leave it with the referee.
They are understood to have taken pictures of McBrearty's shoulder to support the claims made to referee Hughes at half-time if required for any further investigation.
It will be up to the Central Competitions Controls Committee (CCCC), who met yesterday, to initiate any investigation.
Donegal manager Jim McGuinness was not as calm as he normally is after games and he was clearly perturbed by a number of matters that occurred during the match.
"A lot of stuff went on there that didn't add up," he admitted, a possible reference to the decision not to give Rory Kavanagh a penalty or possibly this alleged biting incident.
McBrearty is the star of the Donegal U-21 team who play Cavan in tomorrow night's Ulster final in Enniskillen. His participation is not thought to be in doubt because of the cut to his shoulder he received.
l It has maybe been forgotten how back in 2011, Eoin Bradley produced some of the most exciting football in the country.
His performance and goal against Armagh in the Ulster semi-final had him almost assured of an All-Star, before a cruciate injury intervened.
On Sunday he hit five points as Derry reclaimed their place among the top flight with victory over a shadow Westmeath team, two days after his grandfather passed away.
"There has not been a lot of sleep got in the last couple of days," said Bradley.
"But it was good to get out and get away from everything from a couple of hours. It is just one of those things that happens in everyone's life so you just have to get on with it."
Interesting to read that pictures were taken as well.
(http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab56/declanrice/436_zps50fbe164.jpg)
Quote from: heffo on April 11, 2013, 09:08:57 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 11, 2013, 03:12:35 AM
Quote from: The Hill is Blue on April 11, 2013, 12:21:25 AM
The title of this thread is "Donegal on slippery slope?" and if the whinging coming out of the north west since last Sunday is anything to go on they certainly are on that slope.
The game had hardly finished when they were blaming the ref for their collapse. It wasn't the ref's fault that Donegal didn't score from play in the second half, and the ref can hardly be blamed for Jack McCaffrey's and Paul Mannion's super points that drew the game. And what about the "penalty"? Having watched the reply of the incident it seems to me that:
1. The tackle was 50/50 and could have gone either way (you win some you lose some)
2. The tackle was made just outside the penalty area and would not have been a penalty even if a free had been awarded.
Donegal should stop looking in the rear-view mirror and focus all their energy on the showdown with Tyrone.
The alleged bite is a completely separate issue. And that will probably die pretty quickly too as I doubt if the player in question will be identified unless the incident was witnessed by a third party. Short of that type of revelation, just about everything that can be said about it has at this point.
Personally I don't agree.
It should be fully investigated - if the allegation is found to be true there should be heavy sanctions.
If it's found to be false there should be sanctions for Donegal for making this allegation through the media.
There is a lot more to be said on this imo.
I can't fathom why anyone would make a false allegation like this. What's there to gain from it?
Besides, if it was false, how can it be proven that McBrearty or the Donegal camp made it up? If there are no actual visual teeth marks, does that mean McBrearty lied? It might mean an over-cautious response on the part of the doctor (i.e. injections etc), but it wouldn't prove there wasn't a bite. And if there is proven to have been a bite, short of taking moulds of lads teeth to match the markings, do you leave any potential discipline to rest on just McBrearty's word, assuming no other witnesses?
Which is my point: There might not be enough definitive evidence either way to do anything about this.
From a neutral perspective it would very bad form to make a serious allegation without some proper evidence.
If there is solid evidence I agree with the people calling for a lengthy ban.
If there is no evidence Donegal should apologise and withdraw the claim.
If there is debatable evidence this should be quickly investigated by the CCCC.
It is only a couple of weeks since a video appeared with a glove moving over the face of a Mayo player who was on the ground. Despite the odd sensational claim most Mayo supporters on this forum, and evidently the Officials, County Board and the player himself, declined to make any rash public statements and looking at this new case, they were wise.
If Donegal have photos, obviously they were trying to document the evidence. The issue is what do the photos and any other evidence prove?
QuoteWhat makes you say that? The alleged incident happened just before the end of the first half.
He did it!!!
What's the news from this story?
Did the CCCCCCCCCCCccccccc.... not meet last week and make any findings?
In the vaccum of silence, I am assuming that Donegal are claiming he was bitten and that Dublin are denying it and asking for proof.
Is that where's it currently at?
Which shoulder was it so that we know for the game in Ballybofey?
Donegal are still short priced favs for the Ulster Championship. If they beat Tyrone in the first round who really is good enough to beat them in Ulster in All Fairness? Can see anybody. they'll get to the All Ireland Quarters at a canter and when they do the real competition starts and if they have mcfadden and murphy fit they stand as good a chance as anybody left in it when there team gets up to the same fitness as all the rest of the sides. wouldnt rule them out they havent lost anybody from that side in september really none of the big teams have improved dramatically bar Dublin where their squad has got stronger.
I think they will beat Tyrone and win Ulster again. They should have a fully fit team for the Tyrone game, Gallagher, McGee, Lacey all coming back into the side. Can't see them losing their defence of the Anglo Celt on home turf.
If Paddy McBrearty shows the type of form from the Ulster u21 Final last week, that will be big bonus aswell ,as he hasn't shown consistent form with Donegal Seniors since he broke into the team.It would take the pressure off Murphy and McFadden aswell
Dublin player to be suspended according to RTE :o
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/northern-ireland/22193621 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/northern-ireland/22193621)
Hope he gets a long ban..
Quote from: EC Unique on April 17, 2013, 11:51:36 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/northern-ireland/22193621 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/northern-ireland/22193621)
Hope he gets a long ban..
Something for the media to chew over.
This will certainly make an impression on dublins season
If there was a bite, there should be a long ban. Personally don't want a guy who does that representing my county.
Does the proposed ban mean they'll now name and summon the player to answer the case?
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 03:10:44 AM
Does the proposed ban mean they'll now name and summon the player to answer the case?
No, it means they've sent a proposed ban to the DCB, the player now has the option to accept the proposed ban or seek a hearing. He's choosing the latter.
Quote from: heffo on April 18, 2013, 06:25:08 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 03:10:44 AM
Does the proposed ban mean they'll now name and summon the player to answer the case?
No, it means they've sent a proposed ban to the DCB, the player now has the option to accept the proposed ban or seek a hearing. He's choosing the latter.
I would imagine there would not be a proposed ban unless there was concrete evidence. Also cant understand why he has not been named yet publically when the dogs on the street know who done it.
Didn't stop the Times naming him today - http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/dublin-footballer-kevin-o-brien-to-contest-ban-for-alleged-biting-incident-1.1363589 (http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/dublin-footballer-kevin-o-brien-to-contest-ban-for-alleged-biting-incident-1.1363589)
3 games very soft IMO.
Quote from: ballinaman on April 18, 2013, 10:07:32 AM
3 games very soft IMO.
3 month ban effectively. You should probably wait for the full report before making your mind up too.
Quote from: heffo on April 18, 2013, 10:10:18 AM
Quote from: ballinaman on April 18, 2013, 10:07:32 AM
3 games very soft IMO.
3 month ban effectively. You should probably wait for the full report before making your mind up too.
True, don't think it's cut and dried yet (pardon the pun!)
Quote from: EC Unique on April 18, 2013, 09:36:20 AM
Quote from: heffo on April 18, 2013, 06:25:08 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 03:10:44 AM
Does the proposed ban mean they'll now name and summon the player to answer the case?
No, it means they've sent a proposed ban to the DCB, the player now has the option to accept the proposed ban or seek a hearing. He's choosing the latter.
I would imagine there would not be a proposed ban unless there was concrete evidence. Also cant understand why he has not been named yet publically when the dogs on the street know who done it.
Don't forget in a very, very hgh profile incident in Ulster a few months ago, a player received a proposed suspension and the evidence was supposed to be concrete, but the player was completely exhonerated.
So we should await the outcome here as well.
Quote from: Declan on April 18, 2013, 09:37:09 AM
Didn't stop the Times naming him today - http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/dublin-footballer-kevin-o-brien-to-contest-ban-for-alleged-biting-incident-1.1363589 (http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/dublin-footballer-kevin-o-brien-to-contest-ban-for-alleged-biting-incident-1.1363589)
Not the name I heard last week. Is the Times turning into the Indo?
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 03:10:44 AM
Does the proposed ban mean they'll now name and summon the player to answer the case?
Would the CCCC recommend the 3 game ban based on the referee's report only or was there direct input from both the Donegal and Dublin camps and players involved already?
Whether O'Brien bit McBrearty or not, I'm getting really sick of this 'dark arts' bollix. Seems like almost every inter-county team is shaming themselves with sneaky, vicious stuff and disgusting verbal abuse about girlfriends, dead relatives, whatever.
The game was designed to be played with bravery and honour. It seems anything can be justified if you win, and people talk about it as if using the 'dark arts' shows how clever and determined you are. In fact if I was running a paper I'd ban the term 'dark arts' and replace it with what it is: cowardice.
There must have been pretty conclusive proof that it was a bite, no a bruise or a graze. How do they prove O'Brien did it though? Were there witnesses?
If he bit, as appears likely then he deserves a ban. Neither side comes out of this well however. The Dublin player for the alleged bite and the Donegal team for crying to the media. Dozens of incidents take place on the field of play but its a sort of unwritten rule that what happens on the field stays on the field. If McBrearty had suffered a bad injury I could undestand it.
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 12:50:27 PM
If he bit, as appears likely then he deserves a ban. Neither side comes out of this well however. The Dublin player for the alleged bite and the Donegal team for crying to the media. Dozens of incidents take place on the field of play but its a sort of unwritten rule that what happens on the field stays on the field. If McBrearty had suffered a bad injury I could undestand it.
Biting is a routine occurrence on the GAA field?
Did Donegal go to the media? Or was it leaked? How do you keep something like this quiet in the days of twitter and facebook etc.?
Wtf? A 3 match 'proposed' ban for an 'unnamed player' for biting? That's a disgrace, it should e 3 months. Whatever about hitting someone in a row, biting someone is a different level.
And what a loada bollocks saying dgal come out of it badly. Some tr**p bit one of their players, if they're not gonna try to see the right thing done who is? If it wasn't dublin involved the furore would be greater, and Donegal were pretty tight lipped, more than they should have been, about the affair
Quote from: haranguerer on April 18, 2013, 01:13:45 PM
Wtf? A 3 match 'proposed' ban for an 'unnamed player' for biting? That's a disgrace, it should e 3 months. Whatever about hitting someone in a row, biting someone is a different level.
3 match ban would be at least 2 months and up to 3 months in this case.
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 12:58:20 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 12:50:27 PM
If he bit, as appears likely then he deserves a ban. Neither side comes out of this well however. The Dublin player for the alleged bite and the Donegal team for crying to the media. Dozens of incidents take place on the field of play but its a sort of unwritten rule that what happens on the field stays on the field. If McBrearty had suffered a bad injury I could undestand it.
Biting is a routine occurrence on the GAA field?
Did Donegal go to the media? Or was it leaked? How do you keep something like this quiet in the days of twitter and facebook etc.?
Well you know more about it than I do, if Donegal didnt go to the media then I stand corrected and maybe I'm being slightly unfair on Donegal here.
If McBrearty suffered a bad injury then the Dublin player deserves whatever he gets. However when you compare this case to the Paul O'Connell one from last weekend and consider the respective punishments there is definitely serious double standards in applying disciplinary judgement between GAA and rugby. Kearney was hospitalised by a kick in the head by O'Connell who gets off scot free despite video evidence and here a Dublin player gets a 3 match ban despite, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence.
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 01:25:10 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 12:58:20 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 12:50:27 PM
If he bit, as appears likely then he deserves a ban. Neither side comes out of this well however. The Dublin player for the alleged bite and the Donegal team for crying to the media. Dozens of incidents take place on the field of play but its a sort of unwritten rule that what happens on the field stays on the field. If McBrearty had suffered a bad injury I could undestand it.
Biting is a routine occurrence on the GAA field?
Did Donegal go to the media? Or was it leaked? How do you keep something like this quiet in the days of twitter and facebook etc.?
Well you know more about it than I do, if Donegal didnt go to the media then I stand corrected and maybe I'm being slightly unfair on Donegal here.
If McBrearty suffered a bad injury then the Dublin player deserves whatever he gets. However when you compare this case to the Paul O'Connell one from last weekend and consider the respective punishments there is definitely serious double standards in applying disciplinary judgement between GAA and rugby. Kearney was hospitalised by a kick in the head by O'Connell who gets off scot free despite video evidence and here a Dublin player gets a 3 match ban despite, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence.
O'Connell could also have pummeled someone with a good tackle which would warrant a red or black card in football but great stuff in rugby. If he'd shoulder charged someone he'd have got sin binned or more at rugby but fair play in Football!!!
Two different games with different sets of rules, so hardly double standards.
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 01:25:10 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 12:58:20 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 12:50:27 PM
If he bit, as appears likely then he deserves a ban. Neither side comes out of this well however. The Dublin player for the alleged bite and the Donegal team for crying to the media. Dozens of incidents take place on the field of play but its a sort of unwritten rule that what happens on the field stays on the field. If McBrearty had suffered a bad injury I could undestand it.
Biting is a routine occurrence on the GAA field?
Did Donegal go to the media? Or was it leaked? How do you keep something like this quiet in the days of twitter and facebook etc.?
Well you know more about it than I do, if Donegal didnt go to the media then I stand corrected and maybe I'm being slightly unfair on Donegal here.
If McBrearty suffered a bad injury then the Dublin player deserves whatever he gets. However when you compare this case to the Paul O'Connell one from last weekend and consider the respective punishments there is definitely serious double standards in applying disciplinary judgement between GAA and rugby. Kearney was hospitalised by a kick in the head by O'Connell who gets off scot free despite video evidence and here a Dublin player gets a 3 match ban despite, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence.
I honestly don't know how it came out. McGuinness didn't say anything about it, beyond a vague reference to some untoward behaviour on the pitch. Donegal officials did comment that the referee had been informed, but I've no idea if that was how it first hit the papers. All it takes is a player or backroom member or hospital employee to say it to one of his mates and next thing its on the internet and then the media. But regardless, does it matter? The issue is the alleged bite, not the revelation.
Beyond that, the photos and medical report must have clearly shown a bite, otherwise they'd hardly be recommending a ban, would they? Or maybe I'm overestimating the abilities of the CCCC.
Quote from: johnneycool on April 18, 2013, 01:39:29 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 01:25:10 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 12:58:20 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 12:50:27 PM
If he bit, as appears likely then he deserves a ban. Neither side comes out of this well however. The Dublin player for the alleged bite and the Donegal team for crying to the media. Dozens of incidents take place on the field of play but its a sort of unwritten rule that what happens on the field stays on the field. If McBrearty had suffered a bad injury I could undestand it.
Biting is a routine occurrence on the GAA field?
Did Donegal go to the media? Or was it leaked? How do you keep something like this quiet in the days of twitter and facebook etc.?
Well you know more about it than I do, if Donegal didnt go to the media then I stand corrected and maybe I'm being slightly unfair on Donegal here.
If McBrearty suffered a bad injury then the Dublin player deserves whatever he gets. However when you compare this case to the Paul O'Connell one from last weekend and consider the respective punishments there is definitely serious double standards in applying disciplinary judgement between GAA and rugby. Kearney was hospitalised by a kick in the head by O'Connell who gets off scot free despite video evidence and here a Dublin player gets a 3 match ban despite, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence.
O'Connell could also have pummeled someone with a good tackle which would warrant a red or black card in football but great stuff in rugby. If he'd shoulder charged someone he'd have got sin binned or more at rugby but fair play in Football!!!
Two different games with different sets of rules, so hardly double standards.
But we aren't talking about a pummelling or a shoulder charge.
A kick in the head that hospitalised an opponent should warrant punishment no matter the code.
The biggest issue is that due to the tribal nature of the GAA, many media pundits claim moral outrage depending on who or which county committed the crime. The level of outrage usually depends on who and from which county the player who committed the crime is from. It provokes media debate which is exactly what the very people who instigate these reports want in the first place, it keeps them in the forefront of the media.
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 02:12:52 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on April 18, 2013, 01:39:29 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 01:25:10 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 12:58:20 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 12:50:27 PM
If he bit, as appears likely then he deserves a ban. Neither side comes out of this well however. The Dublin player for the alleged bite and the Donegal team for crying to the media. Dozens of incidents take place on the field of play but its a sort of unwritten rule that what happens on the field stays on the field. If McBrearty had suffered a bad injury I could undestand it.
Biting is a routine occurrence on the GAA field?
Did Donegal go to the media? Or was it leaked? How do you keep something like this quiet in the days of twitter and facebook etc.?
Well you know more about it than I do, if Donegal didnt go to the media then I stand corrected and maybe I'm being slightly unfair on Donegal here.
If McBrearty suffered a bad injury then the Dublin player deserves whatever he gets. However when you compare this case to the Paul O'Connell one from last weekend and consider the respective punishments there is definitely serious double standards in applying disciplinary judgement between GAA and rugby. Kearney was hospitalised by a kick in the head by O'Connell who gets off scot free despite video evidence and here a Dublin player gets a 3 match ban despite, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence.
O'Connell could also have pummeled someone with a good tackle which would warrant a red or black card in football but great stuff in rugby. If he'd shoulder charged someone he'd have got sin binned or more at rugby but fair play in Football!!!
Two different games with different sets of rules, so hardly double standards.
But we aren't talking about a pummelling or a shoulder charge.
A kick in the head that hospitalised an opponent should warrant punishment no matter the code.
The biggest issue is that due to the tribal nature of the GAA, many media pundits claim moral outrage depending on who or which county committed the crime. The level of outrage usually depends on who and from which county the player who committed the crime is from. It provokes media debate which is exactly what the very people who instigate these reports want in the first place, it keeps them in the forefront of the media.
I think a kick in the head is ok in MMA, can't be sure.
Different rules for different codes, why bring something that happened in rugby into it?
Your points about selective indignation depending on the offending county are very real though.
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 01:42:23 PM
I honestly don't know how it came out. McGuinness didn't say anything about it, beyond a vague reference to some untoward behaviour on the pitch. Donegal officials did comment that the referee had been informed, but I've no idea if that was how it first hit the papers. All it takes is a player or backroom member or hospital employee to say it to one of his mates and next thing its on the internet and then the media. But regardless, does it matter? The issue is the alleged bite, not the revelation.
Beyond that, the photos and medical report must have clearly shown a bite, otherwise they'd hardly be recommending a ban, would they? Or maybe I'm overestimating the abilities of the CCCC.
Yip, its hard to have a really good debate without knowing all the facts!
My guess is they've sent the picture that shows the injury. They've got a report from a doctor that says either its definitely a bite, its consistent with a bite or it could be a bite. And I also guess they've got witness statement(s) from someone other than McBrearty (some other Donegal player or official) pointing the finger at the alleged culprit.
I don't think they could have any more than that. Is that enough to "convict"? Are witness statements from non-neutral parties admissable?
If they've less than that (e.g. no witness statements), then it would be hard to see the suspension hold up.
I really can't get my head around people's attitude on this thread from the first day it was announced. Many seem to have thought the whole thing was somehow made up to make Dublin look bad. If there is evidence that somebody left bite marks then this is indeed terrible and should not be swept under the carpet.
I have good friends from both counties and have no more preference for Donegal over Dublin as they've taken over our status in Ulster of late, fair play to them.
However, lets look at this another way
Lets say this Tyrone v Kerry and TV coverage shows Ricey McMenamin biting Gooch as they lie on the ground as the ball goes past them both. Its clear to see the bite and we're all totally disgusted by the action, even us biased Tyronies.
So the difference here is none of us have saw the evidence of the bite marks nor did we see the action but from the CCC's ban and statement then it certainly sounds like the alleged biting action did happen but as yet we are unsure if there is proof of who done it.
We can only assume the proof of the photos show definite bite marks.
Are we agreed so far or are some still questioning this?
So to me Dublin are appealing it probably cos they know (or hope) there is no video evidence showing any of their players doing the biting act. Yes maybe someone from Donegal are saying they saw it but its only one person's word against another I suppose.
With Tyrone and other counties wriggling out of many cases with no definite evidence to charge one player then Dublin are probably hoping that they can be let off as well as no proof of the incident is forth coming. Am I right to say that its not strong enough evidence that a Donegal player or fan witnessed the incident?
All I'm saying is surely this is gonna look much worse for Dublin and I can't see how it will look bad for Donegal as they are not the perpetrators. All they did was document what happened and reported it to the ref. Are we really trying to defend the biting action by playing it down and saying its not typical of this Dublin team so lets sweep it under the carpet. If it had been Ricey or Ciaran MCKeever would we have the same attitude. I think not.
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 01:42:23 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 01:25:10 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 12:58:20 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 12:50:27 PM
If he bit, as appears likely then he deserves a ban. Neither side comes out of this well however. The Dublin player for the alleged bite and the Donegal team for crying to the media. Dozens of incidents take place on the field of play but its a sort of unwritten rule that what happens on the field stays on the field. If McBrearty had suffered a bad injury I could undestand it.
Biting is a routine occurrence on the GAA field?
Did Donegal go to the media? Or was it leaked? How do you keep something like this quiet in the days of twitter and facebook etc.?
Well you know more about it than I do, if Donegal didnt go to the media then I stand corrected and maybe I'm being slightly unfair on Donegal here.
If McBrearty suffered a bad injury then the Dublin player deserves whatever he gets. However when you compare this case to the Paul O'Connell one from last weekend and consider the respective punishments there is definitely serious double standards in applying disciplinary judgement between GAA and rugby. Kearney was hospitalised by a kick in the head by O'Connell who gets off scot free despite video evidence and here a Dublin player gets a 3 match ban despite, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence.
I honestly don't know how it came out. McGuinness didn't say anything about it, beyond a vague reference to some untoward behaviour on the pitch. Donegal officials did comment that the referee had been informed, but I've no idea if that was how it first hit the papers. All it takes is a player or backroom member or hospital employee to say it to one of his mates and next thing its on the internet and then the media. But regardless, does it matter? The issue is the alleged bite, not the revelation.
Beyond that, the photos and medical report must have clearly shown a bite, otherwise they'd hardly be recommending a ban, would they? Or maybe I'm overestimating the abilities of the CCCC.
A well travelled member of the Donegal mgt team has been very active behind the scenes over the last week or so on this issue.
Quote from: heffo on April 18, 2013, 04:01:41 PM
A well travelled member of the Donegal mgt team has been very active behind the scenes over the last week or so on this issue.
I don't doubt that but to what ends?
They are not likely to meet Dublin in the next 3 months until the QF's at least so they are only stirring up a bit of ill feeling ahead of a potential clash.
This could be the early days of a rivalry that will be over-hyped in the media and chat forums. A bit like Tyrone and Kerry. But it is a bad pace to start.
Quote from: heffo on April 18, 2013, 04:01:41 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 01:42:23 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 01:25:10 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 12:58:20 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 12:50:27 PM
If he bit, as appears likely then he deserves a ban. Neither side comes out of this well however. The Dublin player for the alleged bite and the Donegal team for crying to the media. Dozens of incidents take place on the field of play but its a sort of unwritten rule that what happens on the field stays on the field. If McBrearty had suffered a bad injury I could undestand it.
Biting is a routine occurrence on the GAA field?
Did Donegal go to the media? Or was it leaked? How do you keep something like this quiet in the days of twitter and facebook etc.?
Well you know more about it than I do, if Donegal didnt go to the media then I stand corrected and maybe I'm being slightly unfair on Donegal here.
If McBrearty suffered a bad injury then the Dublin player deserves whatever he gets. However when you compare this case to the Paul O'Connell one from last weekend and consider the respective punishments there is definitely serious double standards in applying disciplinary judgement between GAA and rugby. Kearney was hospitalised by a kick in the head by O'Connell who gets off scot free despite video evidence and here a Dublin player gets a 3 match ban despite, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence.
I honestly don't know how it came out. McGuinness didn't say anything about it, beyond a vague reference to some untoward behaviour on the pitch. Donegal officials did comment that the referee had been informed, but I've no idea if that was how it first hit the papers. All it takes is a player or backroom member or hospital employee to say it to one of his mates and next thing its on the internet and then the media. But regardless, does it matter? The issue is the alleged bite, not the revelation.
Beyond that, the photos and medical report must have clearly shown a bite, otherwise they'd hardly be recommending a ban, would they? Or maybe I'm overestimating the abilities of the CCCC.
A well travelled member of the Donegal mgt team has been very active behind the scenes over the last week or so on this issue.
And...?
Desperate stuff if true, and it will be dealt with by the DCB............................................. However mcguinnes really is a spiteful pig
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 05:04:42 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 18, 2013, 04:01:41 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 01:42:23 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 01:25:10 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 12:58:20 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 12:50:27 PM
If he bit, as appears likely then he deserves a ban. Neither side comes out of this well however. The Dublin player for the alleged bite and the Donegal team for crying to the media. Dozens of incidents take place on the field of play but its a sort of unwritten rule that what happens on the field stays on the field. If McBrearty had suffered a bad injury I could undestand it.
Biting is a routine occurrence on the GAA field?
Did Donegal go to the media? Or was it leaked? How do you keep something like this quiet in the days of twitter and facebook etc.?
Well you know more about it than I do, if Donegal didnt go to the media then I stand corrected and maybe I'm being slightly unfair on Donegal here.
If McBrearty suffered a bad injury then the Dublin player deserves whatever he gets. However when you compare this case to the Paul O'Connell one from last weekend and consider the respective punishments there is definitely serious double standards in applying disciplinary judgement between GAA and rugby. Kearney was hospitalised by a kick in the head by O'Connell who gets off scot free despite video evidence and here a Dublin player gets a 3 match ban despite, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence.
I honestly don't know how it came out. McGuinness didn't say anything about it, beyond a vague reference to some untoward behaviour on the pitch. Donegal officials did comment that the referee had been informed, but I've no idea if that was how it first hit the papers. All it takes is a player or backroom member or hospital employee to say it to one of his mates and next thing its on the internet and then the media. But regardless, does it matter? The issue is the alleged bite, not the revelation.
Beyond that, the photos and medical report must have clearly shown a bite, otherwise they'd hardly be recommending a ban, would they? Or maybe I'm overestimating the abilities of the CCCC.
A well travelled member of the Donegal mgt team has been very active behind the scenes over the last week or so on this issue.
And...?
You queried how it came out.
Quote from: heffo on April 18, 2013, 05:10:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 05:04:42 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 18, 2013, 04:01:41 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 01:42:23 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 01:25:10 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 12:58:20 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 12:50:27 PM
If he bit, as appears likely then he deserves a ban. Neither side comes out of this well however. The Dublin player for the alleged bite and the Donegal team for crying to the media. Dozens of incidents take place on the field of play but its a sort of unwritten rule that what happens on the field stays on the field. If McBrearty had suffered a bad injury I could undestand it.
Biting is a routine occurrence on the GAA field?
Did Donegal go to the media? Or was it leaked? How do you keep something like this quiet in the days of twitter and facebook etc.?
Well you know more about it than I do, if Donegal didnt go to the media then I stand corrected and maybe I'm being slightly unfair on Donegal here.
If McBrearty suffered a bad injury then the Dublin player deserves whatever he gets. However when you compare this case to the Paul O'Connell one from last weekend and consider the respective punishments there is definitely serious double standards in applying disciplinary judgement between GAA and rugby. Kearney was hospitalised by a kick in the head by O'Connell who gets off scot free despite video evidence and here a Dublin player gets a 3 match ban despite, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence.
I honestly don't know how it came out. McGuinness didn't say anything about it, beyond a vague reference to some untoward behaviour on the pitch. Donegal officials did comment that the referee had been informed, but I've no idea if that was how it first hit the papers. All it takes is a player or backroom member or hospital employee to say it to one of his mates and next thing its on the internet and then the media. But regardless, does it matter? The issue is the alleged bite, not the revelation.
Beyond that, the photos and medical report must have clearly shown a bite, otherwise they'd hardly be recommending a ban, would they? Or maybe I'm overestimating the abilities of the CCCC.
A well travelled member of the Donegal mgt team has been very active behind the scenes over the last week or so on this issue.
And...?
You queried how it came out.
It was national news the next day. Was Rory Gallagher the source? And what does his activities over the past week got to do with how it made the news?
Why does it matter though? Unless the CCCC is moved by very flimsy evidence and ill-supported accusations, there was a bite.
(http://www.joe.ie/uploads/story/27971/mcbreartysheep.jpg)
little hypocrite
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 05:24:16 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 18, 2013, 05:10:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 05:04:42 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 18, 2013, 04:01:41 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 01:42:23 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 01:25:10 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 18, 2013, 12:58:20 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 18, 2013, 12:50:27 PM
If he bit, as appears likely then he deserves a ban. Neither side comes out of this well however. The Dublin player for the alleged bite and the Donegal team for crying to the media. Dozens of incidents take place on the field of play but its a sort of unwritten rule that what happens on the field stays on the field. If McBrearty had suffered a bad injury I could undestand it.
Biting is a routine occurrence on the GAA field?
Did Donegal go to the media? Or was it leaked? How do you keep something like this quiet in the days of twitter and facebook etc.?
Well you know more about it than I do, if Donegal didnt go to the media then I stand corrected and maybe I'm being slightly unfair on Donegal here.
If McBrearty suffered a bad injury then the Dublin player deserves whatever he gets. However when you compare this case to the Paul O'Connell one from last weekend and consider the respective punishments there is definitely serious double standards in applying disciplinary judgement between GAA and rugby. Kearney was hospitalised by a kick in the head by O'Connell who gets off scot free despite video evidence and here a Dublin player gets a 3 match ban despite, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence.
I honestly don't know how it came out. McGuinness didn't say anything about it, beyond a vague reference to some untoward behaviour on the pitch. Donegal officials did comment that the referee had been informed, but I've no idea if that was how it first hit the papers. All it takes is a player or backroom member or hospital employee to say it to one of his mates and next thing its on the internet and then the media. But regardless, does it matter? The issue is the alleged bite, not the revelation.
Beyond that, the photos and medical report must have clearly shown a bite, otherwise they'd hardly be recommending a ban, would they? Or maybe I'm overestimating the abilities of the CCCC.
A well travelled member of the Donegal mgt team has been very active behind the scenes over the last week or so on this issue.
And...?
You queried how it came out.
It was national news the next day. Was Rory Gallagher the source? And what does his activities over the past week got to do with how it made the news?
Why does it matter though? Unless the CCCC is moved by very flimsy evidence and ill-supported accusations, there was a bite.
I've no interest in getting involved in the ins and outs.
Let due process take its course.
The famous case a few months ago in Ulster made some very poor headlines for one of those alleged to have been responsible and who received a long proposed sanction but who was completely exhonerated at a hearing.
If he is proven guilty let him take what's been proposed. If he requests a hearing and gets off, fair enough too.
But at least let's wait for the facts to emerge instead of all the speculation about why the CCC did what they did.
Ffs squire, heffo, wise up. Do you really doubt it happened? I don't. It could have been any co, but it was Dublin. You're doing yourselves no favours hedging round the issue giving out about how it came out. So f**king what how it came out? At least pretend to be able to be objective, if situations were reversed itd be the worst thing ever happened in the history of the GAA. Hound (I think it was) aright then, if 3 months only = 3 matches or whatever, then I've changed my mind, ban him for at least the rest of the season. It's a scummy dangerous act that deserves it
QuoteLet due process take its course.
The famous case a few months ago in Ulster made some very poor headlines for one of those alleged to have been responsible and who received a long proposed sanction but who was completely exhonerated at a hearing.
If he is proven guilty let him take what's been proposed. If he requests a hearing and gets off, fair enough too.
But at least let's wait for the facts to emerge instead of all the speculation about why the CCC did what they did.
+1
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 18, 2013, 03:28:16 PM
I have good friends from both counties and have no more preference for Donegal over Dublin as they've taken over our status in Ulster of late, fair play to them.
...most hateful team in Ulster - nah , thats still you lot !!
;)
if McBrearty is making it up then he is a wnaker.
However, by all accounts people have seen his 'mark' and maybe this is how it got out to the media.
It is irelevent about other sports and whether actions were accidential or intended, this is an incident that if ture, needs a punishment of a couple of months that affects club and county.
there is no place in the game for this kind of siht.
Quote from: haranguerer on April 18, 2013, 06:08:19 PM
Ffs squire, heffo, wise up. Do you really doubt it happened? I don't. It could have been any co, but it was Dublin. You're doing yourselves no favours hedging round the issue giving out about how it came out. So f**king what how it came out? At least pretend to be able to be objective, if situations were reversed itd be the worst thing ever happened in the history of the GAA. Hound (I think it was) aright then, if 3 months only = 3 matches or whatever, then I've changed my mind, ban him for at least the rest of the season. It's a scummy dangerous act that deserves it
I think I've been pretty consistent since the issue first arose that I want to see a ban for the player involved if the incident occured.
I want to let the investigation take it's course.
I won't take lectures from posters who's counties/players are sent out to behave like cornerboys to get a reaction from players and to get them sent off though.
If it's proven he bit a player, it should be a season-long ban. That's a very big 'if' though.
Quote from: Ohtoohtobe on April 19, 2013, 09:12:43 AM
If it's proven he bit a player, it should be a season-long ban. That's a very big 'if' though.
What about the rules ?
Quote from: heffo on April 19, 2013, 09:09:35 AM
I think I've been pretty consistent since the issue first arose that I want to see a ban for the player involved if the incident occured.
I want to let the investigation take it's course.
I won't take lectures from posters who's counties/players are sent out to behave like cornerboys to get a reaction from players and to get them sent off though.
Wheras Dubs are all as pure as the driven snow & would never engage in any of the so called "dark arts".
Quote from: BluestackBoy on April 19, 2013, 12:52:58 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 19, 2013, 09:09:35 AM
I think I've been pretty consistent since the issue first arose that I want to see a ban for the player involved if the incident occured.
I want to let the investigation take it's course.
I won't take lectures from posters who's counties/players are sent out to behave like cornerboys to get a reaction from players and to get them sent off though.
Wheras Dubs are all as pure as the driven snow & would never engage in any of the so called "dark arts".
Never said that. Two faced piety is a little hard to stomach though.
Quote from: heffo on April 19, 2013, 09:09:35 AM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 18, 2013, 06:08:19 PM
Ffs squire, heffo, wise up. Do you really doubt it happened? I don't. It could have been any co, but it was Dublin. You're doing yourselves no favours hedging round the issue giving out about how it came out. So f**king what how it came out? At least pretend to be able to be objective, if situations were reversed itd be the worst thing ever happened in the history of the GAA. Hound (I think it was) aright then, if 3 months only = 3 matches or whatever, then I've changed my mind, ban him for at least the rest of the season. It's a scummy dangerous act that deserves it
I think I've been pretty consistent since the issue first arose that I want to see a ban for the player involved if the incident occured.
I want to let the investigation take it's course.
I won't take lectures from posters who's counties/players are sent out to behave like cornerboys to get a reaction from players and to get them sent off though.
And are you allowed to lecture others:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh6YQBgD-0A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh6YQBgD-0A)
Quote from: BluestackBoy on April 19, 2013, 12:52:58 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 19, 2013, 09:09:35 AM
I think I've been pretty consistent since the issue first arose that I want to see a ban for the player involved if the incident occured.
I want to let the investigation take it's course.
I won't take lectures from posters who's counties/players are sent out to behave like cornerboys to get a reaction from players and to get them sent off though.
Wheras Dubs are all as pure as the driven snow & would never engage in any of the so called "dark arts".
So McBrearty or other Donegal players have bitten Dublin players in the past?
Quote from: squire_in_navy_slacks on April 18, 2013, 05:25:18 PM
(http://www.joe.ie/uploads/story/27971/mcbreartysheep.jpg)
little hypocrite
I don't get it.
Quote from: J70 on April 19, 2013, 06:41:24 PM
Quote from: squire_in_navy_slacks on April 18, 2013, 05:25:18 PM
(http://www.joe.ie/uploads/story/27971/mcbreartysheep.jpg)
little hypocrite
I don't get it.
Squire obviously doesn't like sheep for some reason.
Quote from: orangeman on April 19, 2013, 09:28:25 AM
Quote from: Ohtoohtobe on April 19, 2013, 09:12:43 AM
If it's proven he bit a player, it should be a season-long ban. That's a very big 'if' though.
What about the rules ?
The rules should probably get a season long ban too.
I wonder does Ivanovic have a laceration or a bruise?
Quote from: LeoMc on April 21, 2013, 10:18:49 PM
I wonder does Ivanovic have a laceration or a bruise?
The skin wasn't broken according to two Liverpool supporters at work, not sure if that helps you though!
Quote from: LeoMc on April 21, 2013, 10:18:49 PM
I wonder does Ivanovic have a laceration or a bruise?
Neither! According to the Irish Times today, there was no mark left.
Was O'Briens appeal not supposed to be last night? Not much word of it if so.
Case dismissed.....................................The supposed bite mark\bruise did not match the teeth mould of the player Mc Brearty accused
Disgraceful lies from the donegal camp
Christ I thought you were taking the piss squire. Seriously, has it been dropped?
There's no way a player invented this, got his team to back him, called in the other teams doctor to see the evidence, have the GAA review the case and decide there was enough to charge the player, for it to have been made up. But if this is the case (which it isn't) then I hope to see Donegal being reprimanded now?? One side must be right after all. Or has everyone agreed to sweep it under the carpet??
Quote from: haranguerer on April 26, 2013, 07:42:15 AM
Christ I thought you were taking the piss squire. Seriously, has it been dropped?
There's no way a player invented this, got his team to back him, called in the other teams doctor to see the evidence, have the GAA review the case and decide there was enough to charge the player, for it to have been made up. But if this is the case (which it isn't) then I hope to see Donegal being reprimanded now?? One side must be right after all. Or has everyone agreed to sweep it under the carpet??
No-one has swept anything under the carpet.
There is one side right all right. And how do you know what happened anyway? Did you see it?- no you didn't
So if I were you I'd keep my opinions to myself lest you look like a complete plonker later on.
Quote from: haranguerer on April 26, 2013, 07:42:15 AM
Christ I thought you were taking the piss squire. Seriously, has it been dropped?
There's no way a player invented this, got his team to back him, called in the other teams doctor to see the evidence, have the GAA review the case and decide there was enough to charge the player, for it to have been made up. But if this is the case (which it isn't) then I hope to see Donegal being reprimanded now?? One side must be right after all. Or has everyone agreed to sweep it under the carpet??
There's lots of rumours going around, most of them untrue I'd guess. Would they really have done a teeth mould and compare it to the wound? - Personally I don't believe that.
Other rumours going around was that the Times had named the wrong player - again I don't believe that. As an aside it is strange that the Times are the only ones (I think) to have named him (on two separate occassions), but in their article today they talked about the incident without naming him.
The one I've heard most is that McBrearty wants nothing to do with the case, and the reason the hearing has been put back from Monday to Wednesday then to Thursday was that people were trying to persuade him to take part. Again, all rumours, I don't know any facts.
The secrecy around what exactly is going on is very puzzling to me.
The whole thing really is strange and I am particular surprised by how no statement has come out from Donegal or especially McGuinness.
So from what we know, is it fair to say that there was bite marks but we don't know from who and that McBrearty isn't keen to name the player involved. Is that where its at?
It's probably not a good thing to have hanging over McBrearty going into the Tyrone game so you'd imagine he wants closure on it one way or the other.
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 26, 2013, 10:40:55 AM
The whole thing really is strange and I am particular surprised by how no statement has come out from Donegal or especially McGuinness.
So from what we know, is it fair to say that there was bite marks but we don't know from who and that McBrearty isn't keen to name the player involved. Is that where its at?
It's probably not a good thing to have hanging over McBrearty going into the Tyrone game so you'd imagine he wants closure on it one way or the other.
How do you know there were bite marks?
I didn't see them myself Indi but that's what I'm digging to confirm from what we've been told so far.
Did the Donegal doctor or board not say they have photo graphs showing a bite mark or did they just say they've photos showing a bruise/laceration/whatever?
I'm just trying to get an understanding for where are we all at in our beliefs to what has been actually established?
So from your reply I take it you're not convinced there was even a bite at all, is that right or are you just being cautious?
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 10:49:56 AM
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 26, 2013, 10:40:55 AM
The whole thing really is strange and I am particular surprised by how no statement has come out from Donegal or especially McGuinness.
So from what we know, is it fair to say that there was bite marks but we don't know from who and that McBrearty isn't keen to name the player involved. Is that where its at?
It's probably not a good thing to have hanging over McBrearty going into the Tyrone game so you'd imagine he wants closure on it one way or the other.
How do you know there were bite marks?
I would think that the fact that the CCCC said there was a case to answer must have been based on some kind of conclusive evidence. Someone should obviously have made sure McBrearty was willing to see it through though, if that is why the case was dismissed.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 10:49:56 AM
Quote from: Fuzzman on April 26, 2013, 10:40:55 AM
The whole thing really is strange and I am particular surprised by how no statement has come out from Donegal or especially McGuinness.
So from what we know, is it fair to say that there was bite marks but we don't know from who and that McBrearty isn't keen to name the player involved. Is that where its at?
It's probably not a good thing to have hanging over McBrearty going into the Tyrone game so you'd imagine he wants closure on it one way or the other.
How do you know there were bite marks?
QuoteThe GAA's Central Competition Controls Committee have initiated an investigation into the allegations made that Donegal forward Paddy McBrearty was bitten in Sunday's Division 1 clash with Dublin in Ballybofey.
The CCCC have been in contact with Donegal, looking for any evidence or information they might have in relation to the claims made at half-time and full-time by Donegal officials that one of their players had sustained a laceration to his shoulder which subsequently required hospital examination in Letterkenny.
Quote
It is believed that Donegal have photographs showing the wound in question just after the game and will also be able to draw on reports from the examination conducted by their own medical personnel and from the hospital.
McBrearty had a number of precautionary injections on Sunday night.
Donegal officials reported the alleged incident to referee Padraig Hughes at the interval, while his replacement Michael Duffy was also informed at the end of the match.
That detail subsequently made its way into the official report on the match and this is what has triggered the probe.
It is understood that McBrearty himself is not keen to press the matter and wants to put it behind him as he prepares for tonight's Ulster U-21 final against Cavan in Enniskillen.
Dublin chairman Andy Kettle confirmed yesterday that a member of their medical staff was invited into the Donegal dressing-room to examine McBrearty. Kettle said the medic had suggested that, in his estimation, it was "a bruise, not a laceration."
Kettle also expressed his disappointment that Donegal had not made direct contact with Dublin County Board on the matter and he disputed that there had been contact with the Dublin management on the day of the game.
"I have spoken to Jim Gavin and he was not made aware of it by his counterpart or any of the Donegal management team," said Kettle.
"That is the point I would take issue with in radio reports at the moment that the Dublin management team were informed.
"The Dublin management team, to my knowledge, were not informed."
I'm not saying I know what's gone on but Donegal said they had evidence. If you have more information Indiana why don't you just let us know what the story is?!
I'm just curious but are some of ye Dublin lads still wondering was the whole thing made up or in some way staged and that no Dublin player did anything?
Or would ye admit that something took place caused by a Dublin player but proving who is the issue at hand?
Don't know what the story is but the lads on reservoirdubs are adamant that this has been one big farce. The recent posts of Indiana would seem to reflect this here so if true Donegal are going to come out of this very badly, as will the GAA.
This is a really strange case and one that seems to have been badly handled by the GAA whatever the truth.
Jimmy's winning mindgames.
Losing this one.....badly, if rumours are true.
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 12:23:45 PM
Losing this one.....badly, if rumours are true.
Hopefully.
Dublin's Kevin O'Brien will not face any sanction over allegations he had bitten Donegal's Paddy McBrearty during a recent NFL Division One match in Ballybofey.
The Dublin defender was cleared at a hearing of the GAA's Central Hearings Committee at Croke Park last night with the case against O'Brien "not proven".
The Central Competitions Control Committee (CCCC) had initially proposed a three-match suspension for O'Brien following allegations from Donegal. However, the 2012 under-21 All-Ireland winning captain immediately indicated his intention to contest the ban and following last night's hearing he will be free to play in Sunday's Division One league final against Tyrone
"Following a meeting of An Lár Choiste Éisteachta, it was decided that on the basis of the evidence provided and the submissions made on behalf of both parties, the infraction against Kevin O'Brien (Dublin) as alleged was not proven," the GAA explained in a statement this morning, "and that the disciplinary action against the defending party is at an end."
So there wasn't as much concrete evidence as Donegal had reckoned.
Embarassing end to the matter.
Think this has backfired on Donegal.
Whether it serves it's intended purpose we must wait and see.
What's its "intended purpose"?
The case was not proven, as some of us said would be very hard to do. Those hinting at dirty tricks and malice should grow to f**k up.
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 12:41:11 PM
What's its "intended purpose"?
One thing is for sure, it wasn't to maintain the sporting nature of our games or ensure players didn't behave in an unsporting manner.
Funny how the County Secretary who has been singing like a canary for the last few weeks was so silent ahead of Connolly's hearing in 2011 after he was sent off when the Donegal player feigned injury.
If there was something to it and it just couldn't be proven then it's just one of those things. If however, Donegal were lying to push an agenda of some sort (to perhaps gain a competitive edge???) as is being subtly suggested then their management have serious questions to answer and they need to answer them.
I'd love to know what's gone here as it's beginning to stink to high heaven.
This is all very strange......
I cannot help thinking back to the infamous John Finn episode where Finn had his jaw broken by nobody.
QuoteThose hinting at dirty tricks and malice should grow to f**k up.
Really? Do you know there wasn't dirty tricks?
As I said this is a bizarre case and something isn't right about it and all of signs are pointing to Donegal.
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 12:43:17 PM
Those hinting at dirty tricks and malice should grow to f**k up.
Exactly so ye should drop it
Quote from: heffo on April 26, 2013, 12:44:46 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 12:41:11 PM
What's its "intended purpose"?
One thing is for sure, it wasn't to maintain the sporting nature of our games or ensure players didn't behave in an unsporting manner.
Funny how the County Secretary who has been singing like a canary for the last few weeks was so silent ahead of Connolly's hearing in 2011 after he was sent off when the Donegal player feigned injury.
Yes, Boyle's dive was shameful.
Still doesn't tell us what you suppose the "intended purpose" of what happened here was.
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 12:47:38 PM
QuoteThose hinting at dirty tricks and malice should grow to f**k up.
Really? Do you know there wasn't dirty tricks?
As I said this is a bizarre case and something isn't right about it and all of signs are pointing to Donegal.
Just so we're clear.... Donegal made up the bite, told two different referees, showed the Dublin medic, had McBrearty sent to Letterkenny General Hospital for treatment and then provided the non-existent evidence to the CCCC, who, on consideration, reckoned a bite did in fact take place. Any other groups that collaborated in this plot that was concocted to benefit Donegal in some yet to be revealed way?
Quote from: heffo on April 26, 2013, 12:51:58 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 12:43:17 PM
Those hinting at dirty tricks and malice should grow to f**k up.
Exactly so ye should drop it
I ain't the one casting aspersions.
Maybe McBrearty hit O'Brien with his arm, and got teeth marks on his arm from it. A storm blew up, and McBrearty started to be embarassed, so refused to go along with the charge when it went to the Disciplinery process.
Or something.
Some of the conspiracy theories here are very entertaining.
Look, the truth of the matter is that we will never know what actually happened during that day. Neither will we know what evidence the CCCC considered because they won't tell us.
Everything else is just smoke & mirrors & does nobody any favours.
It's over, Just move on everyone, there is nothing to see here.
What I feel abou the whole thing is there seems to be an attitude of sweep it under the carpet and nothing to see here from Dublin. I suppose what annoys me about that is that I know if it had happened in the Tyrone game next month it would get a lot more attention I feel.
The lack of clear statements coming our of Donegal seem to have caused the most confusion over the alleged incident and so causes people to then question did anything untoward really happen at all.
Could it have been someone nipped McBrearty whilst on the ground or in a melee and so he wasn't sure himself what happened?
Anyway I'm happy to stop stirring now as I know I'm making a lot of ye anxious with my digging. ;D
From the Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/jim-gavin-says-dublin-not-distracted-by-investigation-of-mcbrearty-s-claim-1.1372848)
"I'm a Gael and what means most to me is what the Gaelic Athletic Association does and the whole bedrock of the association was founded on volunteerism."
After 28 minutes and over 3,000 words, Dublin manager Jim Gavin finally uttered that relatively juicy quote at yesterday's press conference ahead of Sunday's league final against Tyrone.
It's a well-worn reporter's trick; leave the question that is bound to antagonise until the fag end of the session.
Some context is needed. In Ballybofey on April 7th the previous two All-Ireland champions were slugging it out when an incident may or may not have occurred.
Donegal footballer Paddy McBrearty claims he was bitten. An investigation followed with the Central Competitions Control Committee subsequently recommending, on April 17th, a three-match suspension for a Dublin player who may or may not have appeared before the Central Hearings Committee last night.
The player involved is not the issue, rather the time lapse in dealing with the situation (it certainly didn't help the accused that Luis Suarez decided to chomp down on Branislav Ivanovic's arm last Sunday and that the, albeit professional, English FA had the case heard and decreed upon the Uruguayan within four days).
Disciplinary structures
The suggestion of introducing a citing commissioner, similar to rugby, prompted GAA director general Páraic Duffy to this week publicly refuse to compare the association's disciplinary structures with professional sporting bodies. Yesterday, when queried about the fact almost three weeks have elapsed since the alleged incident without a hearing (despite the recommended CCCC ban), Gavin rowed in behind Duffy's stance.
"The big thing with the Gaelic Athletic Association is that we're all volunteers, from most of the administrators to the players and the coaching and managerial staff," said Gavin. "So they are giving freely of their time for the process, so that just takes as long as it takes.
"Whatever about other sporting organisations that are professional, the way they do their business is of no real concern of mine.
"I'm a Gael," Jim Gavin proudly reminded the room, "and what means most to me is what the Gaelic Athletic Association does and the whole bedrock of the association was founded on volunteerism.
"It has been in the past and it always will be, and as I said I concur with the director general's statement that he's satisfied with the process and so am I."
More news on that ongoing disciplinary process is expected today.
Gavin will undoubtedly be asked about the issue once again after Sunday's National League final but he refused to comment on it yesterday, except when dismissing the notion that it has been a distraction for his players.
"Within Dublin, there are lots of distractions and as a player I would have been acutely aware of all the distractions that there are. Players do get accustomed to just getting inside the tent and focusing on the game."
No clue
That was the height of yesterday's 8am gathering, Gavin giving no clue to the make-up of his team. The strong silent type approach.
Tyrone, naturally, came up in conversation. "Mickey Harte feels numbers on jerseys are irrelevant, is that your philosophy as well?"
"It is, yeah. If I had my way, I'd list the team alphabetically but I think you might be disappointed."
"It's a game of football. In our sessions, there are specific things that defenders and forwards will do. But, generally, they all practise their score-taking in a session. I certainly believe that players who play in the full back line should be as confident in taking a score as those in the forward division."
Gavin was asked to elaborate on his decision to give International Rules captain, Stephen Cluxton, the Dublin armband.
"When Stephen joined the squad [IN 2001]I would have been still on it. . . I was very impressed with his attitude even then as a young guy.
"I was very impressed with how he handled himself as a captain of the compromise rules team. He sets very high standards for himself, both on and off the field, and he has continued to do that. That's what I want of a captain."
And that's what he ha
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 01:00:20 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 12:47:38 PM
QuoteThose hinting at dirty tricks and malice should grow to f**k up.
Really? Do you know there wasn't dirty tricks?
As I said this is a bizarre case and something isn't right about it and all of signs are pointing to Donegal.
Just so we're clear.... Donegal made up the bite, told two different referees, showed the Dublin medic, had McBrearty sent to Letterkenny General Hospital for treatment and then provided the non-existent evidence to the CCCC, who, on consideration, reckoned a bite did in fact take place. Any other groups that collaborated in this plot that was concocted to benefit Donegal in some yet to be revealed way?
As I said, this is a strange incident. But if there was a bite, medical professionals believed the marks seen on McBrearty were consistent with a bite, an individual was accused of causing the mark by biting and the CCCC felt he should be suspended as a result then why was the appeal successful?
I know GAA discipline can be a strange fish but Donegal made an accusation and then said little else once the storm was created. The accusation was a pretty serious one to make and I'd be interested to see if Donegal express disappointment with someone biting their player yet receiving no punishment.
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 02:05:44 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 01:00:20 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 12:47:38 PM
QuoteThose hinting at dirty tricks and malice should grow to f**k up.
Really? Do you know there wasn't dirty tricks?
As I said this is a bizarre case and something isn't right about it and all of signs are pointing to Donegal.
Just so we're clear.... Donegal made up the bite, told two different referees, showed the Dublin medic, had McBrearty sent to Letterkenny General Hospital for treatment and then provided the non-existent evidence to the CCCC, who, on consideration, reckoned a bite did in fact take place. Any other groups that collaborated in this plot that was concocted to benefit Donegal in some yet to be revealed way?
As I said, this is a strange incident. But if there was a bite, medical professionals believed the marks seen on McBrearty were consistent with a bite, an individual was accused of causing the mark by biting and the CCCC felt he should be suspended as a result then why was the appeal successful?
I know GAA discipline can be a strange fish but Donegal made an accusation and then said little else once the storm was created. The accusation was a pretty serious one to make and I'd be interested to see if Donegal express disappointment with someone biting their player yet receiving no punishment.
I've been saying all along that it would be very hard to prove and I was very surprised when the CCCC decided to recommend a ban. Whether McBrearty wouldn't pursue it or they just couldn't definitively prove that a particular individual did it (bite through jersey didn't leave that level of mark or maybe they didn't even look to match teeth - f**k it, if you want to join the dubs on the conspiracy trail, maybe they submitted a fraudulent bite cast! :P), it was always going to be a tough thing to pin on an individual in the absence of witnessing people or footage.
What's the lesson though? Should teams be afraid to bring this stuff to the attention of referees on the off chance that it might be a hard case to prove? Should they make players give official statements for the record, straight away, just in case they have second thoughts afterward?
The only thing worse for the Gaa, than a player biting a player, is justice not being done.
I have no idea what went on, both sides as far as I can see, simply dug in to their own vested interests without any concern for reputations or the game at large. This is a sad episode for the Gaa, at least soccer got their man and punished him.
If O'Brien wasn't involved then it is pathetic that he was banned, if another player was the culprit this makes the whole thing even worse. I really hope that the bite mark didn't match a mould statement isn't true. However if Donegal somehow invented this then that for me is actually the worst case scenario.
If Donegal invented it, how would have it made it past the CCCC with a recommendation for a severe penalty?
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 02:34:45 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 02:05:44 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 01:00:20 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 12:47:38 PM
QuoteThose hinting at dirty tricks and malice should grow to f**k up.
Really? Do you know there wasn't dirty tricks?
As I said this is a bizarre case and something isn't right about it and all of signs are pointing to Donegal.
Just so we're clear.... Donegal made up the bite, told two different referees, showed the Dublin medic, had McBrearty sent to Letterkenny General Hospital for treatment and then provided the non-existent evidence to the CCCC, who, on consideration, reckoned a bite did in fact take place. Any other groups that collaborated in this plot that was concocted to benefit Donegal in some yet to be revealed way?
As I said, this is a strange incident. But if there was a bite, medical professionals believed the marks seen on McBrearty were consistent with a bite, an individual was accused of causing the mark by biting and the CCCC felt he should be suspended as a result then why was the appeal successful?
I know GAA discipline can be a strange fish but Donegal made an accusation and then said little else once the storm was created. The accusation was a pretty serious one to make and I'd be interested to see if Donegal express disappointment with someone biting their player yet receiving no punishment.
I've been saying all along that it would be very hard to prove and I was very surprised when the CCCC decided to recommend a ban. Whether McBrearty wouldn't pursue it or they just couldn't definitively prove that a particular individual did it (bite through jersey didn't leave that level of mark or maybe they didn't even look to match teeth - f**k it, if you want to join the dubs on the conspiracy trail, maybe they submitted a fraudulent bite cast! :P), it was always going to be a tough thing to pin on an individual in the absence of witnessing people or footage.
What's the lesson though? Should teams be afraid to bring this stuff to the attention of referees on the off chance that it might be a hard case to prove? Should they make players give official statements for the record, straight away, just in case they have second thoughts afterward?
I really don't know what the lesson here is. Obviously all teams should be able to bring incidents to the attention of the ref if they feel it warrants it but this seems to be a very questionable incident. If there was enough evidence then someone should be suspended, if there wasn't then it should have been thrown out straight away. I understand the point Jim Gavin makes in relation to disciplinary processes in an amateur organisation but serious off the ball issues should be dealt with immediately to prevent rumours about amateur players/mentors growing within an information vacuum. This whole incident is a joke for all concerned and I just hope nobody was playing games here.
I think our attitude to sly sneaky behaviour and winning at all costs has ben steadily heading towards the gutter and all of us involved in the GAA might need to take a step back. If we have players biting to get a reaction or if management teams are looking to make mountains out of molehills to gain some edge for future games then we are moving ever further away from the finer ideals of sport. And I always believed that the GAA represented many of the most laudable ideals in sport, I'm not sure we do anymore.
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 03:09:02 PM
If Donegal invented it, how would have it made it past the CCCC with a recommendation for a severe penalty?
You need to take off the Donegal jersey.
Quote from: muppet on April 26, 2013, 03:20:46 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 03:09:02 PM
If Donegal invented it, how would have it made it past the CCCC with a recommendation for a severe penalty?
You need to take off the Donegal jersey.
Its a simple question. My affiliation is irrelevant.
If you entertain the idea that Donegal fabricated this, then what does that say about the CCCC?
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 03:56:50 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 26, 2013, 03:20:46 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 03:09:02 PM
If Donegal invented it, how would have it made it past the CCCC with a recommendation for a severe penalty?
You need to take off the Donegal jersey.
Its a simple question. My affiliation is irrelevant.
If you entertain the idea that Donegal fabricated this, then what does that say about the CCCC?
Conned by Donegal or conned by Dublin with a smart arsed defence.
Either way, some side has pulled the wool over their eyes and left a sour taste.
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.
Did O'Brien bite the Donegal lad or not?
The whole thing stinks. I can't look like a plonker later on heffo cos Im commenting on what weve been told.
Either someone bit, and wasnt punished, which would be disgraceful, or noone bit, and there were false accusations made - even worse. Either way, the GAA should be coming down like a ton of bricks on one or other.
Which leads to the third possibility, the most likely, that the GAA fucked the whole thing up, realised they had (prob cos dublin lawyer told them so tbh) , so had a chat with Donegal and Dublin and swept the whole thing under the carpet. Which is joke, albeit not an unexpected one
Quote from: haranguerer on April 26, 2013, 04:50:31 PM
The whole thing stinks. I can't look like a plonker later on heffo cos Im commenting on what weve been told.
Either someone bit, and wasnt punished, which would be disgraceful, or noone bit, and there were false accusations made - even worse. Either way, the GAA should be coming down like a ton of bricks on one or other.
But Noone wasn't even playing >:(
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 04:30:53 PM
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 enough 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.
That's a good point, bringing an allegation forward should only be done on the basis of very strong evidence because as you say we could end up with frivolous allegations clogging up the disciplinary bodies time which eventually get thrown out. It will be interesting to see if more details emerge in the coming days or weeks.
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 03:56:50 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 26, 2013, 03:20:46 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 03:09:02 PM
If Donegal invented it, how would have it made it past the CCCC with a recommendation for a severe penalty?
You need to take off the Donegal jersey.
Its a simple question. My affiliation is irrelevant.
If you entertain the idea that Donegal fabricated this, then what does that say about the CCCC?
The Gaa disciplinary has made twits of themselves. To date this footballer was 'guilty' and also the charges were 'not proven'. Which is it?
I have heard some interesting stuff today which, if true, makes a joke of the whole thing. Did anyone else hear the rumour that there were no teethmarks?
Quote from: muppet on April 26, 2013, 05:48:35 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 03:56:50 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 26, 2013, 03:20:46 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 03:09:02 PM
If Donegal invented it, how would have it made it past the CCCC with a recommendation for a severe penalty?
You need to take off the Donegal jersey.
Its a simple question. My affiliation is irrelevant.
If you entertain the idea that Donegal fabricated this, then what does that say about the CCCC?
Did anyone else hear the rumour that there were no teethmarks?
Yes. It's perfectly acceptable to make an allegation and leak a players name to the press though with zero proof.
Quote from: orangeman on April 26, 2013, 05:27:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 04:30:53 PM
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.
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
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 06:01:18 PM
Quote from: orangeman on April 26, 2013, 05:27:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 04:30:53 PM
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.
Quote from: heffo on April 26, 2013, 06:04:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 06:01:18 PM
Quote from: orangeman on April 26, 2013, 05:27:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 04:30:53 PM
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?
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 06:05:58 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 26, 2013, 06:04:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 06:01:18 PM
Quote from: orangeman on April 26, 2013, 05:27:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 04:30:53 PM
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?
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
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
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.
Quote from: heffo on April 26, 2013, 06:53:37 PM
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
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.
A complete shambles! The only winners are the Media who will milk another story or three out of it yet!
If somebody bit you on the arse you would know who it was wouldnt you?????????????
Quote from: heffo on April 26, 2013, 06:27:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 06:05:58 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 26, 2013, 06:04:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 06:01:18 PM
Quote from: orangeman on April 26, 2013, 05:27:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 04:30:53 PM
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?
Quote from: RMDrive on April 26, 2013, 06:56:13 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 26, 2013, 06:53:37 PM
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
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?
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
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.
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
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.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 07:59:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
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!
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 08:07:49 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 07:59:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
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!
Of an allegation that has proven to be false.
Hard to know what credibility donegal have left to be honest.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 07:59:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
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.
Donegal notified the ref about this at halftime when leadin he game. Never once did they name the player in reports I've seen. The only people who need take a long look at themselves is the cccc for applying the ban on obrien
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 08:19:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 08:07:49 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 07:59:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
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!
Of an allegation that has proven to be false.
Hard to know what credibility donegal have left to be honest.
Proven false where?
Quote from: donegal lad on April 26, 2013, 08:21:01 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 07:59:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
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.
Donegal notified the ref about this at halftime when leadin he game. Never once did they name the player in reports I've seen. The only people who need take a long look at themselves is the cccc for applying the ban on obrien
True for applying a ban for no evidence.
Then again we could also look back the trail and ask what was the evidence?
Because there was none.
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 08:26:30 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 08:19:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 08:07:49 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 07:59:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
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!
Of an allegation that has proven to be false.
Hard to know what credibility donegal have left to be honest.
Proven false where?
Our player has been cleared fully.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 08:28:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 08:26:30 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 08:19:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 08:07:49 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 07:59:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
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!
Of an allegation that has proven to be false.
Hard to know what credibility donegal have left to be honest.
Proven false where?
Our player has been cleared fully.
Does not mean the bite didn't happen.
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 08:29:49 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 08:28:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 08:26:30 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 08:19:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 08:07:49 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 07:59:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
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!
Of an allegation that has proven to be false.
Hard to know what credibility donegal have left to be honest.
Proven false where?
Our player has been cleared fully.
Does not mean the bite didn't happen.
There was no evidence it did happen.
If there had been the verdict would be different.
Hard to know where you go from here.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 08:32:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 08:29:49 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 08:28:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 08:26:30 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 08:19:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 08:07:49 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 07:59:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2013, 06:52:18 PM
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!
Of an allegation that has proven to be false.
Hard to know what credibility donegal have left to be honest.
Proven false where?
Our player has been cleared fully.
Does not mean the bite didn't happen.
There was no evidence it did happen.
If there had been the verdict would be different.
Hard to know where you go from here.
The verdict was "not proven". In reference to whether O'Brien bit McBrearty. Not "there was no bite".
Let's say there was only one or two cameras, not 26, at Anfield on Sunday and they didn't pick up Suarez's bite. No one else noticed, following the game action instead. Ivanovic had no marks, as was the case. Would he and Chelsea be liars and cheats for bringing it to the referee's attention, as some here are claiming of Donegal?
So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 09:59:00 PM
So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?
I haven't said a word about O'Brien.
The question was about the claims that Donegal and McBrearty made it up.
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 09:59:00 PM
So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?
I haven't said a word about O'Brien.
The question was about the claims that Donegal and McBrearty made it up.
You said if Chelsea claimed Suarez's bit their player, and since O'Brien was accused I presume he had an accuser, that Suarez might have appealed his suspension (like O'Brien) if there were only 2 cameras present and he was confident he wasn't caught by either camera. So Suarez was guilty but he wasn't caught due to lack of cameras and that this is what actually happened with O'Brien.
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 09:53:15 PM
Let's say there was only one or two cameras, not 26, at Anfield on Sunday and they didn't pick up Suarez's bite. No one else noticed, following the game action instead. Ivanovic had no marks, as was the case. Would he and Chelsea be liars and cheats for bringing it to the referee's attention, as some here are claiming of Donegal?
I'm very comfortable stating there has been some appalling lies in this case.
Appalling.
As far as I'm concerned Donegal ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves.
I don't imagine for one second that someone has made up an allegation that they were bitten by a Dublin player. I cannot accept that.
That the process that followed turned into a shambles is not the fault of either county.
But I'm still pretty sure someone was bitten.
Quote from: stephenite on April 26, 2013, 10:33:59 PM
I don't imagine for one second that someone has made up an allegation that they were bitten by a Dublin player. I cannot accept that.
That the process that followed turned into a shambles is not the fault of either county.
But I'm still pretty sure someone was bitten.
Conjecture.
Utterly zero evidence to support that
Do you believe in the Twilight Zone as a matter of interest? No evidence to support that either.
Seems simple, if McBearty was bitten he should have a mark. It was reported that it needed medical attention at half time so then I'd assume Donegal were smart enough to go along and photograph the evidence if they were going to take this all the way to the CCC.
That said I believe McBearty was bitten, don't know how or why you'd fabricate an allegation and why a medical professional would stake his profession for it.
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 10:14:16 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 09:59:00 PM
So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?
I haven't said a word about O'Brien.
The question was about the claims that Donegal and McBrearty made it up.
You said if Chelsea claimed Suarez's bit their player, and since O'Brien was accused I presume he had an accuser, that Suarez might have appealed his suspension (like O'Brien) if there were only 2 cameras present and he was confident he wasn't caught by either camera. So Suarez was guilty but he wasn't caught due to lack of cameras and that this is what actually happened with O'Brien.
I didn't say that was what happened with O'Brien. I personally think it the most likely of the possible scenarios, but as there is no proof, my personal opinion is beside the point.
My point is that just because the case could not be proven against O'Brien, it doesn't mean that there was no bite and that McBrearty and Donegal are lying, despite the ludicrous hyperbole from the likes of Indiana. It is perfectly possible that O'Brien or (in a case of mistaken identity) someone else bit McBrearty, but with a completely understandable lack of conclusive evidence (Suarez didn't even leave a mark!), the case couldn't be proven. How do you prove a bite without taking casts and matching them to teethmarks in the flesh or having picture evidence of the incident? The fault here is with the CCCC if they moved solely on what the referee had in his report.
Indiana is proposing that Donegal made up the bite, told lies to two referees at half time and at the end of the game, showed the Dublin medic a fraudulent mark, and took McBrearty to hospital for injections and documentation of a bite that wasn't there. And all for what? Just so they could get some (at this point) obscure Dublin player in trouble? Sorry, but is just ridiculous and all his grandstanding and bravado doesn't make it any less so.
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 10:59:15 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 10:14:16 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 09:59:00 PM
So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?
I haven't said a word about O'Brien.
The question was about the claims that Donegal and McBrearty made it up.
You said if Chelsea claimed Suarez's bit their player, and since O'Brien was accused I presume he had an accuser, that Suarez might have appealed his suspension (like O'Brien) if there were only 2 cameras present and he was confident he wasn't caught by either camera. So Suarez was guilty but he wasn't caught due to lack of cameras and that this is what actually happened with O'Brien.
With a completely understandable lack of conclusive evidence (Suarez didn't even leave a mark!), the case couldn't be proven.
Conclusive evidence? Never mind conclusive evidence, what evidence at all was there?
Quote from: heffo on April 26, 2013, 11:06:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 10:59:15 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 10:14:16 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 09:59:00 PM
So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?
I haven't said a word about O'Brien.
The question was about the claims that Donegal and McBrearty made it up.
You said if Chelsea claimed Suarez's bit their player, and since O'Brien was accused I presume he had an accuser, that Suarez might have appealed his suspension (like O'Brien) if there were only 2 cameras present and he was confident he wasn't caught by either camera. So Suarez was guilty but he wasn't caught due to lack of cameras and that this is what actually happened with O'Brien.
With a completely understandable lack of conclusive evidence (Suarez didn't even leave a mark!), the case couldn't be proven.
Conclusive evidence? Never mind conclusive evidence, what evidence at all was there?
Well I don't know.
I'd assumed the ref's report and whatever documentary evidence Donegal provided, which in the end couldn't be conclusively linked to O'Brien (as I and others had predicted a couple of weeks ago).
You boys are claiming referee's word alone, so I'm taking your word for it.
If there was NO evidence, please explain the CCCC's original decision?
I understand what you're saying and I agree, it does sound unlikely that Donegal lied about it all but I do think Donegal have questions to answer here and I'd be as doubtful about your suggestion that O'Brien or any other Dublin player bit McBrearty and are barefacedly chancing their arm in getting away with it. This would mean all involved in Dublin GAA are supporting a player who bit another player on the chance that Donegal hadn't proof he did it, that also seems unlikely.
Bottom line here is one county (at least) have shamed themselves and the CCCC have brought the GAA into disrepute by proposing a ban when it appears no concrete evidence existed to warrant it.
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 11:09:58 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 26, 2013, 11:06:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 10:59:15 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 10:14:16 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 09:59:00 PM
So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?
I haven't said a word about O'Brien.
The question was about the claims that Donegal and McBrearty made it up.
You said if Chelsea claimed Suarez's bit their player, and since O'Brien was accused I presume he had an accuser, that Suarez might have appealed his suspension (like O'Brien) if there were only 2 cameras present and he was confident he wasn't caught by either camera. So Suarez was guilty but he wasn't caught due to lack of cameras and that this is what actually happened with O'Brien.
With a completely understandable lack of conclusive evidence (Suarez didn't even leave a mark!), the case couldn't be proven.
Conclusive evidence? Never mind conclusive evidence, what evidence at all was there?
Well I don't know.
I'd assumed the ref's report and whatever documentary evidence Donegal provided, which in the end couldn't be conclusively linked to O'Brien (as I and others had predicted a couple of weeks ago).
You boys are claiming referee's word alone, so I'm taking your word for it.
If there was NO evidence, please explain the CCCC's original decision?
Evidence = refs report which equals Donegal Secretary telling him a player was bitten. One doctor saying there was a bite mark, another saying there was a bruise no different to the bruises on a dozen other players playing a contact sport.
Why the CCCC proposed a suspension which they had to know would be overturned is beyond me, I can only suggest media pressure.
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 11:11:38 PM
I understand what you're saying and I agree, it does sound unlikely that Donegal lied about it all but I do think Donegal have questions to answer here and I'd be as doubtful about your suggestion that O'Brien or any other Dublin player bit McBrearty and are barefacedly chancing their arm in getting away with it. This would mean all involved in Dublin GAA are supporting a player who bit another player on the chance that Donegal hadn't proof he did it, that also seems unlikely.
Bottom line here is one county (at least) have shamed themselves and the CCCC have brought the GAA into disrepute by proposing a ban when it appears no concrete evidence existed to warrant it.
To put this in context, when a member of the Dublin backroom team got involved with a member of the Monaghan team in 2008 and there were no witnesses, the Management committee in the county willingly named the person, accepted the sanction and didn't try to get the person off.
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 11:11:38 PM
I understand what you're saying and I agree, it does sound unlikely that Donegal lied about it all but I do think Donegal have questions to answer here and I'd be as doubtful about your suggestion that O'Brien or any other Dublin player bit McBrearty and are barefacedly chancing their arm in getting away with it. This would mean all involved in Dublin GAA are supporting a player who bit another player on the chance that Donegal hadn't proof he did it, that also seems unlikely.
Bottom line here is one county (at least) have shamed themselves and the CCCC have brought the GAA into disrepute by proposing a ban when it appears no concrete evidence existed to warrant it.
Its not beyond the realms of possibility that the bite happened on the ground and no one else saw it and thus no one is covering for the offender. Its perfectly plausible that the offender and the CCCC and not the respective counties are the ones at fault. I don't really give too much of a bollocks about the bite itself anyway - its not like he caught him with a blind hook and broke his jaw or something. My issue is with the maligning of Donegal just because the verdict came out as it did. It doesn't support that.
Quote from: heffo on April 26, 2013, 11:17:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 11:09:58 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 26, 2013, 11:06:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 10:59:15 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 10:14:16 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 09:59:00 PM
So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?
I haven't said a word about O'Brien.
The question was about the claims that Donegal and McBrearty made it up.
You said if Chelsea claimed Suarez's bit their player, and since O'Brien was accused I presume he had an accuser, that Suarez might have appealed his suspension (like O'Brien) if there were only 2 cameras present and he was confident he wasn't caught by either camera. So Suarez was guilty but he wasn't caught due to lack of cameras and that this is what actually happened with O'Brien.
With a completely understandable lack of conclusive evidence (Suarez didn't even leave a mark!), the case couldn't be proven.
Conclusive evidence? Never mind conclusive evidence, what evidence at all was there?
Well I don't know.
I'd assumed the ref's report and whatever documentary evidence Donegal provided, which in the end couldn't be conclusively linked to O'Brien (as I and others had predicted a couple of weeks ago).
You boys are claiming referee's word alone, so I'm taking your word for it.
If there was NO evidence, please explain the CCCC's original decision?
Evidence = refs report which equals Donegal Secretary telling him a player was bitten. One doctor saying there was a bite mark, another saying there was a bruise no different to the bruises on a dozen other players playing a contact sport.
Why the CCCC proposed a suspension which they had to know would be overturned is beyond me, I can only suggest media pressure.
No argument with that.
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 11:24:57 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 11:11:38 PM
I understand what you're saying and I agree, it does sound unlikely that Donegal lied about it all but I do think Donegal have questions to answer here and I'd be as doubtful about your suggestion that O'Brien or any other Dublin player bit McBrearty and are barefacedly chancing their arm in getting away with it. This would mean all involved in Dublin GAA are supporting a player who bit another player on the chance that Donegal hadn't proof he did it, that also seems unlikely.
Bottom line here is one county (at least) have shamed themselves and the CCCC have brought the GAA into disrepute by proposing a ban when it appears no concrete evidence existed to warrant it.
Its not beyond the realms of possibility that the bite happened on the ground and no one else saw it and thus no one is covering for the offender. Its perfectly plausible that the offender and the CCCC and not the respective counties are the ones at fault. I don't really give too much of a bollocks about the bite itself anyway - its not like he caught him with a blind hook and broke his jaw or something. My issue is with the maligning of Donegal just because the verdict came out as it did. It doesn't support that.
Well there is no doubt that the CCCC come out of this badly whatever the truth. They've managed the not inconsiderable of feat of letting down both counties, the GAA and everyone with any interest in this. However, if there was a bite then someone on the Dublin panel either admitted to it and was told to keep quite by Dublin GAA and take his chance or else he lied about what happened and Dublin GAA felt his words was enough to go to bast for. Neither seem likely to me, the first seems very unlikely and I'd be very surprised if a guilty player lied to all in Dublin GAA in this era of camera phones etc., if he was caught out he'd never play for Dublin again whereas if he bit and was found guilty he'd just miss a few games and probably told to cop himself on.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 10:36:37 PM
Quote from: stephenite on April 26, 2013, 10:33:59 PM
I don't imagine for one second that someone has made up an allegation that they were bitten by a Dublin player. I cannot accept that.
That the process that followed turned into a shambles is not the fault of either county.
But I'm still pretty sure someone was bitten.
Conjecture.
Utterly zero evidence to support that
Do you believe in the Twilight Zone as a matter of interest? No evidence to support that either.
Hiding behind some basic legal principles will not change my opinion that there was a bite. It is only my opinion, but it's more likely an offence was committed than an allegation being made up in my view. I would say the same regardless of what teams were involved.
Quote from: stephenite on April 26, 2013, 11:58:41 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 10:36:37 PM
Quote from: stephenite on April 26, 2013, 10:33:59 PM
I don't imagine for one second that someone has made up an allegation that they were bitten by a Dublin player. I cannot accept that.
That the process that followed turned into a shambles is not the fault of either county.
But I'm still pretty sure someone was bitten.
Conjecture.
Utterly zero evidence to support that
Do you believe in the Twilight Zone as a matter of interest? No evidence to support that either.
Hiding behind some basic legal principles will not change my opinion that there was a bite. It is only my opinion, but it's more likely an offence was committed than an allegation being made up in my view. I would say the same regardless of what teams were involved.
No you wouldn't you'd only say that if Dublin were involved and you know it.
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 11:09:58 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 26, 2013, 11:06:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 10:59:15 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 10:14:16 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 26, 2013, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 26, 2013, 09:59:00 PM
So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?
I haven't said a word about O'Brien.
The question was about the claims that Donegal and McBrearty made it up.
You said if Chelsea claimed Suarez's bit their player, and since O'Brien was accused I presume he had an accuser, that Suarez might have appealed his suspension (like O'Brien) if there were only 2 cameras present and he was confident he wasn't caught by either camera. So Suarez was guilty but he wasn't caught due to lack of cameras and that this is what actually happened with O'Brien.
With a completely understandable lack of conclusive evidence (Suarez didn't even leave a mark!), the case couldn't be proven.
Conclusive evidence? Never mind conclusive evidence, what evidence at all was there?
Well I don't know.
I'd assumed the ref's report and whatever documentary evidence Donegal provided, which in the end couldn't be conclusively linked to O'Brien (as I and others had predicted a couple of weeks ago).
You boys are claiming referee's word alone, so I'm taking your word for it.
If there was NO evidence, please explain the CCCC's original decision?
Whatever Donegal provided it certainly wasn't evidence.
Because if it was he'd be banned.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 27, 2013, 12:03:08 AM
Quote from: stephenite on April 26, 2013, 11:58:41 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 10:36:37 PM
Quote from: stephenite on April 26, 2013, 10:33:59 PM
I don't imagine for one second that someone has made up an allegation that they were bitten by a Dublin player. I cannot accept that.
That the process that followed turned into a shambles is not the fault of either county.
But I'm still pretty sure someone was bitten.
Conjecture.
Utterly zero evidence to support that
Do you believe in the Twilight Zone as a matter of interest? No evidence to support that either.
Hiding behind some basic legal principles will not change my opinion that there was a bite. It is only my opinion, but it's more likely an offence was committed than an allegation being made up in my view. I would say the same regardless of what teams were involved.
No you wouldn't you'd only say that if Dublin were involved and you know it.
Jesus get down off your high horse ya p***k.
According to the Examiner, the case couldn't be pursued because McBrearty wouldn't testify.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html)
Quote from: INDIANA on April 27, 2013, 12:03:08 AM
Quote from: stephenite on April 26, 2013, 11:58:41 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 26, 2013, 10:36:37 PM
Quote from: stephenite on April 26, 2013, 10:33:59 PM
I don't imagine for one second that someone has made up an allegation that they were bitten by a Dublin player. I cannot accept that.
That the process that followed turned into a shambles is not the fault of either county.
But I'm still pretty sure someone was bitten.
Conjecture.
Utterly zero evidence to support that
Do you believe in the Twilight Zone as a matter of interest? No evidence to support that either.
Hiding behind some basic legal principles will not change my opinion that there was a bite. It is only my opinion, but it's more likely an offence was committed than an allegation being made up in my view. I would say the same regardless of what teams were involved.
No you wouldn't you'd only say that if Dublin were involved and you know it.
Absolute rubbish
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 03:42:43 AM
According to the Examiner, the case couldn't be pursued because McBrearty wouldn't testify.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html)
Does that not lay the blame for this fiasco at the feet of Donegal? Why would McBrearty not attend a disciplinary meeting if O'Brien bit him and received a 3 match ban, surely he'd be happy to see someone punished so it wouldn't happen again and the punishment isn't so severe that he should harbour any guilty about a fellow player?
While that article contradicts the previous line that there was no evidence it doesn't make the case any less strange or explain Donegal's role in this fiasco.
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 07:25:07 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 03:42:43 AM
According to the Examiner, the case couldn't be pursued because McBrearty wouldn't testify.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html)
Does that not lay the blame for this fiasco at the feet of Donegal? Why would McBrearty not attend a disciplinary meeting if O'Brien bit him and received a 3 match ban, surely he'd be happy to see someone punished so it wouldn't happen again and the punishment isn't so severe that he should harbour any guilty about a fellow player?
While that article contradicts the previous line that there was no evidence it doesn't make the case any less strange or explain Donegal's role in this fiasco.
Ah Zulu in fairness .... if this article is correct, it suggests that the only reason KOB got away with it is because Paddy didn't turn up. An attempt to read this piece as something that blames Donegal is crazy.
"... the fact that the CCCC accepted the substantive charge of biting, and the CHC has had to quash the ban based on a technicality."Why would he not turn up? Who knows. Maybe he felt that his part in it had been done already and didn't want to waste any more of his time on it? Maybe he couldn't be arsed travelling to Dublin on a Thursday evening? Maybe he had training? Maybe KOB or someone else from the Dublin setup contacted him and asked him not to attend?
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 07:25:07 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 03:42:43 AM
According to the Examiner, the case couldn't be pursued because McBrearty wouldn't testify.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html)
While that article contradicts the previous line that there was no evidence it doesn't make the case any less strange or explain Donegal's role in this fiasco.
Sorry Zulu it certainly does not.
The 'evidence' is exactly as I stated
I'm certainly not trying to blame anyone RM but this whole thing seems very strange. Why would Dublin appeal if there was evidence of biting? It would seem a risky thing to do in an era where hundreds of phone cameras would have been at the game and it would mean Dublin GAA condoned this behaviour. It's not like this is Bernard brogan and he might miss an AI final. Risking dublin's GAA reputation over this seems unlikely to me.
I don't think any of the reasons you propose for McBrearty to miss the hearing hold much water either to be fair. He would surely have been told o'brien would get off if he didn't attend so I doubt Donegal GAA would accept him not turning up for such a high profile case.
IMO none of this makes sense and I'd doubt very much the truth is as simple as O'Brien biting McBrearty and McBrearty not going to the hearing due to to training or whatever.
Quote from: heffo on April 27, 2013, 08:33:23 AM
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 07:25:07 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 03:42:43 AM
According to the Examiner, the case couldn't be pursued because McBrearty wouldn't testify.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html)
While that article contradicts the previous line that there was no evidence it doesn't make the case any less strange or explain Donegal's role in this fiasco.
Sorry Zulu it certainly does not.
The 'evidence' is exactly as I stated
In a surprise move, Heffo sticks to his story ::)
Quote from: heffo on April 27, 2013, 08:33:23 AM
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 07:25:07 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 03:42:43 AM
According to the Examiner, the case couldn't be pursued because McBrearty wouldn't testify.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html)
While that article contradicts the previous line that there was no evidence it doesn't make the case any less strange or explain Donegal's role in this fiasco.
Sorry Zulu it certainly does not.
The 'evidence' is exactly as I stated
So the CCCC didn't accept there was a bite, is that what you're saying heffo?
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 08:46:40 AM
Quote from: heffo on April 27, 2013, 08:33:23 AM
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 07:25:07 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 03:42:43 AM
According to the Examiner, the case couldn't be pursued because McBrearty wouldn't testify.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html)
While that article contradicts the previous line that there was no evidence it doesn't make the case any less strange or explain Donegal's role in this fiasco.
Sorry Zulu it certainly does not.
The 'evidence' is exactly as I stated
So the CCCC didn't accept there was a bite, is that what you're saying heffo?
I've discussed their role already and speculated as to why they acted as they did
There was no evidence. Not a lack of evidence or anything else
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 08:43:38 AM
I'm certainly not trying to blame anyone RM but this whole thing seems very strange. Why would Dublin appeal if there was evidence of biting? It would seem a risky thing to do in an era where hundreds of phone cameras would have been at the game and it would mean Dublin GAA condoned this behaviour. It's not like this is Bernard brogan and he might miss an AI final. Risking dublin's GAA reputation over this seems unlikely to me.
I don't think any of the reasons you propose for McBrearty to miss the hearing hold much water either to be fair. He would surely have been told o'brien would get off if he didn't attend so I doubt Donegal GAA would accept him not turning up for such a high profile case.
IMO none of this makes sense and I'd doubt very much the truth is as simple as O'Brien biting McBrearty and McBrearty not going to the hearing due to to training or whatever.
Yeah, I suppose it's strange all right. But would he have been sure that O'Brien would have gotten off if he didn't go? Paddy is a young lad and is probably not enjoying the spotlight being on the event. Maybe he felt that he had done his part and from there it was up to the GAA to do what they would with it. I agree with you that the truth of the matter is probably not simple, but this report (if true) certainly doesn't diminish my belief that there was bite.
Forgive my ignorance but why did Paddy mc Brearty need to turn up ?
Quote from: orangeman on April 27, 2013, 09:01:09 AM
Forgive my ignorance but why did Paddy mc Brearty need to turn up ?
I looks like his evidence was at the heart of things and without it, it couldn't be proved that the bite was caused by O'Brien.
Quote from: heffo on April 27, 2013, 08:49:48 AM
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 08:46:40 AM
Quote from: heffo on April 27, 2013, 08:33:23 AM
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 07:25:07 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 03:42:43 AM
According to the Examiner, the case couldn't be pursued because McBrearty wouldn't testify.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html)
While that article contradicts the previous line that there was no evidence it doesn't make the case any less strange or explain Donegal's role in this fiasco.
Sorry Zulu it certainly does not.
The 'evidence' is exactly as I stated
So the CCCC didn't accept there was a bite, is that what you're saying heffo?
I've discussed their role already and speculated as to why they acted as they did
There was no evidence. Not a lack of evidence or anything else
That's a bit of double talk there heffo to be fair. Now I don't want to come on all Jeremy paxman on you but did the CCCC have evidence of a bite or not?
Quote from: orangeman on April 27, 2013, 09:01:09 AM
Forgive my ignorance but why did Paddy mc Brearty need to turn up ?
Because the allegation concerned him.
It was evident from early on he didn't want to appear.
And from that point onwards we all knew why.
I don't blame Mc Brearty -its very very obvious who is to blame for this in Donegal.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 27, 2013, 10:25:43 AM
Quote from: orangeman on April 27, 2013, 09:01:09 AM
Forgive my ignorance but why did Paddy mc Brearty need to turn up ?
Because the allegation concerned him.
It was evident from early on he didn't want to appear.
And from that point onwards we all knew why.
I don't blame Mc Brearty -its very very obvious who is to blame for this in Donegal.
;D Good man yourself.
Quote from: RMDrive on April 27, 2013, 08:16:42 AM
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 07:25:07 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 03:42:43 AM
According to the Examiner, the case couldn't be pursued because McBrearty wouldn't testify.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html)
Does that not lay the blame for this fiasco at the feet of Donegal? Why would McBrearty not attend a disciplinary meeting if O'Brien bit him and received a 3 match ban, surely he'd be happy to see someone punished so it wouldn't happen again and the punishment isn't so severe that he should harbour any guilty about a fellow player?
While that article contradicts the previous line that there was no evidence it doesn't make the case any less strange or explain Donegal's role in this fiasco.
Ah Zulu in fairness .... if this article is correct, it suggests that the only reason KOB got away with it is because Paddy didn't turn up. An attempt to read this piece as something that blames Donegal is crazy.
"... the fact that the CCCC accepted the substantive charge of biting, and the CHC has had to quash the ban based on a technicality."
Why would he not turn up? Who knows. Maybe he felt that his part in it had been done already and didn't want to waste any more of his time on it? Maybe he couldn't be arsed travelling to Dublin on a Thursday evening? Maybe he had training? Maybe KOB or someone else from the Dublin setup contacted him and asked him not to attend?
He is in college in Maynooth as far as I know.
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 07:25:07 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 03:42:43 AM
According to the Examiner, the case couldn't be pursued because McBrearty wouldn't testify.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html)
Does that not lay the blame for this fiasco at the feet of Donegal? Why would McBrearty not attend a disciplinary meeting if O'Brien bit him and received a 3 match ban, surely he'd be happy to see someone punished so it wouldn't happen again and the punishment isn't so severe that he should harbour any guilty about a fellow player?
While that article contradicts the previous line that there was no evidence it doesn't make the case any less strange or explain Donegal's role in this fiasco.
It seems pretty clear to me, and yes Donegal and/or the CCCC are at fault in that they went ahead without securing McBrearty's input. From the first days it was clear he wanted it left where it was and I can fully understand how a young lad of his age wouldn't want to pursue, maybe out of embarrassment, not wanting the press attention or even some stupid immature notion about being seen to "rat" on another player (yeah, he must have said who it was at the time, but that could simply be him telling Jim or the medic that "that f**ker bit me!" and wanting the wound seen to). I would think that they felt they'd be able to talk him into attending and so went along with the hearing. Its hardly the first time that a hearing, legal or otherwise, fell apart because one of the principals didn't want to pursue it.
Simplest explanation to me: there was a bite; McBrearty said to leave it at that; referees had to report it as they'd already told them; Donegal tried to get McBrearty to appear; he wouldn't; it fell apart. End of story.
All this will make for one hell of a game if Dublin and Donegal meet later in the year.
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 11:22:47 AM
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 07:25:07 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 03:42:43 AM
According to the Examiner, the case couldn't be pursued because McBrearty wouldn't testify.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html)
Does that not lay the blame for this fiasco at the feet of Donegal? Why would McBrearty not attend a disciplinary meeting if O'Brien bit him and received a 3 match ban, surely he'd be happy to see someone punished so it wouldn't happen again and the punishment isn't so severe that he should harbour any guilty about a fellow player?
While that article contradicts the previous line that there was no evidence it doesn't make the case any less strange or explain Donegal's role in this fiasco.
It seems pretty clear to me, and yes Donegal and/or the CCCC are at fault in that they went ahead without securing McBrearty's input. From the first days it was clear he wanted it left where it was and I can fully understand how a young lad of his age wouldn't want to pursue, maybe out of embarrassment, not wanting the press attention or even some stupid immature notion about being seen to "rat" on another player (yeah, he must have said who it was at the time, but that could simply be him telling Jim or the medic that "that f**ker bit me!" and wanting the wound seen to). I would think that they felt they'd be able to talk him into attending and so went along with the hearing. Its hardly the first time that a hearing, legal or otherwise, fell apart because one of the principals didn't want to pursue it.
Simplest explanation to me: there was a bite; McBrearty said to leave it at that; referees had to report it as they'd already told them; Donegal tried to get McBrearty to appear; he wouldn't; it fell apart. End of story.
Simple explanation for me would be the exact opposite.
Its the two players I feel sorry for.
One who did nothing wrong and will spend the rest of his days explaining an incident he never committed
The other having to go through with something he didn't feel comfortable with and again will have to answer the same questions in every interview he ever does.
Sad situation for both in my view.
Quote from: The Hill is Blue on April 27, 2013, 11:47:26 AM
All this will make for one hell of a game if Dublin and Donegal meet later in the year.
The journos will revel in it.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 27, 2013, 11:50:13 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 11:22:47 AM
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 07:25:07 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 03:42:43 AM
According to the Examiner, the case couldn't be pursued because McBrearty wouldn't testify.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html)
Does that not lay the blame for this fiasco at the feet of Donegal? Why would McBrearty not attend a disciplinary meeting if O'Brien bit him and received a 3 match ban, surely he'd be happy to see someone punished so it wouldn't happen again and the punishment isn't so severe that he should harbour any guilty about a fellow player?
While that article contradicts the previous line that there was no evidence it doesn't make the case any less strange or explain Donegal's role in this fiasco.
It seems pretty clear to me, and yes Donegal and/or the CCCC are at fault in that they went ahead without securing McBrearty's input. From the first days it was clear he wanted it left where it was and I can fully understand how a young lad of his age wouldn't want to pursue, maybe out of embarrassment, not wanting the press attention or even some stupid immature notion about being seen to "rat" on another player (yeah, he must have said who it was at the time, but that could simply be him telling Jim or the medic that "that f**ker bit me!" and wanting the wound seen to). I would think that they felt they'd be able to talk him into attending and so went along with the hearing. Its hardly the first time that a hearing, legal or otherwise, fell apart because one of the principals didn't want to pursue it.
Simplest explanation to me: there was a bite; McBrearty said to leave it at that; referees had to report it as they'd already told them; Donegal tried to get McBrearty to appear; he wouldn't; it fell apart. End of story.
Simple explanation for me would be the exact opposite.
Its the two players I feel sorry for.
One who did nothing wrong and will spend the rest of his days explaining an incident he never committed
The other having to go through with something he didn't feel comfortable with and again will have to answer the same questions in every interview he ever does.
Sad situation for both in my view.
Agree 100%
Quote from: INDIANA on April 27, 2013, 11:50:13 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 11:22:47 AM
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 07:25:07 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 27, 2013, 03:42:43 AM
According to the Examiner, the case couldn't be pursued because McBrearty wouldn't testify.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html)
Does that not lay the blame for this fiasco at the feet of Donegal? Why would McBrearty not attend a disciplinary meeting if O'Brien bit him and received a 3 match ban, surely he'd be happy to see someone punished so it wouldn't happen again and the punishment isn't so severe that he should harbour any guilty about a fellow player?
While that article contradicts the previous line that there was no evidence it doesn't make the case any less strange or explain Donegal's role in this fiasco.
It seems pretty clear to me, and yes Donegal and/or the CCCC are at fault in that they went ahead without securing McBrearty's input. From the first days it was clear he wanted it left where it was and I can fully understand how a young lad of his age wouldn't want to pursue, maybe out of embarrassment, not wanting the press attention or even some stupid immature notion about being seen to "rat" on another player (yeah, he must have said who it was at the time, but that could simply be him telling Jim or the medic that "that f**ker bit me!" and wanting the wound seen to). I would think that they felt they'd be able to talk him into attending and so went along with the hearing. Its hardly the first time that a hearing, legal or otherwise, fell apart because one of the principals didn't want to pursue it.
Simplest explanation to me: there was a bite; McBrearty said to leave it at that; referees had to report it as they'd already told them; Donegal tried to get McBrearty to appear; he wouldn't; it fell apart. End of story.
Simple explanation for me would be the exact opposite.
Its the two players I feel sorry for.
One who did nothing wrong and will spend the rest of his days explaining an incident he never committed
The other having to go through with something he didn't feel comfortable with and again will have to answer the same questions in every interview he ever does.
Sad situation for both in my view.
There's just too much conspiring and plotting and malice in your explanation for me to find it realistic or even plausible. But there's no point in going around in circles with this.
And yes, it will be tough for both players, at least for a while. Let's just hope, at least for their sake, that we don't meet in the championship this year!
Th whole thing doesn't add up to me. Mcbrearty plays football his whole life without much furore and then all of a sudden one match day he complains about being bitten. Why would he do that? It doesn't add up to me that he would make it up.
To add to that the complaint is made at half time when donegal are WINNING.
I know there would seem to be no evidence but put yourself in donegal's position. Your player accuses opposition of a disgusting act. N.b. i am not saying it did or did not happen when i use that comment. What do donegal do? Do they a) back their player or b) sweep it under the carpet? They have to back their player - simple as that.
Bear in mind that the gaa have just banned mckeever as what he said was "more likely to have happened than not have happened". How can you have faith in a system like that?
Indiana your cynicism of all things donegal has been evident for a long time now. You are constantly sniping about how they're average footballers etc and you clearly have it in for them. There are ins and outs to this case i don't think anyone knows but sure we'll just say they're all bare faced liars anyway ::)
Very strange that the dubs on here seem to want to pretend that nothing happened at all. There was a bite, it wouldn't have been made up.
I think dublin came out of this fairly badly as well, as their player should have been made to own up much sooner. The fact that paddy didn't want the hassle of going to the hearing has let the dublin guy off, which is a shame as any kind of behaviour like this needs stamped out
Quote from: Orchardman on April 27, 2013, 12:55:11 PM
There was a bite
Really? You seen the player being bitten and a bite mark after?
Quote from: heffo on April 27, 2013, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: Orchardman on April 27, 2013, 12:55:11 PM
There was a bite
Really? You seen the player being bitten and a bite mark after?
yea, im convinced of it from what i know. So ur convinced that it didn't happen, how do you know it didn't happen?
just admit when ur man done wrong, i'd be ashamed if an armagh player did it
Course there was a bite. Can't be proven though
Quote from: Orchardman on April 27, 2013, 12:55:11 PM
Very strange that the dubs on here seem to want to pretend that nothing happened at all. There was a bite, it wouldn't have been made up.
I think dublin came out of this fairly badly as well, as their player should have been made to own up much sooner. The fact that paddy didn't want the hassle of going to the hearing has let the dublin guy off, which is a shame as any kind of behaviour like this needs stamped out
See I don't buy that either, why would Donegal accept McBrearty not going down or why would he feel it was hassle? All the hassle was already there, the guy was named so if it happened all Paddy had to do was attend the hearing say what happened and that would be the end of it one way or another. If he was naive enough to think not going would put an end to it then the Donegal CB officials would certainly have corrected him.
I don't see how anyone can state there was or wasn't a bite unless they know something not in the public domain. From reading between the lines here and on other discussion boards the Dubs seem confident that there wasn't a bite and while others are presuming there was based on the unlikeliness of Donegal lying about such a thing.
While I'm sure this will die a death without the full story emerging or anyone being taken to task for it I hope lessons are being learnt by somebody as this has been a farce from start to finish and the GAA needs to address these types of incidents more efficiently.
Quote from: Zulu on April 27, 2013, 01:37:48 PM
Quote from: Orchardman on April 27, 2013, 12:55:11 PM
Very strange that the dubs on here seem to want to pretend that nothing happened at all. There was a bite, it wouldn't have been made up.
I think dublin came out of this fairly badly as well, as their player should have been made to own up much sooner. The fact that paddy didn't want the hassle of going to the hearing has let the dublin guy off, which is a shame as any kind of behaviour like this needs stamped out
See I don't buy that either, why would Donegal accept McBrearty not going down or why would he feel it was hassle? All the hassle was already there, the guy was named so if it happened all Paddy had to do was attend the hearing say what happened and that would be the end of it one way or another. If he was naive enough to think not going would put an end to it then the Donegal CB officials would certainly have corrected him.
I don't see how anyone can state there was or wasn't a bite unless they know something not in the public domain. From reading between the lines here and on other discussion boards the Dubs seem confident that there wasn't a bite and while others are presuming there was based on the unlikeliness of Donegal lying about such a thing.
While I'm sure this will die a death without the full story emerging or anyone being taken to task for it I hope lessons are being learnt by somebody as this has been a farce from start to finish and the GAA needs to address these types of incidents more efficiently.
How would Donegal force McBrearty to attend the hearing? I'm sure they thought they could persuade him, but if he was adamant, what could they do?
But you're right, of course, that the GAA need to sort out their disciplinary process, once and for all.
Weighing up the odds.
Dublin player is accused of biting. He is charged and on appeal it is rescinded due to McBearty not showing up/ a technicality.
OR
Donegal fabricate a biting incident at half time in their last NFL match and take it all the way to the CCC.
Well if I was a betting man I'd see one of them is more plausible. Indiana and some of the other Dubs are in absolute denial, they'll soon be saying it was Jim Mc Guinness on the grassy knoll. To conclude that Donegal fabricated the entire affair just because the CCC didn't hand out any bans is a running leap that Jim Corr would be proud of.
Quote from: trileacman on April 27, 2013, 02:33:30 PM
Weighing up the odds.
Dublin player is accused of biting. He is charged and on appeal it is rescinded due to McBearty not showing up/ a technicality.
OR
Donegal fabricate a biting incident at half time in their last NFL match and take it all the way to the CCC.
Well if I was a betting man I'd see one of them is more plausible. Indiana and some of the other Dubs are in absolute denial, they'll soon be saying it was Jim Mc Guinness on the grassy knoll. To conclude that Donegal fabricated the entire affair just because the CCC didn't hand out any bans is a running leap that Jim Corr would be proud of.
Its called the facts and you have none.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 27, 2013, 03:05:09 PM
Quote from: trileacman on April 27, 2013, 02:33:30 PM
Weighing up the odds.
Dublin player is accused of biting. He is charged and on appeal it is rescinded due to McBearty not showing up/ a technicality.
OR
Donegal fabricate a biting incident at half time in their last NFL match and take it all the way to the CCC.
Well if I was a betting man I'd see one of them is more plausible. Indiana and some of the other Dubs are in absolute denial, they'll soon be saying it was Jim Mc Guinness on the grassy knoll. To conclude that Donegal fabricated the entire affair just because the CCC didn't hand out any bans is a running leap that Jim Corr would be proud of.
Its called the facts and you have none.
What facts do you have Indiana - please enlighten us?
He wasn't disciplined - is that it or have you more?
I heard something interesting today which maybe the Dublin lads can confirm. Was there any angle about a gum shield involved?
The following is fact:
The referee's report highlighted the alleged incident brought to his attention at half time.
The CCC convened an investigation
As a consequence of the investigation, the CCC notified a Dublin player of a proposed three match ban
Quote from: DuffleKing on April 27, 2013, 04:40:20 PM
The following is fact:
The referee's report highlighted the alleged incident brought to his attention at half time.
The CCC convened an investigation
As a consequence of the investigation, the CCC notified a Dublin player of a proposed three match ban
And the CHC found nothing- fact.
You omitted that bit.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 27, 2013, 05:41:57 PM
Quote from: DuffleKing on April 27, 2013, 04:40:20 PM
The following is fact:
The referee's report highlighted the alleged incident brought to his attention at half time.
The CCC convened an investigation
As a consequence of the investigation, the CCC notified a Dublin player of a proposed three match ban
And the CHC found nothing- fact.
You omitted that bit.
You keep implying you have facts.
Share them.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 27, 2013, 04:10:55 PM
I heard something interesting today which maybe the Dublin lads can confirm. Was there any angle about a gum shield involved?
I heard the same.
If true it isn't good for the Donegal side.
Bizarre if true.
Quote from: muppet on April 27, 2013, 07:34:41 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 27, 2013, 04:10:55 PM
I heard something interesting today which maybe the Dublin lads can confirm. Was there any angle about a gum shield involved?
I heard the same.
If true it isn't good for the Donegal side.
It's ok, all the Ulster lads will stick to big Jim's script irrespective.
Quote from: heffo on April 27, 2013, 09:39:21 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 27, 2013, 07:34:41 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 27, 2013, 04:10:55 PM
I heard something interesting today which maybe the Dublin lads can confirm. Was there any angle about a gum shield involved?
I heard the same.
If true it isn't good for the Donegal side.
It's ok, all the Ulster lads will stick to big Jim's script irrespective.
This is getting more and more bizarre. If what I think is being suggested than what would be the punishment?
Someone is gonna have to speak really slowly and spell this out for me. What is this gumshield story and how does it make Donegal look bad? Sorry but i'm lost here
Quote from: INDIANA on April 27, 2013, 05:41:57 PM
Quote from: DuffleKing on April 27, 2013, 04:40:20 PM
The following is fact:
The referee's report highlighted the alleged incident brought to his attention at half time.
The CCC convened an investigation
As a consequence of the investigation, the CCC notified a Dublin player of a proposed three match ban
And the CHC found nothing- fact.
You omitted that bit.
CHC did not find
enough
Quote from: ck on April 28, 2013, 12:07:26 AM
Someone is gonna have to speak really slowly and spell this out for me. What is this gumshield story and how does it make Donegal look bad? Sorry but i'm lost here
Why would an injection be needed or publicised if the Dublin Vampire had a gumshield in?
Quote from: ONeill on April 28, 2013, 12:52:29 AM
Quote from: ck on April 28, 2013, 12:07:26 AM
Someone is gonna have to speak really slowly and spell this out for me. What is this gumshield story and how does it make Donegal look bad? Sorry but i'm lost here
Why would an injection be needed or publicised if the Dublin Vampire had a gumshield in?
Gumshields cover bottom teeth too?
If it is correct that McBrearty didn't attend the hearing and that's why the Dublin player got off, then what are the repercussions for McBrearty? We've seen how ruthlessly JMcG treated KC for breaking omerta, surely Paddy's (apparent) no show goes against Donegal's 'siege mentality' policy?
Why would he not show up? Surely he'd want whoever supposedly bit him punished.
Quote from: J70 on April 28, 2013, 02:36:48 AM
Quote from: ONeill on April 28, 2013, 12:52:29 AM
Quote from: ck on April 28, 2013, 12:07:26 AM
Someone is gonna have to speak really slowly and spell this out for me. What is this gumshield story and how does it make Donegal look bad? Sorry but i'm lost here
Why would an injection be needed or publicised if the Dublin Vampire had a gumshield in?
Gumshields cover bottom teeth too?
That's what I was thinking, sure he could bite with his lower teeth.
Exactly. Top teeth are the anchors and bottom teeth do the biting, you can still bite someone with a gum shield. Would also explain the bruising rather than laceration.
Sweet Jaysus! Thank god Mayo did not bother to high light the gauging incident a few weeks back on Thompson from Donegal. Feck, the amount of bother from complaining/reporting an incident makes you wonder is better to take what you got and move on or face the full wrath of the jury and media. Some one is lying and at this juncture i doubt if the even the Great Man above knows who. Personally, I don't really care. Incidents happen in football, some are got away with some are not. Unless you have substantial proof of an incident, then there is no case. The word from the two involved counts for nothing. People will lie to get what ever outcome they want. Time to move on (and wait in the long grass to sort this out later on)!
Quote from: From the Bunker on April 28, 2013, 12:46:21 PM
Sweet Jaysus! Thank god Mayo did not bother to high light the gauging incident a few weeks back on Thompson from Donegal. Feck, the amount of bother from complaining/reporting an incident makes you wonder is better to take what you got and move on or face the full wrath of the jury and media. Some one is lying and at this juncture i doubt if the even the Great Man above knows who. Personally, I don't really care. Incidents happen in football, some are got away with some are not. Unless you have substantial proof of an incident, then there is no case. The word from the two involved counts for nothing. People will lie to get what ever outcome they want. Time to move on (and wait in the long grass to sort this out later on)!
Wasn't going to point that out.
We know the stance of the Donegal county board on 'biting', regrettably we don't know their stance, on gouging, feigning injury or members of their Senior mgt team entering the pitch to try and influence the referee to send off players when no offence has taken place, as they've been absolutely silent on these transgressions.
Quote from: heffo on April 28, 2013, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on April 28, 2013, 12:46:21 PM
Sweet Jaysus! Thank god Mayo did not bother to high light the gauging incident a few weeks back on Thompson from Donegal. Feck, the amount of bother from complaining/reporting an incident makes you wonder is better to take what you got and move on or face the full wrath of the jury and media. Some one is lying and at this juncture i doubt if the even the Great Man above knows who. Personally, I don't really care. Incidents happen in football, some are got away with some are not. Unless you have substantial proof of an incident, then there is no case. The word from the two involved counts for nothing. People will lie to get what ever outcome they want. Time to move on (and wait in the long grass to sort this out later on)!
Wasn't going to point that out.
We know the stance of the Donegal county board on 'biting', regrettably we don't know their stance, on gouging, feigning injury or members of their Senior mgt team entering the pitch to try and influence the referee to send off players when no offence has taken place, as they've been absolutely silent on these transgressions.
Yes heffo, because Donegal are the ONLY team/county out there guilty of silence when its their own players who offend and fighting their corner when their players are on the receiving end.
Now, back to the "game changer" that is the gum shield rumour...
Quote from: omagh_gael on April 28, 2013, 12:18:25 PM
Exactly. Top teeth are the anchors and bottom teeth do the biting, you can still bite someone with a gum shield. Would also explain the bruising rather than laceration.
Thats right it was Dr Phil in the boardroom with the candlestick.
The reality is if O Brien wore any other colour jersey people would be up in arms over this.
They aren't because its Dublin and of course our Northern brethern all stick together like peas in a pod.
I've more respect for pond-weed then I do for most Northern teams I have to say.
The real issue is how the dubs have gone on the offensive over by calling the whole thing a mess, farce etc, no evidence, disgrace that donegal would lie, poor wee o'brien, blah blah.
Havn't seen one comment of condemnation for even the possibility of their player doing this disgusting act
Quote from: Orchardman on April 28, 2013, 02:52:17 PM
The real issue is how the dubs have gone on the offensive over by calling the whole thing a mess, farce etc, no evidence, disgrace that donegal would lie, poor wee o'brien, blah blah.
Havn't seen one comment of condemnation for even the possibility of their player doing this disgusting act
But we're the pondscum! :P
Quote from: Orchardman on April 28, 2013, 02:52:17 PM
The real issue is how the dubs have gone on the offensive over by calling the whole thing a mess, farce etc, no evidence, disgrace that donegal would lie, poor wee o'brien, blah blah.
Havn't seen one comment of condemnation for even the possibility of their player doing this disgusting act
That's not true in fairness. When this first emerged most Dublin folk seemed to want the player banned for life from the Dublin team if he was guilty. It's only as this developed they changed tune and that appears to be because they are 100% sure their player didn't bite McBrearty. I don't know what happened but if I was a betting man, based on the confidence of every Dub and the actions of Dublin GAA during this episode I would bet there was no bite from a Dublin player. I may be wrong but it seems to me that Donegal are saying nothing and doing nothing while Dublin have confidently rejected the charge from the get go.
Quote from: Zulu on April 28, 2013, 03:12:39 PM
Quote from: Orchardman on April 28, 2013, 02:52:17 PM
The real issue is how the dubs have gone on the offensive over by calling the whole thing a mess, farce etc, no evidence, disgrace that donegal would lie, poor wee o'brien, blah blah.
Havn't seen one comment of condemnation for even the possibility of their player doing this disgusting act
That's not true in fairness. When this first emerged most Dublin folk seemed to want the player banned for life from the Dublin team if he was guilty. It's only as this developed they changed tune and that appears to be because they are 100% sure their player didn't bite McBrearty. I don't know what happened but if I was a betting man, based on the confidence of every Dub and the actions of Dublin GAA during this episode I would bet there was no bite from a Dublin player. I may be wrong but it seems to me that Donegal are saying nothing and doing nothing while Dublin have confidently rejected the charge from the get go.
Honest question Zulu .. .can you give me a link where anyone involved in the Dublin setup has "rejected the charge"? You know as well as I do that the DCB statement about it being a bruise rather than a laceration, in no way denies that there was a bite.
Quote from: Zulu on April 28, 2013, 03:12:39 PM
Quote from: Orchardman on April 28, 2013, 02:52:17 PM
The real issue is how the dubs have gone on the offensive over by calling the whole thing a mess, farce etc, no evidence, disgrace that donegal would lie, poor wee o'brien, blah blah.
Havn't seen one comment of condemnation for even the possibility of their player doing this disgusting act
That's not true in fairness. When this first emerged most Dublin folk seemed to want the player banned for life from the Dublin team if he was guilty. It's only as this developed they changed tune and that appears to be because they are 100% sure their player didn't bite McBrearty. I don't know what happened but if I was a betting man, based on the confidence of every Dub and the actions of Dublin GAA during this episode I would bet there was no bite from a Dublin player. I may be wrong but it seems to me that Donegal are saying nothing and doing nothing while Dublin have confidently rejected the charge from the get go.
fair enough zulu, the only thing im guilty off is using the dubs on here (heffo and indiana the only 2 i know off) as a gauge for dublin feeling. Quite possibly most good dublin fans would think different, but to be honest it hasn't come up in conversation with any of my dublin mates.
Ignore county bias for a second.
On one hand the CCCC found someone guilty of a bite and sentenced him. If the accused pleaded not guilty, as we know he did, then they must have accepted a version or submission as evidence. It appears McBrearty didn't attend so that seems to rule out the only other witness. In that event they would have been left with, presumably, either a picture or a medical account of an injury, or both, and a 3rd party who didn't witness the event linking the injury to the mouth of the accused, who denied it.
This would be pretty flimsy stuff and the 'why would anyone make it up that they were bitten?' argument would be laughed out of court.
Then a CHC appeal found the charge was 'not proven'.
This reflects very badly on the CCCC, and the CHC would have known this when delivering their verdict.
The only fact that I am 100% sure of in this mess is that there is independent medical evidence that McBrearty was bitten by someone on the day. The rest is based on half truths and second hand information.
Quote from: oakleafgael on April 28, 2013, 08:03:22 PM
The only fact that I am 100% sure of in this mess is that there is independent medical evidence that McBrearty was bitten by someone on the day. The rest is based on half truths and second hand information.
Define 'was bitten by someone' as pertaining to this case please.
Jesus, you're not still on about this are you?
I wouldn't mind if there was one new fact to be gleaned but there isn't just more & more outlandish conspiracy theories.
I have a new one, Maybe JMcG bit him!!!
Quote from: BluestackBoy on April 28, 2013, 10:54:14 PM
Jesus, you're not still on about this are you?
I wouldn't mind if there was one new fact to be gleaned but there isn't just more & more outlandish conspiracy theories.
I have a new one, Maybe JMcG bit him!!!
Jesters do oft prove prophets.
Maybe he bit himself?
Quote from: RMDrive on April 28, 2013, 03:24:19 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 28, 2013, 03:12:39 PM
Quote from: Orchardman on April 28, 2013, 02:52:17 PM
The real issue is how the dubs have gone on the offensive over by calling the whole thing a mess, farce etc, no evidence, disgrace that donegal would lie, poor wee o'brien, blah blah.
Havn't seen one comment of condemnation for even the possibility of their player doing this disgusting act
That's not true in fairness. When this first emerged most Dublin folk seemed to want the player banned for life from the Dublin team if he was guilty. It's only as this developed they changed tune and that appears to be because they are 100% sure their player didn't bite McBrearty. I don't know what happened but if I was a betting man, based on the confidence of every Dub and the actions of Dublin GAA during this episode I would bet there was no bite from a Dublin player. I may be wrong but it seems to me that Donegal are saying nothing and doing nothing while Dublin have confidently rejected the charge from the get go.
Honest question Zulu .. .can you give me a link where anyone involved in the Dublin setup has "rejected the charge"? You know as well as I do that the DCB statement about it being a bruise rather than a laceration, in no way denies that there was a bite.
Hell of a difference between a scratch and a bite.
I mean I picked up scratches in every game I ever played in as I'm sure most did. Its a physical contact sport.
If I thought for one minute O Brien did it I'd happily see him banned for life from playing for Dublin. I said that from the start and I stand over it.
Its amazing how nobody is now talking about Donegal's championship preparations at present, their poor league performance or the fact their panel is effectively only 5 subs deep.
Funny that........................
Quote from: INDIANA on April 29, 2013, 07:41:07 AM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 28, 2013, 03:24:19 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 28, 2013, 03:12:39 PM
Quote from: Orchardman on April 28, 2013, 02:52:17 PM
The real issue is how the dubs have gone on the offensive over by calling the whole thing a mess, farce etc, no evidence, disgrace that donegal would lie, poor wee o'brien, blah blah.
Havn't seen one comment of condemnation for even the possibility of their player doing this disgusting act
That's not true in fairness. When this first emerged most Dublin folk seemed to want the player banned for life from the Dublin team if he was guilty. It's only as this developed they changed tune and that appears to be because they are 100% sure their player didn't bite McBrearty. I don't know what happened but if I was a betting man, based on the confidence of every Dub and the actions of Dublin GAA during this episode I would bet there was no bite from a Dublin player. I may be wrong but it seems to me that Donegal are saying nothing and doing nothing while Dublin have confidently rejected the charge from the get go.
Honest question Zulu .. .can you give me a link where anyone involved in the Dublin setup has "rejected the charge"? You know as well as I do that the DCB statement about it being a bruise rather than a laceration, in no way denies that there was a bite.
Hell of a difference between a scratch and a bite.
I mean I picked up scratches in every game I ever played in as I'm sure most did. Its a physical contact sport.
If I thought for one minute O Brien did it I'd happily see him banned for life from playing for Dublin. I said that from the start and I stand over it.
Its amazing how nobody is now talking about Donegal's championship preparations at present, their poor league performance or the fact their panel is effectively only 5 subs deep.
Funny that........................
So you can't provide any link where Dublin have denied the incident. That's fair enough.
Surely if an allegation was made and disproved in particular where there were names bandied about in newspapers, there could be potential legalities as sad as it might seem. Might be best to stop this tit for tat and let this settle.
Quote from: Orchardman on April 28, 2013, 02:52:17 PM
The real issue is how the dubs have gone on the offensive over by calling the whole thing a mess, farce etc, no evidence, disgrace that donegal would lie, poor wee o'brien, blah blah.
Havn't seen one comment of condemnation for even the possibility of their player doing this disgusting act
I believe every Dublin poster on this board was unequivocal that they wanted a long ban if a bite took place. That didn't happen so no ban. Re-read the thread.
Quote from: RMDrive on April 28, 2013, 03:24:19 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 28, 2013, 03:12:39 PM
Quote from: Orchardman on April 28, 2013, 02:52:17 PM
The real issue is how the dubs have gone on the offensive over by calling the whole thing a mess, farce etc, no evidence, disgrace that donegal would lie, poor wee o'brien, blah blah.
Havn't seen one comment of condemnation for even the possibility of their player doing this disgusting act
That's not true in fairness. When this first emerged most Dublin folk seemed to want the player banned for life from the Dublin team if he was guilty. It's only as this developed they changed tune and that appears to be because they are 100% sure their player didn't bite McBrearty. I don't know what happened but if I was a betting man, based on the confidence of every Dub and the actions of Dublin GAA during this episode I would bet there was no bite from a Dublin player. I may be wrong but it seems to me that Donegal are saying nothing and doing nothing while Dublin have confidently rejected the charge from the get go.
Honest question Zulu .. .can you give me a link where anyone involved in the Dublin setup has "rejected the charge"?
Highest official in the county, County Chairman:
"I don't accept something did happen," http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/football/kettle-says-onus-on-donegal-to-prove-mcbrearty-bite-227927.html
Quote from: RMDrive on April 29, 2013, 08:08:33 AM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 29, 2013, 07:41:07 AM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 28, 2013, 03:24:19 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 28, 2013, 03:12:39 PM
Quote from: Orchardman on April 28, 2013, 02:52:17 PM
The real issue is how the dubs have gone on the offensive over by calling the whole thing a mess, farce etc, no evidence, disgrace that donegal would lie, poor wee o'brien, blah blah.
Havn't seen one comment of condemnation for even the possibility of their player doing this disgusting act
That's not true in fairness. When this first emerged most Dublin folk seemed to want the player banned for life from the Dublin team if he was guilty. It's only as this developed they changed tune and that appears to be because they are 100% sure their player didn't bite McBrearty. I don't know what happened but if I was a betting man, based on the confidence of every Dub and the actions of Dublin GAA during this episode I would bet there was no bite from a Dublin player. I may be wrong but it seems to me that Donegal are saying nothing and doing nothing while Dublin have confidently rejected the charge from the get go.
Honest question Zulu .. .can you give me a link where anyone involved in the Dublin setup has "rejected the charge"? You know as well as I do that the DCB statement about it being a bruise rather than a laceration, in no way denies that there was a bite.
Hell of a difference between a scratch and a bite.
I mean I picked up scratches in every game I ever played in as I'm sure most did. Its a physical contact sport.
If I thought for one minute O Brien did it I'd happily see him banned for life from playing for Dublin. I said that from the start and I stand over it.
Its amazing how nobody is now talking about Donegal's championship preparations at present, their poor league performance or the fact their panel is effectively only 5 subs deep.
Funny that........................
So you can't provide any link where Dublin have denied the incident. That's fair enough.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/football/kettle-says-onus-on-donegal-to-prove-mcbrearty-bite-227927.html
"I don't accept something did happen," - County Chairman
Quote from: oakleafgael on April 28, 2013, 08:03:22 PM
The only fact that I am 100% sure of in this mess is that there is independent medical evidence that McBrearty was bitten by someone on the day.
Don't talk nonsense. There isn't.
Glad that O'Brien got off, one mans word against another.
There is no smoke without fire. He'll do it again at some stage.
Quote from: Premier Emperor on April 29, 2013, 09:14:19 AM
There is no smoke without fire. He'll do it again at some stage.
Are we talking about Big Jim or Gallagher here?
Quote from: J70 on April 28, 2013, 01:29:42 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 28, 2013, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on April 28, 2013, 12:46:21 PM
Sweet Jaysus! Thank god Mayo did not bother to high light the gauging incident a few weeks back on Thompson from Donegal. Feck, the amount of bother from complaining/reporting an incident makes you wonder is better to take what you got and move on or face the full wrath of the jury and media. Some one is lying and at this juncture i doubt if the even the Great Man above knows who. Personally, I don't really care. Incidents happen in football, some are got away with some are not. Unless you have substantial proof of an incident, then there is no case. The word from the two involved counts for nothing. People will lie to get what ever outcome they want. Time to move on (and wait in the long grass to sort this out later on)!
Wasn't going to point that out.
We know the stance of the Donegal county board on 'biting', regrettably we don't know their stance, on gouging, feigning injury or members of their Senior mgt team entering the pitch to try and influence the referee to send off players when no offence has taken place, as they've been absolutely silent on these transgressions.
Yes heffo, because Donegal are the ONLY team/county out there guilty of silence when its their own players who offend and fighting their corner when their players are on the receiving end.
Difference being the highest officials in other counties don't come out in condemnation when their own team behave like corner boys.
Strange that a thread about Donegal's slippage has turned into a thhread about an alleged bite.
It is nonsense to suggest that Donegal have slipped since last year since they didn't put much emphasis on the League. However all the Donegal camp have ever talked about since the USFC draw was made was the Tyrone match and the importance of having home venue. I think we will see a refreshed Donegal take the field that day and they will destroy that Tyrone defence if Tyrone continue to set up as they have done during the League. Tyrone have scored freely but have leaked a lot as well during the League.
Tyrone have improved a lot since last year and are genuine AI contenders but I think Donegal in front of their own crowd and on home turf will beat them.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 29, 2013, 07:41:07 AM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 28, 2013, 03:24:19 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 28, 2013, 03:12:39 PM
Quote from: Orchardman on April 28, 2013, 02:52:17 PM
The real issue is how the dubs have gone on the offensive over by calling the whole thing a mess, farce etc, no evidence, disgrace that donegal would lie, poor wee o'brien, blah blah.
Havn't seen one comment of condemnation for even the possibility of their player doing this disgusting act
That's not true in fairness. When this first emerged most Dublin folk seemed to want the player banned for life from the Dublin team if he was guilty. It's only as this developed they changed tune and that appears to be because they are 100% sure their player didn't bite McBrearty. I don't know what happened but if I was a betting man, based on the confidence of every Dub and the actions of Dublin GAA during this episode I would bet there was no bite from a Dublin player. I may be wrong but it seems to me that Donegal are saying nothing and doing nothing while Dublin have confidently rejected the charge from the get go.
Honest question Zulu .. .can you give me a link where anyone involved in the Dublin setup has "rejected the charge"? You know as well as I do that the DCB statement about it being a bruise rather than a laceration, in no way denies that there was a bite.
Hell of a difference between a scratch and a bite.
I mean I picked up scratches in every game I ever played in as I'm sure most did. Its a physical contact sport.
If I thought for one minute O Brien did it I'd happily see him banned for life from playing for Dublin. I said that from the start and I stand over it.
Its amazing how nobody is now talking about Donegal's championship preparations at present, their poor league performance or the fact their panel is effectively only 5 subs deep.
Funny that........................
So now we get to the heart of the dastardly scheme!! Falsely damage a man's reputation for a short term PR gain. Get a grip of yourself.
They had identical form last year. And their panel was even thinner then. And it would suit Donegal down to the ground to be written off before we even start!
Quote from: INDIANA on April 29, 2013, 07:41:07 AM
Quote from: RMDrive on April 28, 2013, 03:24:19 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 28, 2013, 03:12:39 PM
Quote from: Orchardman on April 28, 2013, 02:52:17 PM
The real issue is how the dubs have gone on the offensive over by calling the whole thing a mess, farce etc, no evidence, disgrace that donegal would lie, poor wee o'brien, blah blah.
Havn't seen one comment of condemnation for even the possibility of their player doing this disgusting act
That's not true in fairness. When this first emerged most Dublin folk seemed to want the player banned for life from the Dublin team if he was guilty. It's only as this developed they changed tune and that appears to be because they are 100% sure their player didn't bite McBrearty. I don't know what happened but if I was a betting man, based on the confidence of every Dub and the actions of Dublin GAA during this episode I would bet there was no bite from a Dublin player. I may be wrong but it seems to me that Donegal are saying nothing and doing nothing while Dublin have confidently rejected the charge from the get go.
Honest question Zulu .. .can you give me a link where anyone involved in the Dublin setup has "rejected the charge"? You know as well as I do that the DCB statement about it being a bruise rather than a laceration, in no way denies that there was a bite.
Hell of a difference between a scratch and a bite.
I mean I picked up scratches in every game I ever played in as I'm sure most did. Its a physical contact sport.
If I thought for one minute O Brien did it I'd happily see him banned for life from playing for Dublin. I said that from the start and I stand over it.
Its amazing how nobody is now talking about Donegal's championship preparations at present, their poor league performance or the fact their panel is effectively only 5 subs deep.
Funny that........................
Surely Philly McMahon should be banned for life then??!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh6YQBgD-0A
In fairness, he might just have been blowing his nose on him! :P
Did the Cork lad get in bother for the swing?
Quote from: J70 on April 29, 2013, 02:16:15 PM
In fairness, he might just have been blowing his nose on him! :P
Did the Cork lad get in bother for the swing?
In fairness it should have been investigated as well. It might have been ignored due to the lack of a complaint by Cork and a 'Trial by Sunday Game' fatigue that had crept in a few years ago.
Quote from: heffo on April 29, 2013, 09:20:32 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 28, 2013, 01:29:42 PM
Quote from: heffo on April 28, 2013, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on April 28, 2013, 12:46:21 PM
Sweet Jaysus! Thank god Mayo did not bother to high light the gauging incident a few weeks back on Thompson from Donegal. Feck, the amount of bother from complaining/reporting an incident makes you wonder is better to take what you got and move on or face the full wrath of the jury and media. Some one is lying and at this juncture i doubt if the even the Great Man above knows who. Personally, I don't really care. Incidents happen in football, some are got away with some are not. Unless you have substantial proof of an incident, then there is no case. The word from the two involved counts for nothing. People will lie to get what ever outcome they want. Time to move on (and wait in the long grass to sort this out later on)!
Wasn't going to point that out.
We know the stance of the Donegal county board on 'biting', regrettably we don't know their stance, on gouging, feigning injury or members of their Senior mgt team entering the pitch to try and influence the referee to send off players when no offence has taken place, as they've been absolutely silent on these transgressions.
Yes heffo, because Donegal are the ONLY team/county out there guilty of silence when its their own players who offend and fighting their corner when their players are on the receiving end.
Difference being the highest officials in other counties don't come out in condemnation when their own team behave like corner boys.
I'm assuming this is a reference to the provocation of Connolly and Boyle's dive?
If so, I've no idea if Donegal officials commented on it, and whether they did so before they saw the replays or Cassidy's later revelations.
I wasn't in much of a mood for follow up on that game, save a little discussion here. Have never even watched a replay of it. It was a painful defeat.
So you'll have to provide more details of who said what. If anything was said defending Boyle after it was obvious he dived, then of course it was wrong. That alone doesn't prove that, one shameful incident aside, that the Donegal county board/management are any different to other counties or Arsene Wenger or officials in just about any other sport.
Quote from: muppet on April 29, 2013, 02:38:47 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 29, 2013, 02:16:15 PM
In fairness, he might just have been blowing his nose on him! :P
Did the Cork lad get in bother for the swing?
In fairness it should have been investigated as well. It might have been ignored due to the lack of a complaint by Cork and a 'Trial by Sunday Game' fatigue that had crept in a few years ago.
From what I read, neither the bite nor the swing were seen or acted upon at the time.
Interesting though.
A few feathers ruffled upstairs...
O'Neill slams Donegal
30 April 2013
Liam O'Neill has criticised Donegal for not seeing through the case against Kevin O'Brien.
The Dublin defender was last week cleared of allegedly biting Paddy McBrearty due to a lack of evidence and O'Neill says Donegal were guilty of not contributing to the investigation:
"The ideal thing would have been, having set the wheels in motion, that the process would have been seen through," the GAA president told the Irish Examiner.
"I think there's a certain level of disappointment with this case. It would have been better if they knew they weren't going to see it out to the end. It left people who acted in good faith with an outcome that wasn't satisfactory.
"In fairness to the CCCC, they're volunteers, they come in here, the majority of them, and they do their business.
"People who had evidence didn't show and that's it. There's nothing we can do about it. Our system has improved dramatically. Páraic [Duffy] put that on the record last week. It works when people co-operate with it and tell what happened - that didn't happen in this case.
"A case like this highlights how well it works in most cases. We were left with flimsy evidence and depending on direct evidence, which didn't show. That was it.
"In general, if we are to have success with the Respect initiative people might discipline their own players where incidents that are not acceptable take place. If we could get to that level then we would be very happy at central level that our processes are working well."
http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=191234
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 30, 2013, 10:06:21 AM
A few feathers ruffled upstairs...
O'Neill slams Donegal
30 April 2013
Liam O'Neill has criticised Donegal for not seeing through the case against Kevin O'Brien.
The Dublin defender was last week cleared of allegedly biting Paddy McBrearty due to a lack of evidence and O'Neill says Donegal were guilty of not contributing to the investigation:
"The ideal thing would have been, having set the wheels in motion, that the process would have been seen through," the GAA president told the Irish Examiner.
"I think there's a certain level of disappointment with this case. It would have been better if they knew they weren't going to see it out to the end. It left people who acted in good faith with an outcome that wasn't satisfactory.
"In fairness to the CCCC, they're volunteers, they come in here, the majority of them, and they do their business.
"People who had evidence didn't show and that's it. There's nothing we can do about it. Our system has improved dramatically. Páraic [Duffy] put that on the record last week. It works when people co-operate with it and tell what happened - that didn't happen in this case.
"A case like this highlights how well it works in most cases. We were left with flimsy evidence and depending on direct evidence, which didn't show. That was it.
"In general, if we are to have success with the Respect initiative people might discipline their own players where incidents that are not acceptable take place. If we could get to that level then we would be very happy at central level that our processes are working well."
http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=191234
What a load of shite Liam.
All we were left with was "flimsy evidence". If it was flimsy in the first instance why "do" the Dublin player on this basis only to walk away from it at a hearing.
So it's Donegal's fault for not following through with the whole thing.
Dublin's fault for not disciplining their own player in the absence of firm, irrefutable evidence.
And by the way, the CCC are all dencent, honourable men most of whom are volunteers. Yes they're honourable and decent people and there's no doubting that, but surely this proposed sanction was doomed to failure from the beginning and should not have been proposed ?.
This case has been one of most embarassing for the GAA in years and no amount of attributing blame to Donegal and Dublin on the part of Liam O'Neill can excuse or reason this away.
Pretty clear that he's saying that had McBrearty agreed to testify, the outcome would have been different.
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2013, 10:40:07 AM
Pretty clear that he's saying that had McBrearty agreed to testify, the outcome would have been different.
What Liam O'Neill IS cleary saying is that the Hearings committee were left with nothing but "flimsy" evidence in the absence of Donegal seeing the process out.
We can only speculate that had Mc Brearty gone and given his "evidence" whatever that was, then the outcome could might been different we don't know that for sure.
Would the hearings committee have stuck to the proposed suspension based on one man's word against another ?.
Which is back to the point I made last week - X accuses Y of an infraction - manager A reports the alleged infraction to referee B. Referee puts it in report - CCC propose a suspension on foot of the referees report which in the GAA is the gospel truth. The player hit with the proposed suspension appeals - Player X comes along with A fellow player and the person alleged to have committed the infraction gets done as the Hearings Committee have testimony from the referee and 2 players that it happened. And the GAA disciplinary system is working ?.
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2013, 10:40:07 AM
Pretty clear that he's saying that had McBrearty agreed to testify, the outcome would have been different.
I don't read it like that at all to be honest. I read it that because he never turned up to give his evidence, the full facts couldn't come out.
I wouldn't read it as that either J70. This thread is evidence that everything that happened now is mere speculation as the case couldn't be seen through to completion. It is a pity. I don't think it was made up but I'll never know.
Basically the whole case was started and should have been finished but never was able to be through no fault of the disciplinary committees. Things like the McKeever case show they're not great however in this case I don't know what they could do.
Quote from: orangeman on April 30, 2013, 10:50:20 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2013, 10:40:07 AM
Pretty clear that he's saying that had McBrearty agreed to testify, the outcome would have been different.
What Liam O'Neill IS cleary saying is that the Hearings committee were left with nothing but "flimsy" evidence in the absence of Donegal seeing the process out.
We can only speculate that had Mc Brearty gone and given his "evidence" whatever that was, then the outcome could might been different we don't know that for sure.
Would the hearings committee have stuck to the proposed suspension based on one man's word against another ?.
Which is back to the point I made last week - X accuses Y of an infraction - manager A reports the alleged infraction to referee B. Referee puts it in report - CCC propose a suspension on foot of the referees report which in the GAA is the gospel truth. The player hit with the proposed suspension appeals - Player X comes along with A fellow player and the person alleged to have committed the infraction gets done as the Hearings Committee have testimony from the referee and 2 players that it happened. And the GAA disciplinary system is working ?.
Yes, you're right.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 30, 2013, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2013, 10:40:07 AM
Pretty clear that he's saying that had McBrearty agreed to testify, the outcome would have been different.
I don't read it like that at all to be honest. I read it that because he never turned up to give his evidence, the full facts couldn't come out.
You are correct.
O'Neill's statement is typical official GAA, Lord Denning style blame deflection. The officials are never wrong, you see. That would be an appalling vista.
Why is nobody taking him to task on his implicit admission that the CCCC convicted without evidence in the first place?
Quote from: Hardy on April 30, 2013, 11:33:42 AM
O'Neill's statement is typical official GAA, Lord Denning style blame deflection. The officials are never wrong, you see. That would be an appalling vista.
Why is nobody taking him to task on his implicit admission that the CCCC convicted without evidence in the first place?
Why ?
Cos there's no point. As you rightly and correctly say, they're never wrong - when they're wrong they're still right.
Everybody else's fault.
He states - "
It works when people co-operate with it and tell what happened – that didn't happen in this case. A case like this highlights how well it works in most cases. We were left with flimsy evidence and depending on direct evidence, which didn't show. That was it."
Am I reading this right ? This case shows how well the GAA disciplinary system works ? Is Alistair Campbell working for the GAA now ?
Quote from: Hardy on April 30, 2013, 11:33:42 AM
O'Neill's statement is typical official GAA, Lord Denning style blame deflection. The officials are never wrong, you see. That would be an appalling vista.
Why is nobody taking him to task on his implicit admission that the CCCC convicted without evidence in the first place?
His statement is pissing fuel onto the fire.
He attacks Donegal for not producing some evidence he strongly hints might change the outcome, that suggestion alone implicates the Dublin player, he has hung the CCCC for giving a verdict without the evidence mentioned earlier and all together he ultimately is blaming everyone else for the problem. Real leadership there.
Would be a bit concerned alright.
From a betting perspective I'd put Tyrone as favourites at the moment to win Ulster even though they were 7/2 with powers a few weeks ago.
Not much time to get a new gameplan into action considering everyone knows the old one inside out by now.
Alot of predictable long balls up to Murphy and seemingly few reliable scoring options outside him and McFadden.
Back door option looms large I feel. Tyrone would need to have a bad day . Even with an extra man they were well better than us in the league game.
Quote from: Whitnail on May 01, 2013, 12:21:55 AM
Would be a bit concerned alright.
From a betting perspective I'd put Tyrone as favourites at the moment to win Ulster even though they were 7/2 with powers a few weeks ago.
Not much time to get a new gameplan into action considering everyone knows the old one inside out by now.
Alot of predictable long balls up to Murphy and seemingly few reliable scoring options outside him and McFadden.
Back door option looms large I feel. Tyrone would need to have a bad day . Even with an extra man they were well better than us in the league game.
I guess it's your proud confidence in your team that made you sign up to the forum, eh?
Rule #1: defending AI champions will never get to play the poor mouth so you're better off not trying.
It'll be a war but Donegal still hold the aces.
Quote from: Whitnail on May 01, 2013, 12:21:55 AM
Would be a bit concerned alright.
From a betting perspective I'd put Tyrone as favourites at the moment to win Ulster even though they were 7/2 with powers a few weeks ago.
Not much time to get a new gameplan into action considering everyone knows the old one inside out by now.
Alot of predictable long balls up to Murphy and seemingly few reliable scoring options outside him and McFadden.
Back door option looms large I feel. Tyrone would need to have a bad day . Even with an extra man they were well better than us in the league game.
Very pessimistic outlook there. Everyone knew the gameplan last year too. Most teams couldn't cope in the championship, despite the shite league performances. Personally, I'd be far more worried about hunger and intensity than tactics. Given the past two seasons, I've no worries at all about Jim on the tactical front and there's no way the game will be all about aimless balls into Murphy. Whether the players have the hunger when the game's on the line will be the key. No team, apart from Kerry (once), have been able to pull it together two years in a row since Cork 1990. And hunger and intensity is where I fear from this Tyrone team may have the edge. Whether they have the talent remains to be seen. Their supporters certainly think so, although quite a few of them were hyping themselves up this time last year.
Leave Santa alone
Point 1: Liam O'Neill gets on my tits.
Point 2: Were the hearing committee reviewing the rationale behind the CCCC's proposal for the 3 month/game suspension for the Dublin lad or were they re-doing the whole disciplinary hearing?
If they were only reviewing the CCCC's proposal they wouldn't have needed further input from either Dublin, the referee or Donegal let alone McBrearty.
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2013, 11:17:04 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 30, 2013, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2013, 10:40:07 AM
Pretty clear that he's saying that had McBrearty agreed to testify, the outcome would have been different.
I don't read it like that at all to be honest. I read it that because he never turned up to give his evidence, the full facts couldn't come out.
You are correct.
And I think McBrearty was right not to give evidence. One player should not put himself in the situation of testifying against another in such a CCCC procedure. If there isn't enough (other) evidence and the charged player denies it, then it should be dropped.
There was a farce some years ago in an end of season EPL game when Alan Shearer blatantly booted a prone Neil Lennon in the face.
The ref said he "missed it" but Shearer was charged afterwards and Lennon was called to testify. What was he going to say other than it appeared accidental and he hardly felt it. Immediately afterwards Lennon said that the ref should have had the balls to deal with it at the time and he wasn't interested in being a part of this process, or words to that effect.
Would the GPA have talked to any parties here in an effort to sort the thing out. If not should they be encouraged to talk to people behind the scenes like?
Quote from: Whitnail on May 01, 2013, 12:21:55 AM
Would be a bit concerned alright.
From a betting perspective I'd put Tyrone as favourites at the moment to win Ulster even though they were 7/2 with powers a few weeks ago.
Not much time to get a new gameplan into action considering everyone knows the old one inside out by now.
Alot of predictable long balls up to Murphy and seemingly few reliable scoring options outside him and McFadden.
Back door option looms large I feel. Tyrone would need to have a bad day . Even with an extra man they were well better than us in the league game.
I have to assume that you are a Donegal man from your use of the word "us". If that is the case then your knowledge of Donegal's tactics in championship games is lamentable. You state that everyone knows their "old" gameplan. A wee test for you then, explain it.
As for the league game, that was a league game, in winter, in Omagh, a world of difference from a championship game, in summer in Ballybofey.
Whatever about the McKeever case I could agree with O'Neill here. Donegal made a case of the alleged bite and went to the CCCC with it, then Donegal/McBearty drop it before the final hearing and the GAA can do nothing but declare the accused innocent.
If Donegal weren't happy to see the case through to the end then they shouldn't have bothered bringing it up in the first place. No fault of the CCCC
Quote from: Main Street on May 01, 2013, 02:37:38 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2013, 11:17:04 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 30, 2013, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2013, 10:40:07 AM
Pretty clear that he's saying that had McBrearty agreed to testify, the outcome would have been different.
I don't read it like that at all to be honest. I read it that because he never turned up to give his evidence, the full facts couldn't come out.
You are correct.
And I think McBrearty was right not to give evidence. One player should not put himself in the situation of testifying against another in such a CCCC procedure. If there isn't enough (other) evidence and the charged player denies it, then it should be dropped.
There was a farce some years ago in an end of season EPL game when Alan Shearer blatantly booted a prone Neil Lennon in the face.
The ref said he "missed it" but Shearer was charged afterwards and Lennon was called to testify. What was he going to say other than it appeared accidental and he hardly felt it. Immediately afterwards Lennon said that the ref should have had the balls to deal with it at the time and he wasn't interested in being a part of this process, or words to that effect.
That makes no sense. So McBearty is right to accuse O'Brien of biting but shouldn't have to follow through on those accusations in a manner that O'Brien can defend himself?
Or the ref should have dealt with it at the time? "Ref he bit me" and send O'Brien off at half-time?
Quote from: trileacman on May 02, 2013, 10:13:35 PM
Whatever about the McKeever case I could agree with O'Neill here. Donegal made a case of the alleged bite and went to the CCCC with it, then Donegal/McBearty drop it before the final hearing and the GAA can do nothing but declare the accused innocent.
If Donegal weren't happy to see the case through to the end then they shouldn't have bothered bringing it up in the first place. No fault of the CCCC
As I understand it the CCCC acted on foot of the referee's report not at Donegal's request.
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 02, 2013, 06:27:44 PM
Quote from: Whitnail on May 01, 2013, 12:21:55 AM
Would be a bit concerned alright.
From a betting perspective I'd put Tyrone as favourites at the moment to win Ulster even though they were 7/2 with powers a few weeks ago.
Not much time to get a new gameplan into action considering everyone knows the old one inside out by now.
Alot of predictable long balls up to Murphy and seemingly few reliable scoring options outside him and McFadden.
Back door option looms large I feel. Tyrone would need to have a bad day . Even with an extra man they were well better than us in the league game.
I have to assume that you are a Donegal man from your use of the word "us". If that is the case then your knowledge of Donegal's tactics in championship games is lamentable. You state that everyone knows their "old" gameplan. A wee test for you then, explain it.
As for the league game, that was a league game, in winter, in Omagh, a world of difference from a championship game, in summer in Ballybofey.
You want me to explain their tactics.
I presume you ask this for your own benefit? A 6 year old girl from Laois can do that for you if you ask them nicely .So drop the 'Superiority' complex right there sunny.
I not one of those yellow and green glass tainted yes men who have nothing to add to a conversation other than 'we're better than yous' 'It'll be a different game in ballybofey' 'Donegal don't care about the Leauge' guff.
From what I've read from your posts that's pretty much what I'm getting from you .No offence.
Am I concerned? Yes
Why wouldn't anyone. We deserved to get relegated and Tyrone have been gelling and playing at a superior level .
Quote from: Whitnail on May 02, 2013, 11:25:48 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 02, 2013, 06:27:44 PM
Quote from: Whitnail on May 01, 2013, 12:21:55 AM
Would be a bit concerned alright.
From a betting perspective I'd put Tyrone as favourites at the moment to win Ulster even though they were 7/2 with powers a few weeks ago.
Not much time to get a new gameplan into action considering everyone knows the old one inside out by now.
Alot of predictable long balls up to Murphy and seemingly few reliable scoring options outside him and McFadden.
Back door option looms large I feel. Tyrone would need to have a bad day . Even with an extra man they were well better than us in the league game.
I have to assume that you are a Donegal man from your use of the word "us". If that is the case then your knowledge of Donegal's tactics in championship games is lamentable. You state that everyone knows their "old" gameplan. A wee test for you then, explain it.
As for the league game, that was a league game, in winter, in Omagh, a world of difference from a championship game, in summer in Ballybofey.
You want me to explain their tactics.
I presume you ask this for your own benefit? A 6 year old girl from Laois can do that for you if you ask them nicely .So drop the 'Superiority' complex right there sunny.
I not one of those yellow and green glass tainted yes men who have nothing to add to a conversation other than 'we're better than yous' 'It'll be a different game in ballybofey' 'Donegal don't care about the Leauge' guff.
From what I've read from your posts that's pretty much what I'm getting from you .No offence.
Am I concerned? Yes
Why wouldn't anyone. We deserved to get relegated and Tyrone have been gelling and playing at a superior level .
The reason I asked you to explain their tactics, which I notice you didn't, is because there isn't just one set of tactics. Donegal, in championship mode, employ a range of tactics & strategies depending on the situation in which they find themselves. I have no doubt that they will have something in mind for the challenge Tyrone will put up but it will not be the same as what they used against Mayo because they are different teams with different strengths & weaknesses. Will it be enough, who knows?
Your "we deserved to get relegated" comment added to the general tenor of your contributions leads me to believe that you are not a Donegal man at all but a troll masquerading as one of Tir Conaill's best.
By the way "sunny" should be sonny, "tainted" should be tinted & "leauge" should be league. No Donegal man would post such a sloppy effort!!
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 02, 2013, 11:59:43 PM
Your "we deserved to get relegated" comment added to the general tenor of your contributions leads me to believe that you are not a Donegal man at all but a troll masquerading as one of Tir Conaill's best.
I presume that you want
Inis Eoghain's best included in your squad come the 26th too? ;)
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 03, 2013, 12:27:03 AM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 02, 2013, 11:59:43 PM
Your "we deserved to get relegated" comment added to the general tenor of your contributions leads me to believe that you are not a Donegal man at all but a troll masquerading as one of Tir Conaill's best.
I presume that you want Inis Eoghain's best included in your squad come the 26th too? ;)
Yes please ::) ::) ::)
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 02, 2013, 10:33:18 PM
Quote from: trileacman on May 02, 2013, 10:13:35 PM
Whatever about the McKeever case I could agree with O'Neill here. Donegal made a case of the alleged bite and went to the CCCC with it, then Donegal/McBearty drop it before the final hearing and the GAA can do nothing but declare the accused innocent.
If Donegal weren't happy to see the case through to the end then they shouldn't have bothered bringing it up in the first place. No fault of the CCCC
As I understand it the CCCC acted on foot of the referee's report not at Donegal's request.
And who brought the referee's attention to the matter?
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 02, 2013, 11:59:43 PM
Quote from: Whitnail on May 02, 2013, 11:25:48 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 02, 2013, 06:27:44 PM
Quote from: Whitnail on May 01, 2013, 12:21:55 AM
Would be a bit concerned alright.
From a betting perspective I'd put Tyrone as favourites at the moment to win Ulster even though they were 7/2 with powers a few weeks ago.
Not much time to get a new gameplan into action considering everyone knows the old one inside out by now.
Alot of predictable long balls up to Murphy and seemingly few reliable scoring options outside him and McFadden.
Back door option looms large I feel. Tyrone would need to have a bad day . Even with an extra man they were well better than us in the league game.
I have to assume that you are a Donegal man from your use of the word "us". If that is the case then your knowledge of Donegal's tactics in championship games is lamentable. You state that everyone knows their "old" gameplan. A wee test for you then, explain it.
As for the league game, that was a league game, in winter, in Omagh, a world of difference from a championship game, in summer in Ballybofey.
You want me to explain their tactics.
I presume you ask this for your own benefit? A 6 year old girl from Laois can do that for you if you ask them nicely .So drop the 'Superiority' complex right there sunny.
I not one of those yellow and green glass tainted yes men who have nothing to add to a conversation other than 'we're better than yous' 'It'll be a different game in ballybofey' 'Donegal don't care about the Leauge' guff.
From what I've read from your posts that's pretty much what I'm getting from you .No offence.
Am I concerned? Yes
Why wouldn't anyone. We deserved to get relegated and Tyrone have been gelling and playing at a superior level .
The reason I asked you to explain their tactics, which I notice you didn't, is because there isn't just one set of tactics. Donegal, in championship mode, employ a range of tactics & strategies depending on the situation in which they find themselves. I have no doubt that they will have something in mind for the challenge Tyrone will put up but it will not be the same as what they used against Mayo because they are different teams with different strengths & weaknesses. Will it be enough, who knows?
Your "we deserved to get relegated" comment added to the general tenor of your contributions leads me to believe that you are not a Donegal man at all but a troll masquerading as one of Tir Conaill's best.
By the way "sunny" should be sonny, "tainted" should be tinted & "leauge" should be league. No Donegal man would post such a sloppy effort!!
Oh sweet Jesus Christ ...stop please while your behind.
Who are you?
Do you really think I'm going to do your private 'initiation' 'test' on tatics on an internet forum so as to 'earn' the privilege to support my own county?
'Donegal employ a wide range of tactics' - no shit Sherlock
If your worried about my allegiance email me ffs and I'll send you a photo of me outside my workplace with my DL car .If you want I can have a newspaper with tomorrows date highlighted for you!
Talk to me about our tactics from the front forward line to the back line .Dont skip the Leauge games . I expect you to know and highlight the problems especially against Cork and Mayo. Don't just concentrate on last year's championship.
I will then tell you where your wrong and I won't hold back.
Put in the legwork 'sunny'.
Prove your not some little keyboard warrior or some defensive little sycophant who's idea of supporting his county is based on 'I'm a better supporter than you cause Donegal people only say positive defensive things about our team and players '
Jesus that's for the Dubs ,some of them seemingly here can't admit there boy obviously did SOMETHING wrong.
Quote from: Whitnail on May 03, 2013, 04:03:53 AM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 02, 2013, 11:59:43 PM
Quote from: Whitnail on May 02, 2013, 11:25:48 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 02, 2013, 06:27:44 PM
Quote from: Whitnail on May 01, 2013, 12:21:55 AM
Would be a bit concerned alright.
From a betting perspective I'd put Tyrone as favourites at the moment to win Ulster even though they were 7/2 with powers a few weeks ago.
Not much time to get a new gameplan into action considering everyone knows the old one inside out by now.
Alot of predictable long balls up to Murphy and seemingly few reliable scoring options outside him and McFadden.
Back door option looms large I feel. Tyrone would need to have a bad day . Even with an extra man they were well better than us in the league game.
I have to assume that you are a Donegal man from your use of the word "us". If that is the case then your knowledge of Donegal's tactics in championship games is lamentable. You state that everyone knows their "old" gameplan. A wee test for you then, explain it.
As for the league game, that was a league game, in winter, in Omagh, a world of difference from a championship game, in summer in Ballybofey.
You want me to explain their tactics.
I presume you ask this for your own benefit? A 6 year old girl from Laois can do that for you if you ask them nicely .So drop the 'Superiority' complex right there sunny.
I not one of those yellow and green glass tainted yes men who have nothing to add to a conversation other than 'we're better than yous' 'It'll be a different game in ballybofey' 'Donegal don't care about the Leauge' guff.
From what I've read from your posts that's pretty much what I'm getting from you .No offence.
Am I concerned? Yes
Why wouldn't anyone. We deserved to get relegated and Tyrone have been gelling and playing at a superior level .
The reason I asked you to explain their tactics, which I notice you didn't, is because there isn't just one set of tactics. Donegal, in championship mode, employ a range of tactics & strategies depending on the situation in which they find themselves. I have no doubt that they will have something in mind for the challenge Tyrone will put up but it will not be the same as what they used against Mayo because they are different teams with different strengths & weaknesses. Will it be enough, who knows?
Your "we deserved to get relegated" comment added to the general tenor of your contributions leads me to believe that you are not a Donegal man at all but a troll masquerading as one of Tir Conaill's best.
By the way "sunny" should be sonny, "tainted" should be tinted & "leauge" should be league. No Donegal man would post such a sloppy effort!!
Oh sweet Jesus Christ ...stop please while your behind.
Who are you?
Do you really think I'm going to do your private 'initiation' 'test' on tatics on an internet forum so as to 'earn' the privilege to support my own county?
'Donegal employ a wide range of tactics' - no shit Sherlock
If your worried about my allegiance email me ffs and I'll send you a photo of me outside my workplace with my DL car .If you want I can have a newspaper with tomorrows date highlighted for you!
Talk to me about our tactics from the front forward line to the back line .Dont skip the Leauge games . I expect you to know and highlight the problems especially against Cork and Mayo. Don't just concentrate on last year's championship.
I will then tell you where your wrong and I won't hold back.
Put in the legwork 'sunny'.
Prove your not some little keyboard warrior or some defensive little sycophant who's idea of supporting his county is based on 'I'm a better supporter than you cause Donegal people only say positive defensive things about our team and players '
Jesus that's for the Dubs ,some of them seemingly here can't admit there boy obviously did SOMETHING wrong.
The problem is that I have seen no evidence at all of you supporting your county. If the couple of posts you have put up here are evidence of your "support" then all I can say is that it's a new definition of the word support.
Of course I will refer to the championship, that's the competition we are coming into now & it's a whole different ball game to the league. Jim has a full deck to pick from, they will be fully fit, which means that the intensity will be there & focused on the targets they had set themselves from the beginning of the year, namely 3 Ulster titles in a row and defend their AI title.
Can they do it? Maybe, maybe not. The odds are against them as there are many fine teams out there, Tyrone being one of them & only one can win.
Quote from: trileacman on May 02, 2013, 10:17:40 PM
Quote from: Main Street on May 01, 2013, 02:37:38 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2013, 11:17:04 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 30, 2013, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2013, 10:40:07 AM
Pretty clear that he's saying that had McBrearty agreed to testify, the outcome would have been different.
I don't read it like that at all to be honest. I read it that because he never turned up to give his evidence, the full facts couldn't come out.
You are correct.
And I think McBrearty was right not to give evidence. One player should not put himself in the situation of testifying against another in such a CCCC procedure. If there isn't enough (other) evidence and the charged player denies it, then it should be dropped.
There was a farce some years ago in an end of season EPL game when Alan Shearer blatantly booted a prone Neil Lennon in the face.
The ref said he "missed it" but Shearer was charged afterwards and Lennon was called to testify. What was he going to say other than it appeared accidental and he hardly felt it. Immediately afterwards Lennon said that the ref should have had the balls to deal with it at the time and he wasn't interested in being a part of this process, or words to that effect.
That makes no sense. So McBearty is right to accuse O'Brien of biting but shouldn't have to follow through on those accusations in a manner that O'Brien can defend himself?
Or the ref should have dealt with it at the time? "Ref he bit me" and send O'Brien off at half-time?
You're from Tyrone?? perhaps don't jumble all the information together, before you try to make some sense of things ;D
The ref made a report after the game, follow the report and you'll see where the charges arise.
Quote from: Main Street on May 03, 2013, 11:09:42 AM
Quote from: trileacman on May 02, 2013, 10:17:40 PM
Quote from: Main Street on May 01, 2013, 02:37:38 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2013, 11:17:04 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 30, 2013, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2013, 10:40:07 AM
Pretty clear that he's saying that had McBrearty agreed to testify, the outcome would have been different.
I don't read it like that at all to be honest. I read it that because he never turned up to give his evidence, the full facts couldn't come out.
You are correct.
And I think McBrearty was right not to give evidence. One player should not put himself in the situation of testifying against another in such a CCCC procedure. If there isn't enough (other) evidence and the charged player denies it, then it should be dropped.
There was a farce some years ago in an end of season EPL game when Alan Shearer blatantly booted a prone Neil Lennon in the face.
The ref said he "missed it" but Shearer was charged afterwards and Lennon was called to testify. What was he going to say other than it appeared accidental and he hardly felt it. Immediately afterwards Lennon said that the ref should have had the balls to deal with it at the time and he wasn't interested in being a part of this process, or words to that effect.
That makes no sense. So McBearty is right to accuse O'Brien of biting but shouldn't have to follow through on those accusations in a manner that O'Brien can defend himself?
Or the ref should have dealt with it at the time? "Ref he bit me" and send O'Brien off at half-time?
You're from Tyrone?? perhaps don't jumble all the information together, before you try to make some sense of things ;D
The ref made a report after the game, follow the report and you'll see where the charges arise.
As far as Donegal were concerned a serious biting offence took place which warranted reporting to the referee. After that it was up to the authorities to investigate. Without independent evidence it should not have gone as far as it did, Donegal& McBrearty in particular did not want to be involved in a he did/he didn't scenario and so refused to get involved.
Martin Breheny– 01 May 2013
Interesting take here -
BITEGATE is over, but has left a sour taste in several mouths. Croke Park are frustrated because the case made by their investigating committee against Dublin defender Kevin O'Brien effectively collapsed when Donegal's Paddy McBrearty didn't show for a disciplinary hearing.
Donegal are unhappy that what they regard as a serious attack on McBrearty has gone unpunished and Dublin are concerned that one of its players had his reputation impugned by what eventually turned out to be an unsubstantiated accusation from rivals. They are pleased that O'Brien was cleared, but remain surprised that a charge was brought in the first place on the basis of an allegation from Donegal.
The issue of reputation is important. Croke Park, county boards or disciplinary committees are collective entities, so if one or all of them get something wrong, it can be dismissed as a systems failure. Alternatively, the blame can be hand-passed among them.
However, an allegation made against a player can stick, even if unproven. In O'Brien's case, that's most unfortunate since it involves biting. Officially, he is in the clear, his character unblemished and the matter closed.
Linked
Yet, his name has been linked with a biting incident, arising from the proposal by the GAA's Central Competitions Control Committee that he be banned for three games.
O'Brien chose not to accept the suspension and brought his case to the Central Hearings Committee, which cleared him on the basis that "the infraction as alleged was not proven."
The question is, how could it ever be proven once O'Brien denied it? In the absence of video evidence or independent eye-witnesses, how could any case be legitimately prosecuted?
The GAA has indicated their annoyance over McBrearty's failure to attend the hearing.
President Liam O'Neill didn't name McBrearty or Donegal, but it was pretty clear whom he was talking about on Monday when he said: "Our system worked the best it could. A decision was made, based on the evidence in front of CCCC, and a penalty recommended. People who had evidence didn't show. There's nothing we can do about it. If left people who acted in good faith with an outcome which wasn't satisfactory. The ideal thing would have been that, having set the wheels in motion, the process would have seen it through."
Without McBrearty, the CCCC case was fatally flawed, irrespective of what written submissions were available. McBrearty could not be compelled to travel to Croke Park for the meeting and, presumably, wasn't keen on being the star witness for the prosecution case.
But what if he had attended and offered evidence against O'Brien? What weight would it have carried, unless independently corroborated?
Against that background, this was always going to be a very difficult case, something Croke Park knew from the start. However, the CCCC proceeded on the basis of the evidence available to them. They also wanted to avoid being accused of not investigating a serious allegation.
They would have known that there was a strong possibility it would not survive the CHC stage, even if McBrearty gave evidence against O'Brien. Still, CCCC felt that they had to discharge their responsibility, based on what was in front of them.
The case is now completed, but not forgotten, because some disquieting aspects linger on. Was McBrearty bitten? If so, by whom? If Donegal weren't going to be in a position to provide all the necessary evidence to advance the case – including McBrearty's appearance at a disciplinary hearing – why complain in the first place? Is it not unfair to impugn an opponent, but then fail to support the case by ensuring that everything is in order on their side? That includes having McBrearty at the hearing.
Why did the CCCC propose a ban on the basis of conflicting evidence? It led to the emergence of a player's name in connection with a serious offence which the CCCC couldn't make stick at the first point of inquiry (the CHC meeting). O'Brien has been totally exonerated, but has had his name linked to a biting offence which is not what any player wants.
The lesson from all of this is that there's no point in taking on a case unless either video or other independent evidence (preferably both) are available. Otherwise, the disciplinary system becomes compromised through no fault of its procedures, which, in theory, are solid.
Bite or no bite, that leaves a bitter taste.
Breheny makes good points, but why question Donegal raising the issue with the ref? Are you supposed to wait around now for a few days and see if some third party evidence shows up before making a complaint? That's bollocks! The GAA disciplinary process is where the fault lies. Donegal were perfectly within their rights to voice their concerns.
Quote from: J70 on May 03, 2013, 01:48:35 PM
Breheny makes good points, but why question Donegal raising the issue with the ref? Are you supposed to wait around now for a few days and see if some third party evidence shows up before making a complaint? That's bollocks! The GAA disciplinary process is where the fault lies. Donegal were perfectly within their rights to voice their concerns.
Spot on J70
I think it was fair enough that they reported it to the ref to let him know but what I can't understand is why was McBrearty so reluctant to then come forward and give his side of the story. What is he scared of or did he change his mind. If he did he could have just told the authorities so and not be wasting their time.
To me McBrearty's silence is the strangest part of all this.
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 03, 2013, 02:17:45 PM
I think it was fair enough that they reported it to the ref to let him know but what I can't understand is why was McBrearty so reluctant to then come forward and give his side of the story. What is he scared of or did he change his mind. If he did he could have just told the authorities so and not be wasting their time.
To me McBrearty's silence is the strangest part of all this.
looks like his bluff was called and he hadnt a leg to stand one .
type of tactic you come to expect from mcguinness and his tony Quinn style of management
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 03, 2013, 02:17:45 PM
I think it was fair enough that they reported it to the ref to let him know but what I can't understand is why was McBrearty so reluctant to then come forward and give his side of the story. What is he scared of or did he change his mind. If he did he could have just told the authorities so and not be wasting their time.
To me McBrearty's silence is the strangest part of all this.
Read back a few weeks on the thread. McBrearty wanted to move on from the start. It was clear by the Tuesday that he wanted to concentrate on the U-21 final and forget about it. I can only assume that they thought they could bring him around, but I don't it think takes any great insight to imagine why a 19 year old kid would be reluctant to take part.. Even so, it was always his word against O'Brien's in the absence of third party evidence or a matching bite pattern, which is where Breheny is spot on. Some of us said this that first week.
Quote from: rosnarun on May 03, 2013, 02:29:57 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 03, 2013, 02:17:45 PM
I think it was fair enough that they reported it to the ref to let him know but what I can't understand is why was McBrearty so reluctant to then come forward and give his side of the story. What is he scared of or did he change his mind. If he did he could have just told the authorities so and not be wasting their time.
To me McBrearty's silence is the strangest part of all this.
looks like his bluff was called and he hadnt a leg to stand one .
type of tactic you come to expect from mcguinness and his tony Quinn style of management
Uh-huh...
According to the Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaa-culture-of-resentful-compliance-must-be-confronted-and-changed-1.1378184?page=2) Donegal officials turned up for the hearing.
"But it was an embarrassment for Donegal, whose officials had driven the process and attended the hearing even in the absence of the star witness. It was also a set back for the principle of standing up against what you believe to be unacceptable"
So like you said J70, it sounds like Donegal believed they had a strong enough case as also stated by Liam O'Neill but they needed young McBrearty to show up himself. Whilst I agree it might be a hard decision for some young players, surely they should have got it sorted amongst themselves before letting it go that far.
Is is the fact he doesn't wanna be seen as a whistleblower on a fellow player or what was it that he was worried about? I think the way it ended up actually makes him look worse now as he's let his own county board and management team down.
Could Donegal not have just said they don't want to follow it up a day or two after the game when they realised McBrearty had a change of heart.
In my head I still believe there was some sort of an incident that O'Brien or whoever has got away but of course nobody knows for sure except the two players involved.
Yes, Donegal officials didn't cover themselves in glory in this, but I'm assuming they thought they'd persuade McBrearty in the end. I would personally think he was indeed reluctant to be seen blowing the whistle, but that's just speculation, even if its the most understandable and likely scenario. As for Donegal dropping it that initial week, does a team have that option? Does the referee's report not set the wheels in motion?
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 03, 2013, 09:33:54 AM
Quote from: Whitnail on May 03, 2013, 04:03:53 AM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 02, 2013, 11:59:43 PM
Quote from: Whitnail on May 02, 2013, 11:25:48 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 02, 2013, 06:27:44 PM
Quote from: Whitnail on May 01, 2013, 12:21:55 AM
Would be a bit concerned alright.
From a betting perspective I'd put Tyrone as favourites at the moment to win Ulster even though they were 7/2 with powers a few weeks ago.
Not much time to get a new gameplan into action considering everyone knows the old one inside out by now.
Alot of predictable long balls up to Murphy and seemingly few reliable scoring options outside him and McFadden.
Back door option looms large I feel. Tyrone would need to have a bad day . Even with an extra man they were well better than us in the league game.
I have to assume that you are a Donegal man from your use of the word "us". If that is the case then your knowledge of Donegal's tactics in championship games is lamentable. You state that everyone knows their "old" gameplan. A wee test for you then, explain it.
As for the league game, that was a league game, in winter, in Omagh, a world of difference from a championship game, in summer in Ballybofey.
You want me to explain their tactics.
I presume you ask this for your own benefit? A 6 year old girl from Laois can do that for you if you ask them nicely .So drop the 'Superiority' complex right there sunny.
I not one of those yellow and green glass tainted yes men who have nothing to add to a conversation other than 'we're better than yous' 'It'll be a different game in ballybofey' 'Donegal don't care about the Leauge' guff.
From what I've read from your posts that's pretty much what I'm getting from you .No offence.
Am I concerned? Yes
Why wouldn't anyone. We deserved to get relegated and Tyrone have been gelling and playing at a superior level .
The reason I asked you to explain their tactics, which I notice you didn't, is because there isn't just one set of tactics. Donegal, in championship mode, employ a range of tactics & strategies depending on the situation in which they find themselves. I have no doubt that they will have something in mind for the challenge Tyrone will put up but it will not be the same as what they used against Mayo because they are different teams with different strengths & weaknesses. Will it be enough, who knows?
Your "we deserved to get relegated" comment added to the general tenor of your contributions leads me to believe that you are not a Donegal man at all but a troll masquerading as one of Tir Conaill's best.
By the way "sunny" should be sonny, "tainted" should be tinted & "leauge" should be league. No Donegal man would post such a sloppy effort!!
Oh sweet Jesus Christ ...stop please while your behind.
Who are you?
Do you really think I'm going to do your private 'initiation' 'test' on tatics on an internet forum so as to 'earn' the privilege to support my own county?
'Donegal employ a wide range of tactics' - no shit Sherlock
If your worried about my allegiance email me ffs and I'll send you a photo of me outside my workplace with my DL car .If you want I can have a newspaper with tomorrows date highlighted for you!
Talk to me about our tactics from the front forward line to the back line .Dont skip the Leauge games . I expect you to know and highlight the problems especially against Cork and Mayo. Don't just concentrate on last year's championship.
I will then tell you where your wrong and I won't hold back.
Put in the legwork 'sunny'.
Prove your not some little keyboard warrior or some defensive little sycophant who's idea of supporting his county is based on 'I'm a better supporter than you cause Donegal people only say positive defensive things about our team and players '
Jesus that's for the Dubs ,some of them seemingly here can't admit there boy obviously did SOMETHING wrong.
The problem is that I have seen no evidence at all of you supporting your county. If the couple of posts you have put up here are evidence of your "support" then all I can say is that it's a new definition of the word support.
Of course I will refer to the championship, that's the competition we are coming into now & it's a whole different ball game to the league. Jim has a full deck to pick from, they will be fully fit, which means that the intensity will be there & focused on the targets they had set themselves from the beginning of the year, namely 3 Ulster titles in a row and defend their AI title.
Can they do it? Maybe, maybe not. The odds are against them as there are many fine teams out there, Tyrone being one of them & only one can win.
Look , I don't care if you agree with me or not. Two other posters who I can only presume are from Donegal dissagreeed with me or thought I was being negative. That's fine.
You on the other hand implied I'm a liar and that i don't know what im talking about.
You saw my single post & thought you could act the big man and i called you out. I assure you i know what im taking about and i have all but 3 of our leauge games recorded , trust me on the long ball to Murphy.
Yes of course the championship is different but presuming both teams are training hard,all things considered I just don't see where a massive turnaround is going to come from. And im just being honest.
I don't actually care if you've seen 'evidence' of me supporting my team or not.I completley fail to see what relevance or importance that carries for you personally. I've only joined a few days...give me bloody time.
As I said if you want to check my identity ; email me or ask one of the moderators to give you my IP location. Don't make baseless lazy attacks.
Lads, there's a personal message function for this type of stuff.
One would indeed wonder why young McBrearty didn't turn up for the hearing. If there is a single informed Donegal poster on the board maybe they can post why. I'm not going to.
As I said at the time, I found the piety of the people from Donegal involved sickening.
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 08:20:49 PM
One would indeed wonder why young McBrearty didn't turn up for the hearing. If there is a single informed Donegal poster on the board maybe they can post why. I'm not going to.
As I said at the time, I found the piety of the people from Donegal involved sickening.
Nobody knows the exact sequence of events here but my take is as follows. I may well be wrong but if anyone knows better then that's fine.
1 McBrearty informed the Donegal management team at half time that he had been bitten & named the Dublin player involved.
2 Due to the serious nature of the of the offence the Donegal management alerted the referee as he had not noticed it taking place.
3 The referee sent in hid report & the CCCC decided that there was a case to answer.
4 The CCCC gave O'Brien a choice between 3 weeks or a hearing, O'Brien chode a hearing which was his right.
5 McBrearty did not want to be involved in the disciplinary process from the beginning & more so when it became apparent that there was no independent evidence & it was his word against O'Brien's.
In my opinion the CCCC should have stopped this case when it was established that there was no independent evidence of an offence taking place let alone the identity of the offender. However it also needs to be said that this is only my take on events, without a proper explanation all we have is conjecture which is not fair on anyone.
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 08:44:51 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 08:20:49 PM
One would indeed wonder why young McBrearty didn't turn up for the hearing. If there is a single informed Donegal poster on the board maybe they can post why. I'm not going to.
As I said at the time, I found the piety of the people from Donegal involved sickening.
Nobody knows the exact sequence of events here but my take is as follows. I may well be wrong but if anyone knows better then that's fine.
1 McBrearty informed the Donegal management team at half time that he had been bitten & named the Dublin player involved.
2 Due to the serious nature of the of the offence the Donegal management alerted the referee as he had not noticed it taking place.
3 The referee sent in hid report & the CCCC decided that there was a case to answer.
4 The CCCC gave O'Brien a choice between 3 weeks or a hearing, O'Brien chode a hearing which was his right.
5 McBrearty did not want to be involved in the disciplinary process from the beginning & more so when it became apparent that there was no independent evidence & it was his word against O'Brien's.
In my opinion the CCCC should have stopped this case when it was established that there was no independent evidence of an offence taking place let alone the identity of the offender. However it also needs to be said that this is only my take on events, without a proper explanation all we have is conjecture which is not fair on anyone.
I do.
Why don't you go arm yourself with some facts as to why he didn't turn up.
Ps, what would you say is the most reprehensible act that would receive 100% universal comdemnation on a football pitch?
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 08:48:23 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 08:44:51 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 08:20:49 PM
One would indeed wonder why young McBrearty didn't turn up for the hearing. If there is a single informed Donegal poster on the board maybe they can post why. I'm not going to.
As I said at the time, I found the piety of the people from Donegal involved sickening.
Nobody knows the exact sequence of events here but my take is as follows. I may well be wrong but if anyone knows better then that's fine.
1 McBrearty informed the Donegal management team at half time that he had been bitten & named the Dublin player involved.
2 Due to the serious nature of the of the offence the Donegal management alerted the referee as he had not noticed it taking place.
3 The referee sent in hid report & the CCCC decided that there was a case to answer.
4 The CCCC gave O'Brien a choice between 3 weeks or a hearing, O'Brien chode a hearing which was his right.
5 McBrearty did not want to be involved in the disciplinary process from the beginning & more so when it became apparent that there was no independent evidence & it was his word against O'Brien's.
In my opinion the CCCC should have stopped this case when it was established that there was no independent evidence of an offence taking place let alone the identity of the offender. However it also needs to be said that this is only my take on events, without a proper explanation all we have is conjecture which is not fair on anyone.
I do.
Why don't you go arm yourself with some facts as to why he didn't turn up.
Ps, what would you say is the most reprehensible act that would receive 100% universal comdemnation on a football pitch?
If as you say you know, then let's hear it. Lets also hear your sources. Otherwise anything you have to say is just more conjecture.
Heffo,
Sorry, I didn't answer your question about the most reprehensible act a player could commit.
I'm sure you could start a thread about this on it's own as people would have different opinions. For me it would be any assault on a player who is in no position to defend himself. The sad fact is that there is no shortage of examples down the years.
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 08:48:23 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 08:44:51 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 08:20:49 PM
One would indeed wonder why young McBrearty didn't turn up for the hearing. If there is a single informed Donegal poster on the board maybe they can post why. I'm not going to.
As I said at the time, I found the piety of the people from Donegal involved sickening.
Nobody knows the exact sequence of events here but my take is as follows. I may well be wrong but if anyone knows better then that's fine.
1 McBrearty informed the Donegal management team at half time that he had been bitten & named the Dublin player involved.
2 Due to the serious nature of the of the offence the Donegal management alerted the referee as he had not noticed it taking place.
3 The referee sent in hid report & the CCCC decided that there was a case to answer.
4 The CCCC gave O'Brien a choice between 3 weeks or a hearing, O'Brien chode a hearing which was his right.
5 McBrearty did not want to be involved in the disciplinary process from the beginning & more so when it became apparent that there was no independent evidence & it was his word against O'Brien's.
In my opinion the CCCC should have stopped this case when it was established that there was no independent evidence of an offence taking place let alone the identity of the offender. However it also needs to be said that this is only my take on events, without a proper explanation all we have is conjecture which is not fair on anyone.
I do.
Why don't you go arm yourself with some facts as to why he didn't turn up.
Ps, what would you say is the most reprehensible act that would receive 100% universal comdemnation on a football pitch?
Can any of you lads answer this question - had Padddy Mc Brearty turned up to the hearing, went in and said it was O'Brien that bit him and O'Brien denied it, would the Hearings Committee have found him guilty ?
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 09:12:51 PM
Heffo,
Sorry, I didn't answer your question about the most reprehensible act a player could commit.
I'm sure you could start a thread about this on it's own as people would have different opinions. For me it would be any assault on a player who is in no position to defend himself. The sad fact is that there is no shortage of examples down the years.
Did young Paddy play a club game recently? Did it pass off without incident?
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 09:57:33 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 09:12:51 PM
Heffo,
Sorry, I didn't answer your question about the most reprehensible act a player could commit.
I'm sure you could start a thread about this on it's own as people would have different opinions. For me it would be any assault on a player who is in no position to defend himself. The sad fact is that there is no shortage of examples down the years.
Did young Paddy play a club game recently? Did it pass off without incident?
Heffo,
I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, Either p**s or get off the pot.
Quote from: orangeman on May 05, 2013, 09:31:27 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 08:48:23 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 08:44:51 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 08:20:49 PM
One would indeed wonder why young McBrearty didn't turn up for the hearing. If there is a single informed Donegal poster on the board maybe they can post why. I'm not going to.
As I said at the time, I found the piety of the people from Donegal involved sickening.
Nobody knows the exact sequence of events here but my take is as follows. I may well be wrong but if anyone knows better then that's fine.
1 McBrearty informed the Donegal management team at half time that he had been bitten & named the Dublin player involved.
2 Due to the serious nature of the of the offence the Donegal management alerted the referee as he had not noticed it taking place.
3 The referee sent in hid report & the CCCC decided that there was a case to answer.
4 The CCCC gave O'Brien a choice between 3 weeks or a hearing, O'Brien chode a hearing which was his right.
5 McBrearty did not want to be involved in the disciplinary process from the beginning & more so when it became apparent that there was no independent evidence & it was his word against O'Brien's.
In my opinion the CCCC should have stopped this case when it was established that there was no independent evidence of an offence taking place let alone the identity of the offender. However it also needs to be said that this is only my take on events, without a proper explanation all we have is conjecture which is not fair on anyone.
I do.
Why don't you go arm yourself with some facts as to why he didn't turn up.
Ps, what would you say is the most reprehensible act that would receive 100% universal comdemnation on a football pitch?
Can any of you lads answer this question - had Padddy Mc Brearty turned up to the hearing, went in and said it was O'Brien that bit him and O'Brien denied it, would the Hearings Committee have found him guilty ?
I would have thought not, guilty until proven innocent.
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 10:32:04 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 09:57:33 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 09:12:51 PM
Heffo,
Sorry, I didn't answer your question about the most reprehensible act a player could commit.
I'm sure you could start a thread about this on it's own as people would have different opinions. For me it would be any assault on a player who is in no position to defend himself. The sad fact is that there is no shortage of examples down the years.
Did young Paddy play a club game recently? Did it pass off without incident?
Heffo,
I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, Either p**s or get off the pot.
You should inform yourself and stop reposting the same stuff over and over.
I've nothing further to say on the subject and hadn't posted for ten days until the same uninformed posters from Donegal were going around in circles.
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 10:35:04 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 10:32:04 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 09:57:33 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 09:12:51 PM
Heffo,
Sorry, I didn't answer your question about the most reprehensible act a player could commit.
I'm sure you could start a thread about this on it's own as people would have different opinions. For me it would be any assault on a player who is in no position to defend himself. The sad fact is that there is no shortage of examples down the years.
Did young Paddy play a club game recently? Did it pass off without incident?
Heffo,
I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, Either p**s or get off the pot.
You should inform yourself and stop reposting the same stuff over and over.
I've nothing further to say on the subject and hadn't posted for ten days until the same uninformed posters from Donegal were going around in circles.
As I thought, more hot air to add to all the rest. Nearly enough to lift a balloon at this stage.
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 10:47:46 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 10:35:04 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 10:32:04 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 09:57:33 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 09:12:51 PM
Heffo,
Sorry, I didn't answer your question about the most reprehensible act a player could commit.
I'm sure you could start a thread about this on it's own as people would have different opinions. For me it would be any assault on a player who is in no position to defend himself. The sad fact is that there is no shortage of examples down the years.
Did young Paddy play a club game recently? Did it pass off without incident?
Heffo,
I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, Either p**s or get off the pot.
You should inform yourself and stop reposting the same stuff over and over.
I've nothing further to say on the subject and hadn't posted for ten days until the same uninformed posters from Donegal were going around in circles.
As I thought, more hot air to add to all the rest. Nearly enough to lift a balloon at this stage.
I'll let other posters make their mind up as to the veracity of my comments.
I've a long track record of not being far from the mark on this board. You don't. Go inform yourself. You never answered my last question by the way.
A track record doesn't give anyone licence to throw insinuations in and then say that they are not gong to talk abou them. No credibility to be gained there.
Your last question was about McBrearty in a recent club game. I replied that I hadn't a clue what you were talking about. If you were at the game & have something to tell us then do, otherwise this is becoming tiresome
Whatever the truth is here lads, it has so far not emerged.
Meanwhile young O'Brien has had a very serious allegation and suspension proposed against him only for no evidence to be offered against him.
This cannot and should not be allowed to happen ever again.
Embarrassing at the very least.
Hopefully it all comes out in the wash so that either Doengal or Dublin and the Dublin player are vindicated and that the CCC have a bit of cop on in relation to these unsubstantiated allegations.
Quote from: orangeman on May 05, 2013, 11:04:31 PM
Whatever the truth is here lads, it has so far not emerged.
Meanwhile young O'Brien has had a very serious allegation and suspension proposed against him only for no evidence to be offered against him.
This cannot and should not be allowed to happen ever again.
Embarrassing at the very least.
Hopefully it all comes out in the wash so that either Doengal or Dublin and the Dublin player are vindicated and that the CCC have a bit of cop on in relation to these unsubstantiated allegations.
Agreed
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 10:49:55 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 10:47:46 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 10:35:04 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 10:32:04 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 09:57:33 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 09:12:51 PM
Heffo,
Sorry, I didn't answer your question about the most reprehensible act a player could commit.
I'm sure you could start a thread about this on it's own as people would have different opinions. For me it would be any assault on a player who is in no position to defend himself. The sad fact is that there is no shortage of examples down the years.
Did young Paddy play a club game recently? Did it pass off without incident?
Heffo,
I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, Either p**s or get off the pot.
You should inform yourself and stop reposting the same stuff over and over.
I've nothing further to say on the subject and hadn't posted for ten days until the same uninformed posters from Donegal were going around in circles.
As I thought, more hot air to add to all the rest. Nearly enough to lift a balloon at this stage.
I'll let other posters make their mind up as to the veracity of my comments.
I've a long track record of not being far from the mark on this board. You don't. Go inform yourself. You never answered my last question by the way.
You've a long track record of posting innuendo, horseshit and pretending to be in the know.
You also have a track record of accusing people of being Ewan McKenna when called to account on the above.
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 10:35:04 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 10:32:04 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 09:57:33 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 09:12:51 PM
Heffo,
Sorry, I didn't answer your question about the most reprehensible act a player could commit.
I'm sure you could start a thread about this on it's own as people would have different opinions. For me it would be any assault on a player who is in no position to defend himself. The sad fact is that there is no shortage of examples down the years.
Did young Paddy play a club game recently? Did it pass off without incident?
Heffo,
I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, Either p**s or get off the pot.
You should inform yourself and stop reposting the same stuff over and over.
I've nothing further to say on the subject and hadn't posted for ten days until the same uninformed posters from Donegal were going around in circles.
Really?
Because it looked like you boys fled the thread after the McMahon video was posted!
Quote from: stephenite on May 06, 2013, 11:00:22 AM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 10:49:55 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 10:47:46 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 10:35:04 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 10:32:04 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 09:57:33 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 09:12:51 PM
Heffo,
Sorry, I didn't answer your question about the most reprehensible act a player could commit.
I'm sure you could start a thread about this on it's own as people would have different opinions. For me it would be any assault on a player who is in no position to defend himself. The sad fact is that there is no shortage of examples down the years.
Did young Paddy play a club game recently? Did it pass off without incident?
Heffo,
I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, Either p**s or get off the pot.
You should inform yourself and stop reposting the same stuff over and over.
I've nothing further to say on the subject and hadn't posted for ten days until the same uninformed posters from Donegal were going around in circles.
As I thought, more hot air to add to all the rest. Nearly enough to lift a balloon at this stage.
I'll let other posters make their mind up as to the veracity of my comments.
I've a long track record of not being far from the mark on this board. You don't. Go inform yourself. You never answered my last question by the way.
You've a long track record of posting innuendo, horseshit and pretending to be in the know.
You also have a track record of accusing people of being Ewan McKenna when called to account on the above.
Fair point Ewan.
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2013, 12:06:37 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 10:35:04 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 10:32:04 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 09:57:33 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 09:12:51 PM
Heffo,
Sorry, I didn't answer your question about the most reprehensible act a player could commit.
I'm sure you could start a thread about this on it's own as people would have different opinions. For me it would be any assault on a player who is in no position to defend himself. The sad fact is that there is no shortage of examples down the years.
Did young Paddy play a club game recently? Did it pass off without incident?
Heffo,
I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, Either p**s or get off the pot.
You should inform yourself and stop reposting the same stuff over and over.
I've nothing further to say on the subject and hadn't posted for ten days until the same uninformed posters from Donegal were going around in circles.
Really?
Because it looked like you boys fled the thread after the McMahon video was posted!
That video has been doing the rounds for the last 2 1/2 years - there is a disciplinary process in our organisation which should deal with it if indeed there is anything to deal with - all I see is a grainy video which is vague at best. The recent Donegal gouging was far clearer.
I'm saying there was a reprehensible incident in a club game very recently, details of which were contained in the referee's report. It seems to have been swept under the carpet. Had that any bearing on the silence from Donegal recently and the no-show from young Paddy?
We need details Heffo, details.
(http://i648.photobucket.com/albums/uu206/Hardyarse/paul_newman_zps9c617588.jpg)
Quote from: heffo on May 06, 2013, 12:44:37 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2013, 12:06:37 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 10:35:04 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 10:32:04 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 05, 2013, 09:57:33 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 05, 2013, 09:12:51 PM
Heffo,
Sorry, I didn't answer your question about the most reprehensible act a player could commit.
I'm sure you could start a thread about this on it's own as people would have different opinions. For me it would be any assault on a player who is in no position to defend himself. The sad fact is that there is no shortage of examples down the years.
Did young Paddy play a club game recently? Did it pass off without incident?
Heffo,
I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, Either p**s or get off the pot.
You should inform yourself and stop reposting the same stuff over and over.
I've nothing further to say on the subject and hadn't posted for ten days until the same uninformed posters from Donegal were going around in circles.
Really?
Because it looked like you boys fled the thread after the McMahon video was posted!
That video has been doing the rounds for the last 2 1/2 years - there is a disciplinary process in our organisation which should deal with it if indeed there is anything to deal with - all I see is a grainy video which is vague at best. The recent Donegal gouging was far clearer.
I'm saying there was a reprehensible incident in a club game very recently, details of which were contained in the referee's report. It seems to have been swept under the carpet. Had that any bearing on the silence from Donegal recently and the no-show from young Paddy?
LOL. Dodges and benefits of the doubt for your own player and innuendo and accusations for everyone else! Why don't you tell us what you "know"?
And BTW, it was at least plausible that the gouge or rake was unintentional. What's the alternate theory for McMahon and the reactive slap from the Cork player?
All this carrying on isn't doing Donegal any favours going into the Tyrone game. Not that it should have any impact but hardly great preperation either,
I'm sure McGuinness would have a wanted a low key build up after a poor League. Being in the spotlight over an incident which happened over a Month is hardly ideal preperation. If Donegal were that fussed about the case, they should have sent Paddy McBrearty to the meeting, instead of letting the thing drag out
Quote from: rodney trotter on May 06, 2013, 02:09:14 PM
All this carrying on isn't doing Donegal any favours going into the Tyrone game. Not that it should have any impact but hardly great preperation either,
I'm sure McGuinness would have a wanted a low key build up after a poor League. Being in the spotlight over an incident which happened over a Month is hardly ideal preperation. If Donegal were that fussed about the case, they should have sent Paddy McBrearty to the meeting, instead of letting the thing drag out
But it was done with last week.
The nonsense that goes on here hasn't much relevance to Donegal's (or Dublin's, or Tyrone's) preparation.
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2013, 02:28:32 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on May 06, 2013, 02:09:14 PM
All this carrying on isn't doing Donegal any favours going into the Tyrone game. Not that it should have any impact but hardly great preperation either,
I'm sure McGuinness would have a wanted a low key build up after a poor League. Being in the spotlight over an incident which happened over a Month is hardly ideal preperation. If Donegal were that fussed about the case, they should have sent Paddy McBrearty to the meeting, instead of letting the thing drag out
But it was done with last week.
The nonsense that goes on here hasn't much relevance to Donegal's (or Dublin's, or Tyrone's) preparation.
True, best to let it go I suppose.
Quote from: rodney trotter on May 06, 2013, 02:34:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2013, 02:28:32 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on May 06, 2013, 02:09:14 PM
All this carrying on isn't doing Donegal any favours going into the Tyrone game. Not that it should have any impact but hardly great preperation either,
I'm sure McGuinness would have a wanted a low key build up after a poor League. Being in the spotlight over an incident which happened over a Month is hardly ideal preperation. If Donegal were that fussed about the case, they should have sent Paddy McBrearty to the meeting, instead of letting the thing drag out
But it was done with last week.
The nonsense that goes on here hasn't much relevance to Donegal's (or Dublin's, or Tyrone's) preparation.
True, best to let it go I suppose.
Amen to that!!
Dont like the title to this thread, Donegal are not on a slippery slope. top 3 team thats got a good chance to win the all-ireland, chance it to Donegals all-ireland chances or something!
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on May 06, 2013, 07:03:02 PM
Dont like the title to this thread, Donegal are not on a slippery slope. top 3 team thats got a good chance to win the all-ireland, chance it to Donegals all-ireland chances or something!
Maybe they have been training in Bundoran Waterworld.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 06, 2013, 07:14:08 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on May 06, 2013, 07:03:02 PM
Dont like the title to this thread, Donegal are not on a slippery slope. top 3 team thats got a good chance to win the all-ireland, chance it to Donegals all-ireland chances or something!
Maybe they have been training in Bundoran Waterworld.
Running naked up & down Errigal all weekend. Gave the tourists something to talk about!!!
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 06, 2013, 07:25:27 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on May 06, 2013, 07:14:08 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on May 06, 2013, 07:03:02 PM
Dont like the title to this thread, Donegal are not on a slippery slope. top 3 team thats got a good chance to win the all-ireland, chance it to Donegals all-ireland chances or something!
Maybe they have been training in Bundoran Waterworld.
Running naked up & down Errigal all weekend. Gave the tourists something to talk about!!!
Sounds like the lads Gerald of Wales imagined and wrote about as he slandered the Irish.
Whatever about being on a slippery slope, the schedule some of these players are going through is something else.
This weekend just gone the Kilcar county players did the following
Thu County training
Fri Challenge game against Galway in Sligo
Sat County training followed by league game (Mc Brearty scored 2-6)
Mon League game
I have nothing but confidence in JMcG and his team & I'm sure they know what they're doing, but Jesus this is extreme!!!!!
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 06, 2013, 08:53:55 PM
Whatever about being on a slippery slope, the schedule some of these players are going through is something else.
This weekend just gone the Kilcar county players did the following
Thu County training
Fri Challenge game against Galway in Sligo
Sat County training followed by league game (Mc Brearty scored 2-6)
Mon League game
I have nothing but confidence in JMcG and his team & I'm sure they know what they're doing, but Jesus this is extreme!!!!!
A 5 point win for Donegal from what i hear.
He should just let it go at this stage.
It's obviously been gnawing at him though.
I think it was vital that McGuinness made some sort of statement as their silence since the incident has created a strange sort of mystery around the whole incident, which the Dubs and some others have clung onto and turned the whole thing on its head.
I think that's why Jimmy highlights that McBrearty was actually the victim here and lets not forget that but a lot of people on here seem to not believe that and seem to be stating that Donegal are lying about the whole incident.
I know a lot of ye are fed up discussing this at this stage but I'd be curious how many of ye think Donegal are lying and how many believe that an incident did happen but they just couldn't prove it.
In my eyes I believe the latter.
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 10, 2013, 10:43:40 AM
I think it was vital that McGuinness made some sort of statement as their silence since the incident has created a strange sort of mystery around the whole incident, which the Dubs and some others have clung onto and turned the whole thing on its head.
I think that's why Jimmy highlights that McBrearty was actually the victim here and lets not forget that but a lot of people on here seem to not believe that and seem to be stating that Donegal are lying about the whole incident.
I know a lot of ye are fed up discussing this at this stage but I'd be curious how many of ye think Donegal are lying and how many believe that an incident did happen but they just couldn't prove it.
In my eyes I believe the latter.
You're entitled to your opinion however uninformed it may be.
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 10:46:35 AM
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 10, 2013, 10:43:40 AM
I think it was vital that McGuinness made some sort of statement as their silence since the incident has created a strange sort of mystery around the whole incident, which the Dubs and some others have clung onto and turned the whole thing on its head.
I think that's why Jimmy highlights that McBrearty was actually the victim here and lets not forget that but a lot of people on here seem to not believe that and seem to be stating that Donegal are lying about the whole incident.
I know a lot of ye are fed up discussing this at this stage but I'd be curious how many of ye think Donegal are lying and how many believe that an incident did happen but they just couldn't prove it.
In my eyes I believe the latter.
You're entitled to your opinion however uninformed it may be.
Heffo this is getting ridiculous now. You and Indiana claim to have the inside track and know what went on yet are unwilling to post the whole story? You're making yourselves out to be totally unreasonable and blinkered Dublin supporters.
If you have information that we are not party to then why now share it and enlighten us all.
If you're not then it's clearly looking like O'Brien bit McBrearty. Is he going to deny that he apologised to McBrearty after the match? Is the Dublin doctor going to come out and say he didn't accept there was a bite at the time?
Unless you can fill us in Dublin are coming out worst in this!!!!
Quote from: screenexile on May 10, 2013, 10:48:57 AM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 10:46:35 AM
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 10, 2013, 10:43:40 AM
I think it was vital that McGuinness made some sort of statement as their silence since the incident has created a strange sort of mystery around the whole incident, which the Dubs and some others have clung onto and turned the whole thing on its head.
I think that's why Jimmy highlights that McBrearty was actually the victim here and lets not forget that but a lot of people on here seem to not believe that and seem to be stating that Donegal are lying about the whole incident.
I know a lot of ye are fed up discussing this at this stage but I'd be curious how many of ye think Donegal are lying and how many believe that an incident did happen but they just couldn't prove it.
In my eyes I believe the latter.
You're entitled to your opinion however uninformed it may be.
Heffo this is getting ridiculous now. You and Indiana claim to have the inside track and know what went on yet are unwilling to post the whole story? You're making yourselves out to be totally unreasonable and blinkered Dublin supporters.
If you have information that we are not party to then why now share it and enlighten us all.
If you're not then it's clearly looking like O'Brien bit McBrearty. Is he going to deny that he apologised to McBrearty after the match? Is the Dublin doctor going to come out and say he didn't accept there was a bite at the time?
Unless you can fill us in Dublin are coming out worst in this!!!!
I'll say it 100% - there was no bite. An incident took place between the players and neither was worse than the other. They shook hands after the game as both were guilty - there was never an apology from either player to the best of my knowledge.
This was driven by two people in the Donegal setup - one member of mgt and one officer of the board.
There was another good reason why McBrearty didn't turn up at the hearing (aside from the fact there was no bite) - I've already alluded to that and until it's published in the media somewhere (which I've no doubt it will be) I'm not going to say anything further.
So McBrearty was a bold boy as well then?
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 10, 2013, 10:43:40 AM
I think it was vital that McGuinness made some sort of statement as their silence since the incident has created a strange sort of mystery around the whole incident, which the Dubs and some others have clung onto and turned the whole thing on its head.
I think that's why Jimmy highlights that McBrearty was actually the victim here and lets not forget that but a lot of people on here seem to not believe that and seem to be stating that Donegal are lying about the whole incident.
I know a lot of ye are fed up discussing this at this stage but I'd be curious how many of ye think Donegal are lying and how many believe that an incident did happen but they just couldn't prove it.
In my eyes I believe the latter.
Well your options are:
1. Bite, report, investigation, young lad doesn't want to "snitch", matter dropped.
2. Orchestrated conspiracy (including Letterkenny hospital and photographic evidence) to blacken name of innocent player for reasons as yet unapparent (or even theoretically plausible), with conspiracy collapsing due to McBrearty commiting some alleged, unnamed, but apparently heinous act in a club game and thus having to withdraw due to compromised credibility (because McBrearty commiting some offense means he can't have been a victim in a different game) or because his cooperation with CHC would lead to his exposure and thus suspension (not sure how... Blackmail?).
I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
But if I was, I would find it interesting that two known alleged biting incidents in recent years in intercounty football have involved Dublin players.
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 11:02:45 AM
Quote from: screenexile on May 10, 2013, 10:48:57 AM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 10:46:35 AM
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 10, 2013, 10:43:40 AM
I think it was vital that McGuinness made some sort of statement as their silence since the incident has created a strange sort of mystery around the whole incident, which the Dubs and some others have clung onto and turned the whole thing on its head.
I think that's why Jimmy highlights that McBrearty was actually the victim here and lets not forget that but a lot of people on here seem to not believe that and seem to be stating that Donegal are lying about the whole incident.
I know a lot of ye are fed up discussing this at this stage but I'd be curious how many of ye think Donegal are lying and how many believe that an incident did happen but they just couldn't prove it.
In my eyes I believe the latter.
You're entitled to your opinion however uninformed it may be.
Heffo this is getting ridiculous now. You and Indiana claim to have the inside track and know what went on yet are unwilling to post the whole story? You're making yourselves out to be totally unreasonable and blinkered Dublin supporters.
If you have information that we are not party to then why now share it and enlighten us all.
If you're not then it's clearly looking like O'Brien bit McBrearty. Is he going to deny that he apologised to McBrearty after the match? Is the Dublin doctor going to come out and say he didn't accept there was a bite at the time?
Unless you can fill us in Dublin are coming out worst in this!!!!
I'll say it 100% - there was no bite. An incident took place between the players and neither was worse than the other. They shook hands after the game as both were guilty - there was never an apology from either player to the best of my knowledge.
This was driven by two people in the Donegal setup - one member of mgt and one officer of the board.
There was another good reason why McBrearty didn't turn up at the hearing (aside from the fact there was no bite) - I've already alluded to that and until it's published in the media somewhere (which I've no doubt it will be) I'm not going to say anything further.
Compare this assertion with Jim McGuinness' statement.
"There's an apportion of blame there, which I don't like. I don't like the apportion of the blame. Patrick is without blame in this situation.
He was bit, and was a victim of that bite.If McGuinness says there was a bite then I'd have to believe him, the statements coming from Dublin posters is pure innuendo designed to deflect attention away from the fact that there was a bite.
Stating that there was no bite but without presenting any facts is mischievous from the Dublin camp who are trying to portray Donegal as liers in this whole affair. After McGuinness' emphatic statement I know who I believe now.
In fairness if it was Dublin versus anyone else, particulary in Ulster, and Dublin denied the Ulster team's assertion that snow was black and fell upwards, a goodly portion of posters here would believe the lads from Ulster.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 01:50:52 PM
In fairness if it was Dublin versus anyone else, particulary in Ulster, and Dublin denied the Ulster team's assertion that snow was black and fell upwards, a goodly portion of posters here would believe the lads from Ulster.
I don't think so, I'm as jealous of Donegal's success as an southerner and wouldn't be running to catch the gospel from a management team that contains Rory Gallagher. Common sense would tell you the likely scenario here though and you have to go by that, which seems more plausible to you?
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 01:39:02 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 10, 2013, 10:43:40 AM
I think it was vital that McGuinness made some sort of statement as their silence since the incident has created a strange sort of mystery around the whole incident, which the Dubs and some others have clung onto and turned the whole thing on its head.
I think that's why Jimmy highlights that McBrearty was actually the victim here and lets not forget that but a lot of people on here seem to not believe that and seem to be stating that Donegal are lying about the whole incident.
I know a lot of ye are fed up discussing this at this stage but I'd be curious how many of ye think Donegal are lying and how many believe that an incident did happen but they just couldn't prove it.
In my eyes I believe the latter.
2. Orchestrated conspiracy (including Letterkenny hospital and photographic evidence) to blacken name of innocent player for reasons as yet unapparent (or even theoretically plausible), with conspiracy collapsing due to McBrearty commiting some alleged, unnamed, but apparently heinous act in a club game and thus having to withdraw due to compromised credibility (because McBrearty commiting some offense means he can't have been a victim in a different game) or because his cooperation with CHC would lead to his exposure and thus suspension (not sure how... Blackmail?).
It's interesting while knowing zero about any of the facts of the situation, you describe the above as 'evidence' while the GAA president says 'We had no evidence provided on the game'
To be honest, I think he may have gotten hit bit or mauled in some way, but not badly. I think someone exaggerated the incident and then when the shit hit the fan were unwilling to put themselves in the way of a questioner.
But I know nothing, and that is pure conjecture. (Which I am happy to admit).
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:04:13 PM
To be honest, I think he may have gotten hit bit or mauled in some way, but not badly. I think someone exaggerated the incident and then when the shit hit the fan were unwilling to put themselves in the way of a questioner.
But I know nothing, and that is pure conjecture. (Which I am happy to admit).
The only lads expressing certainty here are the conspiracy theorists from Dublin.
Please, no more about this. It has been done to death & we are no nearer a definitive account of what actually happened. Everyone has their own opinions but that is all we have.
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:04:13 PM
To be honest, I think he may have gotten hit bit or mauled in some way, but not badly. I think someone exaggerated the incident and then when the shit hit the fan were unwilling to put themselves in the way of a questioner.
But I know nothing, and that is pure conjecture. (Which I am happy to admit).
The only lads expressing certainty here are the conspiracy theorists from Dublin.
This sounds pretty definitive:
"the statements coming from Dublin posters is
pure innuendo designed to deflect attention away from the
fact that there was a bite."
I agree, it probably has been done to death, but I feel sorry for young O'Brien. Because of the way this has gone, loads of people, including a lot on here, think he got off on a technicality. If I were him I'd be extremely pissed off to have that associated with my name for the rest of his career.
And speaking of unlikely events, the reason behind my conjecture is that I can't understand why someone who had been bit badly enough to go to hospital, apparently had evidence of a bad bite, witnessed by doctors etc. etc. etc. would suddenly decide to clam up after initially reporting the incident, and then not appear at all at the appeal where they could be questioned or challenged on the evidence.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:15:23 PM
I agree, it probably has been done to death, but I feel sorry for young O'Brien. Because of the way this has gone, loads of people, including a lot on here, think he got off on a technicality. If I were him I'd be extremely pissed off to have that associated with my name for the rest of his career.
And speaking of unlikely events, the reason behind my conjecture is that I can't understand why someone who had been bit badly enough to go to hospital, apparently had evidence of a bad bite, witnessed by doctors etc. etc. etc. would suddenly decide to clam up after initially reporting the incident, and then not appear at all at the appeal where they could be questioned or challenged on the evidence.
The answer to that probably lies in the last sentence of your post. McBrearty is a teenager & did not relish being "questioned or challenged on the evidence" in a formal hearing. He said his piece in the report & really there was nothing else he could add. If what was in the report wasn't good enough what else could he add that would have improved things?
Has it ever came out when in the match this happened?
Was it during open play or did it happen at half time?
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:14:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:04:13 PM
To be honest, I think he may have gotten hit bit or mauled in some way, but not badly. I think someone exaggerated the incident and then when the shit hit the fan were unwilling to put themselves in the way of a questioner.
But I know nothing, and that is pure conjecture. (Which I am happy to admit).
The only lads expressing certainty here are the conspiracy theorists from Dublin.
This sounds pretty definitive:
"the statements coming from Dublin posters is pure innuendo designed to deflect attention away from the fact that there was a bite."
You can be pedantic if you want and select bits of a sentence but that is designed simply to deflect attention from the
fact that the Dublin arguments are nothing more than innuendo.
McGuinness' statement, together with those of county board officials and backroom team along with medical reports and photographs suggest to me that there was a bite. Seriously, who do you expect people to believe?
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 10, 2013, 02:23:38 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:15:23 PM
I agree, it probably has been done to death, but I feel sorry for young O'Brien. Because of the way this has gone, loads of people, including a lot on here, think he got off on a technicality. If I were him I'd be extremely pissed off to have that associated with my name for the rest of his career.
And speaking of unlikely events, the reason behind my conjecture is that I can't understand why someone who had been bit badly enough to go to hospital, apparently had evidence of a bad bite, witnessed by doctors etc. etc. etc. would suddenly decide to clam up after initially reporting the incident, and then not appear at all at the appeal where they could be questioned or challenged on the evidence.
The answer to that probably lies in the last sentence of your post. McBrearty is a teenager & did not relish being "questioned or challenged on the evidence" in a formal hearing. He said his piece in the report & really there was nothing else he could add. If what was in the report wasn't good enough what else could he add that would have improved things?
I'm sure he wouldn't relish it, who would? But if the complaint was made, and the evidence was clear, as has been suggested, why would he not just come and reiterate his story. You can't clarify or ask a question of a 'report', so due process has to be followed. What would he be afraid of?
Quote from: yellowcard on May 10, 2013, 02:27:51 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:14:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:04:13 PM
To be honest, I think he may have gotten hit bit or mauled in some way, but not badly. I think someone exaggerated the incident and then when the shit hit the fan were unwilling to put themselves in the way of a questioner.
But I know nothing, and that is pure conjecture. (Which I am happy to admit).
The only lads expressing certainty here are the conspiracy theorists from Dublin.
This sounds pretty definitive:
"the statements coming from Dublin posters is pure innuendo designed to deflect attention away from the fact that there was a bite."
You can be pedantic if you want and select bits of a sentence but that is designed simply to deflect attention from the fact that the Dublin arguments are nothing more than innuendo.
McGuinness' statement, together with those of county board officials and backroom team along with medical reports and photographs suggest to me that there was a bite. Seriously, who do you expect people to believe?
Has ANYONE other than the Donegal camp seen these bitemarks? Or the photographs?
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 10, 2013, 02:26:09 PM
Has it ever came out when in the match this happened?
Was it during open play or did it happen at half time?
During the game, just before the half-time whistle. At the town end 45 towards the terrace side.
Allegedly of course ::)
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on May 10, 2013, 02:27:51 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:14:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:04:13 PM
To be honest, I think he may have gotten hit bit or mauled in some way, but not badly. I think someone exaggerated the incident and then when the shit hit the fan were unwilling to put themselves in the way of a questioner.
But I know nothing, and that is pure conjecture. (Which I am happy to admit).
The only lads expressing certainty here are the conspiracy theorists from Dublin.
This sounds pretty definitive:
"the statements coming from Dublin posters is pure innuendo designed to deflect attention away from the fact that there was a bite."
You can be pedantic if you want and select bits of a sentence but that is designed simply to deflect attention from the fact that the Dublin arguments are nothing more than innuendo.
McGuinness' statement, together with those of county board officials and backroom team along with medical reports and photographs suggest to me that there was a bite. Seriously, who do you expect people to believe?
Has ANYONE other than the Donegal camp seen these bitemarks? Or the photographs?
No, but it doesn't stop ill-informed posters stating the contents with absolute conviction
To be fair, on the Dublin side heffo, I'd be ripping if I was O'Brien and I knew there was some evidence or reason why I was cleared that is being held back. As I said, people up and down the country are assuming that he did bite McBrearty, pretty badly to warrant a trip to the photographer and hospital, and he just got off on a technicality, in spite of major evidence, just because McBrearty didn't turn up.
If I were he, I'd be as angry at my own county board as I would be at Donegal if this was a stitch up.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on May 10, 2013, 02:27:51 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:14:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:04:13 PM
To be honest, I think he may have gotten hit bit or mauled in some way, but not badly. I think someone exaggerated the incident and then when the shit hit the fan were unwilling to put themselves in the way of a questioner.
But I know nothing, and that is pure conjecture. (Which I am happy to admit).
The only lads expressing certainty here are the conspiracy theorists from Dublin.
This sounds pretty definitive:
"the statements coming from Dublin posters is pure innuendo designed to deflect attention away from the fact that there was a bite."
You can be pedantic if you want and select bits of a sentence but that is designed simply to deflect attention from the fact that the Dublin arguments are nothing more than innuendo.
McGuinness' statement, together with those of county board officials and backroom team along with medical reports and photographs suggest to me that there was a bite. Seriously, who do you expect people to believe?
Has ANYONE other than the Donegal camp seen these bitemarks? Or the photographs?
The Dublin doctor and the medical staff in LK general have seen the bite. The CCCC and the CHC have seen the pictures. I'd say the pictures were also shared with the Dublin camp by the GAA as part of the hearing.
Quote from: RMDrive on May 10, 2013, 02:37:43 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on May 10, 2013, 02:27:51 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:14:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:04:13 PM
To be honest, I think he may have gotten hit bit or mauled in some way, but not badly. I think someone exaggerated the incident and then when the shit hit the fan were unwilling to put themselves in the way of a questioner.
But I know nothing, and that is pure conjecture. (Which I am happy to admit).
The only lads expressing certainty here are the conspiracy theorists from Dublin.
This sounds pretty definitive:
"the statements coming from Dublin posters is pure innuendo designed to deflect attention away from the fact that there was a bite."
You can be pedantic if you want and select bits of a sentence but that is designed simply to deflect attention from the fact that the Dublin arguments are nothing more than innuendo.
McGuinness' statement, together with those of county board officials and backroom team along with medical reports and photographs suggest to me that there was a bite. Seriously, who do you expect people to believe?
Has ANYONE other than the Donegal camp seen these bitemarks? Or the photographs?
The Dublin doctor and the medical staff in LK general have seen the bite. The CCCC and the CHC have seen the pictures. I'd say the pictures were also shared with the Dublin camp by the GAA as part of the hearing.
Dublin doctor said it was a bruise no different to the bruises on a number of Dublin players.
If I walked in off the street to A&E with a bruise and said I was bitten and wanted precautionary shots, I'm sure the attending Doctor wouldn't cross-examine me.
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:03:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 01:39:02 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 10, 2013, 10:43:40 AM
I think it was vital that McGuinness made some sort of statement as their silence since the incident has created a strange sort of mystery around the whole incident, which the Dubs and some others have clung onto and turned the whole thing on its head.
I think that's why Jimmy highlights that McBrearty was actually the victim here and lets not forget that but a lot of people on here seem to not believe that and seem to be stating that Donegal are lying about the whole incident.
I know a lot of ye are fed up discussing this at this stage but I'd be curious how many of ye think Donegal are lying and how many believe that an incident did happen but they just couldn't prove it.
In my eyes I believe the latter.
2. Orchestrated conspiracy (including Letterkenny hospital and photographic evidence) to blacken name of innocent player for reasons as yet unapparent (or even theoretically plausible), with conspiracy collapsing due to McBrearty commiting some alleged, unnamed, but apparently heinous act in a club game and thus having to withdraw due to compromised credibility (because McBrearty commiting some offense means he can't have been a victim in a different game) or because his cooperation with CHC would lead to his exposure and thus suspension (not sure how... Blackmail?).
It's interesting while knowing zero about any of the facts of the situation, you describe the above as 'evidence' while the GAA president says 'We had no evidence provided on the game'
Yet two lines later he says they were depending on the "direct evidence" of McBrearty, who didn't show, to suppot the "flimsy evidence" they had. It's hardly a stretch to take this to mean they needed McBrearty to identify the person responsible for whatever the report/photos showed i.e. they were satisfied McBrearty was bitten, just not that he was bitten by O'Brien.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:34:12 PM
To be fair, on the Dublin side heffo, I'd be ripping if I was O'Brien and I knew there was some evidence or reason why I was cleared that is being held back. As I said, people up and down the country are assuming that he did bite McBrearty, pretty badly to warrant a trip to the photographer and hospital, and he just got off on a technicality, in spite of major evidence, just because McBrearty didn't turn up.
If I were he, I'd be as angry at my own county board as I would be at Donegal if this was a stitch up.
Thats a fair point but only if O'Brien
didn't actually bite McBrearty. In the absence of any refutable evidence or statements from the Dublin camp I think people have pretty much made their minds up on this issue. The Donegal argument sounds a hell of a lot more believable as opposed to the wishy washy innuendo and slander put forward by some Dublin posters.
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:40:12 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:03:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 01:39:02 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 10, 2013, 10:43:40 AM
I think it was vital that McGuinness made some sort of statement as their silence since the incident has created a strange sort of mystery around the whole incident, which the Dubs and some others have clung onto and turned the whole thing on its head.
I think that's why Jimmy highlights that McBrearty was actually the victim here and lets not forget that but a lot of people on here seem to not believe that and seem to be stating that Donegal are lying about the whole incident.
I know a lot of ye are fed up discussing this at this stage but I'd be curious how many of ye think Donegal are lying and how many believe that an incident did happen but they just couldn't prove it.
In my eyes I believe the latter.
2. Orchestrated conspiracy (including Letterkenny hospital and photographic evidence) to blacken name of innocent player for reasons as yet unapparent (or even theoretically plausible), with conspiracy collapsing due to McBrearty commiting some alleged, unnamed, but apparently heinous act in a club game and thus having to withdraw due to compromised credibility (because McBrearty commiting some offense means he can't have been a victim in a different game) or because his cooperation with CHC would lead to his exposure and thus suspension (not sure how... Blackmail?).
It's interesting while knowing zero about any of the facts of the situation, you describe the above as 'evidence' while the GAA president says 'We had no evidence provided on the game'
Yet two lines later he says they were depending on the "direct evidence" of McBrearty, who didn't show, to suppot the "flimsy evidence" they had. It's hardly a stretch to take this to mean they needed McBrearty to identify the person responsible for whatever the report/photos showed i.e. they were satisfied McBrearty was bitten, just not that he was bitten by O'Brien.
That's a huge presumption and leap to take
Quote from: yellowcard on May 10, 2013, 02:41:07 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:34:12 PM
To be fair, on the Dublin side heffo, I'd be ripping if I was O'Brien and I knew there was some evidence or reason why I was cleared that is being held back. As I said, people up and down the country are assuming that he did bite McBrearty, pretty badly to warrant a trip to the photographer and hospital, and he just got off on a technicality, in spite of major evidence, just because McBrearty didn't turn up.
If I were he, I'd be as angry at my own county board as I would be at Donegal if this was a stitch up.
In the absence of any refutable evidence or statements from the Dublin camp I think people have pretty much made their minds up on this issue. .
The burden of proof doesn't lie with Dublin.
The highest official in the county denied there was any bite two days later when he learnt about the allegation in the media:
"I don't accept something did happen," said Kettle.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/football/kettle-says-onus-on-donegal-to-prove-mcbrearty-bite-227927.html
Jim Jong-il is clearly trying to use it for a physiological edge now but anyone looking in can see McBreaty brought the responses on himself and on his team by not breaking this 'players' omertà' and giving evidence against O'Brien.
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 01:39:02 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 10, 2013, 10:43:40 AM
I think it was vital that McGuinness made some sort of statement as their silence since the incident has created a strange sort of mystery around the whole incident, which the Dubs and some others have clung onto and turned the whole thing on its head.
I think that's why Jimmy highlights that McBrearty was actually the victim here and lets not forget that but a lot of people on here seem to not believe that and seem to be stating that Donegal are lying about the whole incident.
I know a lot of ye are fed up discussing this at this stage but I'd be curious how many of ye think Donegal are lying and how many believe that an incident did happen but they just couldn't prove it.
In my eyes I believe the latter.
Well your options are:
1. Bite, report, investigation, young lad doesn't want to "snitch", matter dropped.
2. Orchestrated conspiracy (including Letterkenny hospital and photographic evidence) to blacken name of innocent player for reasons as yet unapparent (or even theoretically plausible), with conspiracy collapsing due to McBrearty commiting some alleged, unnamed, but apparently heinous act in a club game and thus having to withdraw due to compromised credibility (because McBrearty commiting some offense means he can't have been a victim in a different game) or because his cooperation with CHC would lead to his exposure and thus suspension (not sure how... Blackmail?).
I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
But if I was, I would find it interesting that two known alleged biting incidents in recent years in intercounty football have involved Dublin players.
Is this something new to the story?
All I have read is that he may not have been completely innocent when he and O'Brien clashed during the game and that he may not have relished repeating his role in 'bitegate'
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:41:35 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:40:12 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:03:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 01:39:02 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 10, 2013, 10:43:40 AM
I think it was vital that McGuinness made some sort of statement as their silence since the incident has created a strange sort of mystery around the whole incident, which the Dubs and some others have clung onto and turned the whole thing on its head.
I think that's why Jimmy highlights that McBrearty was actually the victim here and lets not forget that but a lot of people on here seem to not believe that and seem to be stating that Donegal are lying about the whole incident.
I know a lot of ye are fed up discussing this at this stage but I'd be curious how many of ye think Donegal are lying and how many believe that an incident did happen but they just couldn't prove it.
In my eyes I believe the latter.
2. Orchestrated conspiracy (including Letterkenny hospital and photographic evidence) to blacken name of innocent player for reasons as yet unapparent (or even theoretically plausible), with conspiracy collapsing due to McBrearty commiting some alleged, unnamed, but apparently heinous act in a club game and thus having to withdraw due to compromised credibility (because McBrearty commiting some offense means he can't have been a victim in a different game) or because his cooperation with CHC would lead to his exposure and thus suspension (not sure how... Blackmail?).
It's interesting while knowing zero about any of the facts of the situation, you describe the above as 'evidence' while the GAA president says 'We had no evidence provided on the game'
Yet two lines later he says they were depending on the "direct evidence" of McBrearty, who didn't show, to suppot the "flimsy evidence" they had. It's hardly a stretch to take this to mean they needed McBrearty to identify the person responsible for whatever the report/photos showed i.e. they were satisfied McBrearty was bitten, just not that he was bitten by O'Brien.
That's a huge presumption and leap to take
I don't think so. Leaving aside the problem of one man's word against another (which is why I thought this would never make it past the refs report), why would the case have moved past the CCCC and why else would O'Neill single out McBrearty's no show as being the reason the case against O'Brien was not proven?
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on May 10, 2013, 02:27:51 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:14:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:04:13 PM
To be honest, I think he may have gotten hit bit or mauled in some way, but not badly. I think someone exaggerated the incident and then when the shit hit the fan were unwilling to put themselves in the way of a questioner.
But I know nothing, and that is pure conjecture. (Which I am happy to admit).
The only lads expressing certainty here are the conspiracy theorists from Dublin.
This sounds pretty definitive:
"the statements coming from Dublin posters is pure innuendo designed to deflect attention away from the fact that there was a bite."
You can be pedantic if you want and select bits of a sentence but that is designed simply to deflect attention from the fact that the Dublin arguments are nothing more than innuendo.
McGuinness' statement, together with those of county board officials and backroom team along with medical reports and photographs suggest to me that there was a bite. Seriously, who do you expect people to believe?
Has ANYONE other than the Donegal camp seen these bitemarks? Or the photographs?
No, but it doesn't stop ill-informed posters stating the contents with absolute conviction
So McGuinness is lying when he says photos were submitted?
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:54:00 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on May 10, 2013, 02:27:51 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:14:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:04:13 PM
To be honest, I think he may have gotten hit bit or mauled in some way, but not badly. I think someone exaggerated the incident and then when the shit hit the fan were unwilling to put themselves in the way of a questioner.
But I know nothing, and that is pure conjecture. (Which I am happy to admit).
The only lads expressing certainty here are the conspiracy theorists from Dublin.
This sounds pretty definitive:
"the statements coming from Dublin posters is pure innuendo designed to deflect attention away from the fact that there was a bite."
You can be pedantic if you want and select bits of a sentence but that is designed simply to deflect attention from the fact that the Dublin arguments are nothing more than innuendo.
McGuinness' statement, together with those of county board officials and backroom team along with medical reports and photographs suggest to me that there was a bite. Seriously, who do you expect people to believe?
Has ANYONE other than the Donegal camp seen these bitemarks? Or the photographs?
No, but it doesn't stop ill-informed posters stating the contents with absolute conviction
So McGuinness is lying when he says photos were submitted?
Have you seen these alleged photos? I couldn't care less what McGuinnes says - until you have then you can't really comment on what they may or may not show
Quote from: LeoMc on May 10, 2013, 02:47:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 01:39:02 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 10, 2013, 10:43:40 AM
I think it was vital that McGuinness made some sort of statement as their silence since the incident has created a strange sort of mystery around the whole incident, which the Dubs and some others have clung onto and turned the whole thing on its head.
I think that's why Jimmy highlights that McBrearty was actually the victim here and lets not forget that but a lot of people on here seem to not believe that and seem to be stating that Donegal are lying about the whole incident.
I know a lot of ye are fed up discussing this at this stage but I'd be curious how many of ye think Donegal are lying and how many believe that an incident did happen but they just couldn't prove it.
In my eyes I believe the latter.
Well your options are:
1. Bite, report, investigation, young lad doesn't want to "snitch", matter dropped.
2. Orchestrated conspiracy (including Letterkenny hospital and photographic evidence) to blacken name of innocent player for reasons as yet unapparent (or even theoretically plausible), with conspiracy collapsing due to McBrearty commiting some alleged, unnamed, but apparently heinous act in a club game and thus having to withdraw due to compromised credibility (because McBrearty commiting some offense means he can't have been a victim in a different game) or because his cooperation with CHC would lead to his exposure and thus suspension (not sure how... Blackmail?).
I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
But if I was, I would find it interesting that two known alleged biting incidents in recent years in intercounty football have involved Dublin players.
Is this something new to the story?
All I have read is that he may not have been completely innocent when he and O'Brien clashed during the game and that he may not have relished repeating his role in 'bitegate'
Haven't been following heffo's posts then? :P
Hadn't heard your angle either. That at least sounds plausible.
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:56:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:54:00 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on May 10, 2013, 02:27:51 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:14:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:04:13 PM
To be honest, I think he may have gotten hit bit or mauled in some way, but not badly. I think someone exaggerated the incident and then when the shit hit the fan were unwilling to put themselves in the way of a questioner.
But I know nothing, and that is pure conjecture. (Which I am happy to admit).
The only lads expressing certainty here are the conspiracy theorists from Dublin.
This sounds pretty definitive:
"the statements coming from Dublin posters is pure innuendo designed to deflect attention away from the fact that there was a bite."
You can be pedantic if you want and select bits of a sentence but that is designed simply to deflect attention from the fact that the Dublin arguments are nothing more than innuendo.
McGuinness' statement, together with those of county board officials and backroom team along with medical reports and photographs suggest to me that there was a bite. Seriously, who do you expect people to believe?
Has ANYONE other than the Donegal camp seen these bitemarks? Or the photographs?
No, but it doesn't stop ill-informed posters stating the contents with absolute conviction
So McGuinness is lying when he says photos were submitted?
Have you seen these alleged photos? I couldn't care less what McGuinnes says - until you have then you can't really comment on what they may or may not show
But you're claiming NO ONE saw them. So is McGuinness lying or not?
Quote from: hardstation on May 10, 2013, 03:00:20 PM
heffo, can you expand on the conspiracy theory a little?
What would Donegal have to gain from getting Kevin O'Brien suspended?
Hardly a feckin eureka moment from McGuinness.
What conspiracy theory?
Quote from: hardstation on May 10, 2013, 03:04:20 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 03:01:31 PM
Quote from: hardstation on May 10, 2013, 03:00:20 PM
heffo, can you expand on the conspiracy theory a little?
What would Donegal have to gain from getting Kevin O'Brien suspended?
Hardly a feckin eureka moment from McGuinness.
What conspiracy theory?
Sorry, you might call it "the truth".
Yeah there was no bite. Do you not read the newspapers?
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:56:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:54:00 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on May 10, 2013, 02:27:51 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 02:14:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 10, 2013, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 10, 2013, 02:04:13 PM
To be honest, I think he may have gotten hit bit or mauled in some way, but not badly. I think someone exaggerated the incident and then when the shit hit the fan were unwilling to put themselves in the way of a questioner.
But I know nothing, and that is pure conjecture. (Which I am happy to admit).
The only lads expressing certainty here are the conspiracy theorists from Dublin.
This sounds pretty definitive:
"the statements coming from Dublin posters is pure innuendo designed to deflect attention away from the fact that there was a bite."
You can be pedantic if you want and select bits of a sentence but that is designed simply to deflect attention from the fact that the Dublin arguments are nothing more than innuendo.
McGuinness' statement, together with those of county board officials and backroom team along with medical reports and photographs suggest to me that there was a bite. Seriously, who do you expect people to believe?
Has ANYONE other than the Donegal camp seen these bitemarks? Or the photographs?
No, but it doesn't stop ill-informed posters stating the contents with absolute conviction
So McGuinness is lying when he says photos were submitted?
Have you seen these alleged photos? I couldn't care less what McGuinnes says - until you have then you can't really comment on what they may or may not show
We are never going to see them, you believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, end of story.
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 03:08:17 PM
Quote from: hardstation on May 10, 2013, 03:04:20 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 03:01:31 PM
Quote from: hardstation on May 10, 2013, 03:00:20 PM
heffo, can you expand on the conspiracy theory a little?
What would Donegal have to gain from getting Kevin O'Brien suspended?
Hardly a feckin eureka moment from McGuinness.
What conspiracy theory?
Sorry, you might call it "the truth".
Yeah there was no bite. Do you not read the newspapers?
That O'Brien was the biter was "not proven". Not "there was no bite".
What's a little nibbling between friends anyways?
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 11:02:45 AM
Quote from: screenexile on May 10, 2013, 10:48:57 AM
Quote from: heffo on May 10, 2013, 10:46:35 AM
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 10, 2013, 10:43:40 AM
I think it was vital that McGuinness made some sort of statement as their silence since the incident has created a strange sort of mystery around the whole incident, which the Dubs and some others have clung onto and turned the whole thing on its head.
I think that's why Jimmy highlights that McBrearty was actually the victim here and lets not forget that but a lot of people on here seem to not believe that and seem to be stating that Donegal are lying about the whole incident.
I know a lot of ye are fed up discussing this at this stage but I'd be curious how many of ye think Donegal are lying and how many believe that an incident did happen but they just couldn't prove it.
In my eyes I believe the latter.
You're entitled to your opinion however uninformed it may be.
Heffo this is getting ridiculous now. You and Indiana claim to have the inside track and know what went on yet are unwilling to post the whole story? You're making yourselves out to be totally unreasonable and blinkered Dublin supporters.
If you have information that we are not party to then why now share it and enlighten us all.
If you're not then it's clearly looking like O'Brien bit McBrearty. Is he going to deny that he apologised to McBrearty after the match? Is the Dublin doctor going to come out and say he didn't accept there was a bite at the time?
Unless you can fill us in Dublin are coming out worst in this!!!!
I'll say it 100% - there was no bite. An incident took place between the players and neither was worse than the other. They shook hands after the game as both were guilty - there was never an apology from either player to the best of my knowledge.
This was driven by two people in the Donegal setup - one member of mgt and one officer of the board.
There was another good reason why McBrearty didn't turn up at the hearing (aside from the fact there was no bite) - I've already alluded to that and until it's published in the media somewhere (which I've no doubt it will be) I'm not going to say anything further.
Im sorry Heffo but there was 100% a bite. Who done it is subject of debate but as I said earlier there is independent medical evidence that McBrearty was biten.
Where is the 100% independent medical evidence that Paddy Mc Brearty was bitten by a Dublin player ?
Can someone provide this evidence ?
He bit himself. Would that sort this out?
He didn't turn up.
Quote from: Aaron Boone on May 11, 2013, 12:28:10 AM
He didn't turn up.
A few here see that as an indication that he made it up. Don't understand that.
If that was the case where is the public outrage from the Dublin camp, the manager, staff and players , the accused who has apparently been 'falsley' accused. Where is the slander charge?
It is alot more logical judging from the public silence from the Dublin camp that McBrearty was apologized to and that an agreement was made between the two players that McBrearty would not show up and thereby essentially ending the matter.
The Dublin lad escapes a ban and forever being referred to as 'The biter' (or worse).
McBrearty escapes the stigma of being judged as 'The rat' who squealed on him.
If the truth ever comes out I'd be glad to put money on that being the reason right now.
I really don't know what to make of this but the GAA disciplinary process looks like a farce and either Donegal or Dublin appear to be lying as they have polar opposite views of the incident. If one party is lying then it shouldn't be left fade away as it surely will. Below is from the Irish Examiner.
Dublin chairman Andy Kettle said Kevin O'Brien has been "pilloried" as a result of bite allegations made against him and rejected some of the claims made by Jim McGuinness.
Admitting the Donegal manager's comments surprised him somewhat, Kettle said he was deeply disappointed at how the defender's name was besmirched anecdotally during the process.
"As in Common Law, we would always feel that a player is innocent until proven guilty and the Dublin player cited has been pilloried, for want of a better word, while being exonerated by the procedure."
He added: "As far as Dublin are concerned, yes, it's over. There was a Dublin player cited, he went through the disciplinary procedure of the organisation. There was found to be no evidence against him so as far as Dublin are concerned it's over and finished with."
At Donegal's press night on Thursday ahead of their May 26 Ulster quarter-final against Tyrone, McGuinness stated the Dublin medic had agreed with his Donegal counterpart that McBrearty had been bitten.
"Our doctor confirmed he was bit," McGuinness had pointed out. "The Dublin doctor confirmed he was bit. The hospital who took him in confirmed he was bit. The player in question apologised to him after the game for what he had done."
Kettle had previously said their doctor had determined it was a bruise and he stood by his comments.
Speaking at Dublin's open evening in Ballyboden St Endas yesterday, he said: "That's quite correct. You can have several interpretations of bruises and lacerations. Well, one is a broken skin, the other is not. It certainly was not broken skin."
Kettle also questioned McGuinness's claim that O'Brien had apologised to McBrearty after the game. "That's not my information. They probably shook hands as players normally do after a match."
Kettle also admitted Dublin would have accepted the Central Hearings Committee's decision were they in Donegal's position.
Asked if he was disappointed McGuinness had raised the issue two weeks after O'Brien was cleared, Kettle responded: "Dublin would have accepted the verdict of the disciplinary process and left it at that. That's the way we would have handled it."
Share on printShare on email
Jim's not for turning.
What does a bite look like anyway ?.
McGuinness was also vexed by the fact that it would appear the CHC were blaming McBrearty for not appearing at the hearing, and that for this reason O'Brien's ban was not upheld.
He said: "There's an apportion of blame there, which I don't like. I don't like the apportion of the blame. Patrick is without blame in this situation.
"He was bit, and was a victim of that bite.
"To point a finger and say that it was Patrick's fault on the back of that - I think it's wrong.
Quote from: sIDo on May 11, 2013, 02:13:45 PM
Quote from: Zulu on May 11, 2013, 09:48:13 AM
I really don't know what to make of this but the GAA disciplinary process looks like a farce and either Donegal or Dublin appear to be lying as they have polar opposite views of the incident. If one party is lying then it shouldn't be left fade away as it surely will. Below is from the Irish Examiner.
Dublin chairman Andy Kettle said Kevin O'Brien has been "pilloried" as a result of bite allegations made against him and rejected some of the claims made by Jim McGuinness.
Admitting the Donegal manager's comments surprised him somewhat, Kettle said he was deeply disappointed at how the defender's name was besmirched anecdotally during the process.
"As in Common Law, we would always feel that a player is innocent until proven guilty and the Dublin player cited has been pilloried, for want of a better word, while being exonerated by the procedure."
He added: "As far as Dublin are concerned, yes, it's over. There was a Dublin player cited, he went through the disciplinary procedure of the organisation. There was found to be no evidence against him so as far as Dublin are concerned it's over and finished with."
At Donegal's press night on Thursday ahead of their May 26 Ulster quarter-final against Tyrone, McGuinness stated the Dublin medic had agreed with his Donegal counterpart that McBrearty had been bitten.
"Our doctor confirmed he was bit," McGuinness had pointed out. "The Dublin doctor confirmed he was bit. The hospital who took him in confirmed he was bit. The player in question apologised to him after the game for what he had done."
Kettle had previously said their doctor had determined it was a bruise and he stood by his comments.
Speaking at Dublin's open evening in Ballyboden St Endas yesterday, he said: "That's quite correct. You can have several interpretations of bruises and lacerations. Well, one is a broken skin, the other is not. It certainly was not broken skin."
Kettle also questioned McGuinness's claim that O'Brien had apologised to McBrearty after the game. "That's not my information. They probably shook hands as players normally do after a match."
Kettle also admitted Dublin would have accepted the Central Hearings Committee's decision were they in Donegal's position.
Asked if he was disappointed McGuinness had raised the issue two weeks after O'Brien was cleared, Kettle responded: "Dublin would have accepted the verdict of the disciplinary process and left it at that. That's the way we would have handled it."
Share on printShare on email
i do know what to make of this..The above article is a non-event.
Andy Kettle only rejects 'some' of the claims. Which ones did reject and which did he accept? That he was disappointed how the biters name was besmirched, the poor wee pet.
Dublin are hanging onto the absolute balls the CHC have made here. Dublin supporters are treating the whole event like its the high court. The CHC, for reasons only known to themselves, let O'Brien off with this most savage of act on a fellow gael on a football pitch, man therefore innocent in their 'court' proceedings. Therefore, NO bite. Done deal, issue over as far as Dublin are concerned. The facts are that O'Brien bit McBrearty. The dogs in the street know this. All the evidence was there. A complete haims by the GAA. Only Dublin (with a history of biting) come out of this badly. Now add in a little innuendo to muddy the waters from a couple of blinkered Dubs on this site. Some mixture
Personally i would not have banned O'Brien for life. I would have given him a year. Men do and act differently in the heat of a battle with the adrenlin pumping. Everyone deserves a second chance.
There is no evidence there and your post is libelous.
sIDo, if I was close to the Dublin player you are making allegations about, I would be advising him to meet you to court.
Quote from: muppet on May 11, 2013, 05:01:15 PM
sIDo, if I was close to the Dublin player you are making allegations about, I would be advising him to meet you to court.
Methinks I sniff a troll lurking around somewhere.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 11, 2013, 07:06:16 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 11, 2013, 05:01:15 PM
sIDo, if I was close to the Dublin player you are making allegations about, I would be advising him to meet you to court.
Methinks I sniff a troll lurking around somewhere.
Troll or not it is dangerous territory.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ryanair-secures-order-to-reveal-details-of-anonymous-web-posters-584535.html (http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ryanair-secures-order-to-reveal-details-of-anonymous-web-posters-584535.html)
Quote from: sIDo on May 11, 2013, 08:17:03 PM
Post retracted! Was having a bad day
Delete your posts so you clown
Sad state if affairs 2 top teams embroiled in this . No disciplinary system can deal with this. One side or the other is totally wrong if it is Dublin deal with it or if it is Donegal why is it been made up? I.
Shock and Horror, Donegal are victims again........
Quote from: sIDo on May 11, 2013, 08:17:03 PM
Post retracted! Was having a bad day
The internet does that to us sometimes.
(http://ih3.redbubble.net/image.11842601.3479/flat,550x550,075,f.jpg)
McGuinness "We followed the procedures then, we wanted him to go to the hearing, I wanted him to go to the hearing, and the county board wanted him to go to the hearing, but Patrick didn't want to go to the hearing."
If McGuinness had a bit more common sense, he would not have contemplated any of his players going to this CCCC hearing to give evidence against another, never mind a teenager. What was he thinking!
Surprised he didn't back McBrearty publicly here. Hanging him out to dry a bit saying what he did
Quote from: DuffleKing on May 12, 2013, 10:11:47 AM
Surprised he didn't back McBrearty publicly here. Hanging him out to dry a bit saying what he did
I guess he was trying to be honest. If he did as you suggest he would be lambasted for spinning & lying & everything short of beating up old ladies. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
Quote from: highorlow on May 11, 2013, 11:58:26 PM
Shock and Horror, Donegal are victims again........
What is this supposed to mean?
Paraic Duffy on the radio now clearly states there was a bite but also says there wasn't any evidence bar the accusation from McBrearty which appears confusing to me. More importantly if that was what the whole case rested on then why was there a proposed ban at all. Surely we can't have proposed bans on players based on an accusation from another. The fact he stated there was a bite would suggest there was physical evidence of a bite but the fact he claims it fell apart due to lack of evidence implies there wasn't ever enough there to proceed to banning a player. A farce.
I'm a bit tired of all this now.
Quote from: Zulu on May 12, 2013, 02:54:10 PM
Paraic Duffy on the radio now clearly states there was a bite but also says there wasn't any evidence bar the accusation from McBrearty which appears confusing to me. More importantly if that was what the whole case rested on then why was there a proposed ban at all. Surely we can't have proposed bans on players based on an accusation from another. The fact he stated there was a bite would suggest there was physical evidence of a bite but the fact he claims it fell apart due to lack of evidence implies there wasn't ever enough there to proceed to banning a player. A farce.
Glad to see someone has backed up what I've been sayin since the start. He was bit but was never any evidence to say who bit him and it was the cccc who made a mess of all ts by proposing a ban at all
Quote from: Jinxy on May 12, 2013, 02:57:04 PM
I'm a bit tired of all this now.
It could beat the Cork hurlers thread yet. All you need is a persecution complex and time.
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2013, 04:42:18 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on May 12, 2013, 02:57:04 PM
I'm a bit tired of all this now.
It could beat the Cork hurlers thread yet. All you need is a persecution complex and time.
Will no one think of the
children GPA?
As i thought, we now know for definate THERE WAS A BITE.
All we need now is for the dubs to ban their player, unless it was a donegal player that bit him?
Quote from: Zulu on May 12, 2013, 02:54:10 PM
Paraic Duffy on the radio now clearly states there was a bite but also says there wasn't any evidence bar the accusation from McBrearty which appears confusing to me. More importantly if that was what the whole case rested on then why was there a proposed ban at all. Surely we can't have proposed bans on players based on an accusation from another. The fact he stated there was a bite would suggest there was physical evidence of a bite but the fact he claims it fell apart due to lack of evidence implies there wasn't ever enough there to proceed to banning a player. A farce.
A farce of the highest order.
But as Liam said, all the CCC lads, or most of them are volunteers, they come in to do their job to the best of their ability and go home again -vit's everybody else's fault. Nothing to do with the poor CCC.
What were they thinking of banning him in the first instance if there was zero evidence ?
We're they hoping Dublin would sit up and take it on the chin ?
Quote from: orangeman on May 12, 2013, 11:20:36 PM
Quote from: Zulu on May 12, 2013, 02:54:10 PM
Paraic Duffy on the radio now clearly states there was a bite but also says there wasn't any evidence bar the accusation from McBrearty which appears confusing to me. More importantly if that was what the whole case rested on then why was there a proposed ban at all. Surely we can't have proposed bans on players based on an accusation from another. The fact he stated there was a bite would suggest there was physical evidence of a bite but the fact he claims it fell apart due to lack of evidence implies there wasn't ever enough there to proceed to banning a player. A farce.
A farce of the highest order.
But as Liam said, all the CCC lads, or most of them are volunteers, they come in to do their job to the best of their ability and go home again -vit's everybody else's fault. Nothing to do with the poor CCC.
What were they thinking of banning him in the first instance if there was zero evidence ?
We're they hoping Dublin would sit up and take it on the chin ?
I think it's a case of them asking McBearty to come to the hearing to reiterate his evidence or else to be cross examined or something. When he refused to show it looked as if he wasn't committed to seeing the process out.
When the injured party didn't see enough reason to see through the process they why should the CHC? O'Brien was cleared and I think the CHC or CCC didn't do a whole pile wrong. Either O'Brien bit him or McBearty made it up. I don't see the CCC as the problem here.
You've got to stop seeing it as a court of law, its more like a school headmasters office. McBearty told the teacher O'Brien bit him and when the two were sent down to see the principal McBearty refused to reiterate the allegation and no-one is punished.
Quote from: Orchardman on May 12, 2013, 11:07:12 PM
As i thought, we now know for definate THERE WAS A BITE.
All we need now is for the dubs to ban their player, unless it was a donegal player that bit him?
Maybe it was McGuinness. That man will stop at nothing when weaving his evil spells to gain Donegal some obscure, perceived advantage. ;D
Here's the "facts" according to Duffy - a player was bitten in an Allianz league game.
GAA director general Paraic Duffy has said it's a matter of record that Donegal footballer Paddy McBrearty was bitten during the controversial league match against Dublin in April.
Defending the association's handling of the incident in the wake of criticism last week from Donegal manager Jim McGuinness, Duffy admitted it was damaging for the GAA that a player was bitten and nobody was held to account for it.
Speaking at the launch of RTE's coverage of the 2013 championships Duffy said the comments of GAA president Liam O'Neill on the matter, which were criticised by McGuinness, were "absolutely fair".
McGuinness was responding to O'Neill's expression of disappointment at the failure of all the evidence on the case not being presented to the Central Hearings Committee meeting that cleared a Dublin player of a three-game suspension proposed by the Central Competition Controls Committee, who investigated the allegation.
"I understand Jim McGuinness' concern for his player. I absolutely understand that," said Duffy.
"I think the comments Liam made in the aftermath were absolutely fair. I think it is important to put it into context.
"To put a few facts on the record. A player was bitten in an Allianz League game. That's not good for the association.
"Unfortunately it wasn't picked up on video, TV or by the match officials. It was put into the public domain and the CCCC tried to investigate it as best they could and did," added Duffy.
McGuinness (or is it Rory Gallagher?) must have the goods on Duffy!
Quote from: orangeman on May 13, 2013, 11:26:46 AM
Here's the "facts" according to Duffy - a player was bitten in an Allianz league game.
GAA director general Paraic Duffy has said it's a matter of record that Donegal footballer Paddy McBrearty was bitten during the controversial league match against Dublin in April.
Defending the association's handling of the incident in the wake of criticism last week from Donegal manager Jim McGuinness, Duffy admitted it was damaging for the GAA that a player was bitten and nobody was held to account for it.
Speaking at the launch of RTE's coverage of the 2013 championships Duffy said the comments of GAA president Liam O'Neill on the matter, which were criticised by McGuinness, were "absolutely fair".
McGuinness was responding to O'Neill's expression of disappointment at the failure of all the evidence on the case not being presented to the Central Hearings Committee meeting that cleared a Dublin player of a three-game suspension proposed by the Central Competition Controls Committee, who investigated the allegation.
"I understand Jim McGuinness' concern for his player. I absolutely understand that," said Duffy.
"I think the comments Liam made in the aftermath were absolutely fair. I think it is important to put it into context.
To put a few facts on the record. A player was bitten in an Allianz League game. That's not good for the association.
"Unfortunately it wasn't picked up on video, TV or by the match officials. It was put into the public domain and the CCCC tried to investigate it as best they could and did," added Duffy.
Odd that either you or the publication you got that from left out that he also said "The
only evidence was from the player himself. He chose not to come and therefore the case collapsed".
Duffy should certainly have put "allegedly" before his comments.
McBrearty didnt appear because if the full story was out he wouldnt have looked like the innocent party and he could have missed the Tyrone game. None of the three sides to this story come out well, and would be best served to let it lie, but it seems now pig headedness is most important and they're all determined to have the last word.
The CCC, Liam O'Neill and now Padraig Duffy seem intent on keeping digging.
What is fact that there was no evidence against O'Brien or anybody else.
Hound, do you believe that there was no bite at all? That it was made up.
Or, do you think now after Duffy's statement that there was a bite but just not enough evidence to prove who did it?
INHO, it was important that O'Neill & now Duffy have made official statements to let the public know that they have evidence to show there was a bite but not enough evidence to show who did it. At least that clears the smokescreen that the whole thing was just made up. Does it not?
I was just amazed how aggressive some Dublin fans have been to defend their corner at all costs and to sweep the whole thing under the carpet. In doing so they are almost insinuating that the whole thing was made up and that Donegal are to blame of lying to about the incident to get a player suspended. That's a big accusation and I would be annoyed if that was against somebody from Tyrone.
Whereas, the Dublin board and squad have kept very quiet about the whole thing and once they knew there was no definite evidence against any player then they got the ban crushed, like most counties would do I suppose.
Sounds to me like they might well know that someone did bite him but they're not gonna come out and name one of their own players. Who would?
No doubt Heffo will come back in and see I don't know all the facts and maybe he's right (but just won't tell us).
Are we to now believe that there was a bite from a Dublin player but it was in some form of retaliation against something McBrearty did? Does this make the bite alright then and that it should be just ignored as the players sorted it out themselves.
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 13, 2013, 12:18:50 PM
Hound, do you believe that there was no bite at all? That it was made up.
Or, do you think now after Duffy's statement that there was a bite but just not enough evidence to prove who did it?
INHO, it was important that O'Neill & now Duffy have made official statements to let the public know that they have evidence to show there was a bite but not enough evidence to show who did it. At least that clears the smokescreen that the whole thing was just made up. Does it not?
I was just amazed how aggressive some Dublin fans have been to defend their corner at all costs and to sweep the whole thing under the carpet. In doing so they are almost insinuating that the whole thing was made up and that Donegal are to blame of lying to about the incident to get a player suspended. That's a big accusation and I would be annoyed if that was against somebody from Tyrone.
Whereas, the Dublin board and squad have kept very quiet about the whole thing and once they knew there was no definite evidence against any player then they got the ban crushed, like most counties would do I suppose.
Sounds to me like they might well know that someone did bite him but they're not gonna come out and name one of their own players. Who would?
No doubt Heffo will come back in and see I don't know all the facts and maybe he's right (but just won't tell us).
Are we to now believe that there was a bite from a Dublin player but it was in some form of retaliation against something McBrearty did? Does this make the bite alright then and that it should be just ignored as the players sorted it out themselves.
It would seem McBrearty did something to provoke the bite but as none of the Dubs want to say what it was are we to believe it didn't happen then?
Quote from: screenexile on May 13, 2013, 12:28:54 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 13, 2013, 12:18:50 PM
Hound, do you believe that there was no bite at all? That it was made up.
Or, do you think now after Duffy's statement that there was a bite but just not enough evidence to prove who did it?
INHO, it was important that O'Neill & now Duffy have made official statements to let the public know that they have evidence to show there was a bite but not enough evidence to show who did it. At least that clears the smokescreen that the whole thing was just made up. Does it not?
I was just amazed how aggressive some Dublin fans have been to defend their corner at all costs and to sweep the whole thing under the carpet. In doing so they are almost insinuating that the whole thing was made up and that Donegal are to blame of lying to about the incident to get a player suspended. That's a big accusation and I would be annoyed if that was against somebody from Tyrone.
Whereas, the Dublin board and squad have kept very quiet about the whole thing and once they knew there was no definite evidence against any player then they got the ban crushed, like most counties would do I suppose.
Sounds to me like they might well know that someone did bite him but they're not gonna come out and name one of their own players. Who would?
No doubt Heffo will come back in and see I don't know all the facts and maybe he's right (but just won't tell us).
Are we to now believe that there was a bite from a Dublin player but it was in some form of retaliation against something McBrearty did? Does this make the bite alright then and that it should be just ignored as the players sorted it out themselves.
It would seem McBrearty did something to provoke the bite but as none of the Dubs want to say what it was are we to believe it didn't happen then?
All sorts of stuff goes on in a county game between forwards & backs & the two lads were having a right old tussle up to then, but there is a line over which you do not step.
Quote from: screenexile on May 13, 2013, 12:28:54 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 13, 2013, 12:18:50 PM
Hound, do you believe that there was no bite at all? That it was made up.
Or, do you think now after Duffy's statement that there was a bite but just not enough evidence to prove who did it?
INHO, it was important that O'Neill & now Duffy have made official statements to let the public know that they have evidence to show there was a bite but not enough evidence to show who did it. At least that clears the smokescreen that the whole thing was just made up. Does it not?
I was just amazed how aggressive some Dublin fans have been to defend their corner at all costs and to sweep the whole thing under the carpet. In doing so they are almost insinuating that the whole thing was made up and that Donegal are to blame of lying to about the incident to get a player suspended. That's a big accusation and I would be annoyed if that was against somebody from Tyrone.
Whereas, the Dublin board and squad have kept very quiet about the whole thing and once they knew there was no definite evidence against any player then they got the ban crushed, like most counties would do I suppose.
Sounds to me like they might well know that someone did bite him but they're not gonna come out and name one of their own players. Who would?
No doubt Heffo will come back in and see I don't know all the facts and maybe he's right (but just won't tell us).
Are we to now believe that there was a bite from a Dublin player but it was in some form of retaliation against something McBrearty did? Does this make the bite alright then and that it should be just ignored as the players sorted it out themselves.
It would seem McBrearty did something to provoke the bite but as none of the Dubs want to say what it was are we to believe it didn't happen then?
Maybe he just looked tasty.
The Tyrone lads must have been shitting themselves walking out in those Hunky-Dorys shirts.
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 13, 2013, 12:18:50 PM
Hound, do you believe that there was no bite at all? That it was made up.
Well what I believe doesn't matter.
I believe McBrearty wasn't 100% sure himself what caused the bruise as his back was turned
I believe there was severe provocation seconds before the incident that many would think had crossed a line of what is physically acceptable between markers on a GAA field
I believe not everyone who examined the bruise in the dressing room at half time was sure it was a bitemark
I believe there was a thorough probe of the mark at half time
I believe that the only purpose of the hospital visit was to exacerabate the incident, that it was completely unnecessary medically and that it took a lot of persuasion to get McBrearty to go.
I believe both men shook hands afterwards, both agreed they had done wrong and both agreed to move on
I believe that mark had completeley disappeared by the time he played the U21 game 3 days later
What I know is that there was no evidence presented at the appeal hearing and therefore the case collapsed.
What I also know is that McGuinness made up the story about the Dublin doctor agreeing there was a bite.
Fair play Hound for at least speaking yer mind and answering my question.
Reading between the lines from what you've said, I take it then you don't believe there was an actual bite but of course I appreciate that you like all of us don't know for sure.
I would probably agree with you re. the hospital visit & I too would be surprised that the Dublin doctor admitted it was a bite.
Knowing Jimmy, he's well able to twist the words of a question to get the answer he wants.
It will be interesting if the two teams meet later on in the year.
Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2013, 02:08:12 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on May 13, 2013, 12:18:50 PM
Hound, do you believe that there was no bite at all? That it was made up.
Well what I believe doesn't matter.
I believe McBrearty wasn't 100% sure himself what caused the bruise as his back was turned
I believe there was severe provocation seconds before the incident that many would think had crossed a line of what is physically acceptable between markers on a GAA field
I believe not everyone who examined the bruise in the dressing room at half time was sure it was a bitemark
I believe there was a thorough probe of the mark at half time
I believe that the only purpose of the hospital visit was to exacerabate the incident, that it was completely unnecessary medically and that it took a lot of persuasion to get McBrearty to go.
I believe both men shook hands afterwards, both agreed they had done wrong and both agreed to move on
I believe that mark had completeley disappeared by the time he played the U21 game 3 days later
What I know is that there was no evidence presented at the appeal hearing and therefore the case collapsed.
What I also know is that McGuinness made up the story about the Dublin doctor agreeing there was a bite.
A lot of believing going on there Fuzzman, but have you anything, anything at all to back any of it up. Some of what you say is bizarre.
How do you know that "both agreed they had done wrong"?
How do you know that "The mark had disappeared 3 days later"?
How do you know that "McGuinness made up the story about the Dublin doctor"?
How do you know that "the only purpose of the hospital visit was to exacerbate the incident"?
How do you know that "there was no evidence presented at the appeal hearing"?
How do you know that "there was severe provocation"?
If you "know" all these things then you are the best informed man in Ireland. Either that or you are a bluffer of the first order & I know where my money is.
In fairness he said "I believe", you inserted "I know". Typical Donegal twisting words :)
So is the Dublin line now going to be that there might have been a bite, but it was "severely provoked"?
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 13, 2013, 03:28:07 PM
In fairness he said "I believe", you inserted "I know". Typical Donegal twisting words :)
You're right AZ, mea culpa. My old schoolteacher would not have been impressed ::) ::)
Mind you I would still like to know what these beliefs are based on.
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 13, 2013, 03:50:50 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 13, 2013, 03:28:07 PM
In fairness he said "I believe", you inserted "I know". Typical Donegal twisting words :)
You're right AZ, mea culpa. My old schoolteacher would not have been impressed ::) ::)
Mind you I would still like to know what these beliefs are based on.
Yes indeed, read the posts before making castigating remarks, you even got the Poster wrong!
As I said, what I or anyone else believes doesn't matter, but what we know is that there was no evidence presented at the appeal hearing and therefore the case collapsed.
Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2013, 04:44:19 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 13, 2013, 03:50:50 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 13, 2013, 03:28:07 PM
In fairness he said "I believe", you inserted "I know". Typical Donegal twisting words :)
You're right AZ, mea culpa. My old schoolteacher would not have been impressed ::) ::)
Mind you I would still like to know what these beliefs are based on.
Yes indeed, read the posts before making castigating remarks, you even got the Poster wrong!
As I said, what I or anyone else believes doesn't matter, but what we know is that there was no evidence presented at the appeal hearing and therefore the case collapsed.
That's technically incorrect again. Mcbearty wasn present to give evidence on it being mcbearty who bit him but there was evidence present to prove a bite did occur both in the form of photographs and the donegal team doctor being present
Quote from: donegal lad on May 13, 2013, 04:47:09 PM
Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2013, 04:44:19 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 13, 2013, 03:50:50 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 13, 2013, 03:28:07 PM
In fairness he said "I believe", you inserted "I know". Typical Donegal twisting words :)
You're right AZ, mea culpa. My old schoolteacher would not have been impressed ::) ::)
Mind you I would still like to know what these beliefs are based on.
Yes indeed, read the posts before making castigating remarks, you even got the Poster wrong!
As I said, what I or anyone else believes doesn't matter, but what we know is that there was no evidence presented at the appeal hearing and therefore the case collapsed.
That's technically incorrect again. Mcbearty wasn present to give evidence on it being mcbearty who bit him but there was evidence present to prove a bite did occur both in the form of photographs and the donegal team doctor being present
This wasn't enough clearly.
What is the level of proof neccesary in these situations ?.
Quote from: orangeman on May 13, 2013, 04:49:55 PM
Quote from: donegal lad on May 13, 2013, 04:47:09 PM
Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2013, 04:44:19 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 13, 2013, 03:50:50 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 13, 2013, 03:28:07 PM
In fairness he said "I believe", you inserted "I know". Typical Donegal twisting words :)
You're right AZ, mea culpa. My old schoolteacher would not have been impressed ::) ::)
Mind you I would still like to know what these beliefs are based on.
Yes indeed, read the posts before making castigating remarks, you even got the Poster wrong!
As I said, what I or anyone else believes doesn't matter, but what we know is that there was no evidence presented at the appeal hearing and therefore the case collapsed.
That's technically incorrect again. Mcbearty wasn present to give evidence on it being mcbearty who bit him but there was evidence present to prove a bite did occur both in the form of photographs and the donegal team doctor being present
This wasn't enough clearly.
What is the level of proof neccesary in these situations ?.
It wasn't enough to suspend anyone because there was no evidence presence to show him biting mcbearty only evidence was to show a bite did happen
Quote from: donegal lad on May 13, 2013, 04:47:09 PM
Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2013, 04:44:19 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 13, 2013, 03:50:50 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 13, 2013, 03:28:07 PM
In fairness he said "I believe", you inserted "I know". Typical Donegal twisting words :)
You're right AZ, mea culpa. My old schoolteacher would not have been impressed ::) ::)
Mind you I would still like to know what these beliefs are based on.
Yes indeed, read the posts before making castigating remarks, you even got the Poster wrong!
As I said, what I or anyone else believes doesn't matter, but what we know is that there was no evidence presented at the appeal hearing and therefore the case collapsed.
That's technically incorrect again. Mcbearty wasn present to give evidence on it being mcbearty who bit him but there was evidence present to prove a bite did occur both in the form of photographs and the donegal team doctor being present
Donegal lads really need to think about the argument that they keep hanging their hat on.
"There was a bite" is a bit like having a body in a murder case.
To point to a guilty party you need a smidgeen more evidence than that.
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2013, 04:59:15 PM
Quote from: donegal lad on May 13, 2013, 04:47:09 PM
Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2013, 04:44:19 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 13, 2013, 03:50:50 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 13, 2013, 03:28:07 PM
In fairness he said "I believe", you inserted "I know". Typical Donegal twisting words :)
You're right AZ, mea culpa. My old schoolteacher would not have been impressed ::) ::)
Mind you I would still like to know what these beliefs are based on.
Yes indeed, read the posts before making castigating remarks, you even got the Poster wrong!
As I said, what I or anyone else believes doesn't matter, but what we know is that there was no evidence presented at the appeal hearing and therefore the case collapsed.
That's technically incorrect again. Mcbearty wasn present to give evidence on it being mcbearty who bit him but there was evidence present to prove a bite did occur both in the form of photographs and the donegal team doctor being present
Donegal lads really need to think about the argument that they keep hanging their hat on.
"There was a bite" is a bit like having a body in a murder case.
To point to a guilty party you need a smidgeen more evidence than that.
The reason this thread continued so long was the insistence by a couple lads that there was NO bite.
All kinds of thinly veiled accusations were made impugning the character and motives of various Donegal people regarding an alleged conspiracy to damage a Dublin player for outlandish and inexplicable reasons. Now the GAA hierarchy are saying there was a bite. How long till the more ludicrous rumours circling in Dublin about the origin of the bite rear their ugly head here to "refute" that?
Again, from O'Brien's point of view, I think he has been absolutely left hang out to dry on this one. You have senior officials in the GAA basically saying 'we know he did it, but sure without McBrearty coming along we can't prove it'. Absolutely shocking trial by media of a player that had been found to have no case to answer at the appeal.
Of course maybe there's a bit of nudge nudge wink wink going on here with the eejits in Croker, but I think Dublin have badly let their own player down here if they truly believe his is innocent. It's scandelous.
If he is guilty, then fair enough, he deserves all he gets. But if he is not, then the GAA AND Dublin owe him a huge apology, not to mind Donegal.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 13, 2013, 05:19:20 PM
Again, from O'Brien's point of view, I think he has been absolutely left hang out to dry on this one. You have senior officials in the GAA basically saying 'we know he did it, but sure without McBrearty coming along we can't prove it'. Absolutely shocking trial by media of a player that had been found to have no case to answer at the appeal.
Of course maybe there's a bit of nudge nudge wink wink going on here with the eejits in Croker, but I think Dublin have badly let their own player down here if they truly believe his is innocent. It's scandelous.
If he is guilty, then fair enough, he deserves all he gets. But if he is not, then the GAA AND Dublin owe him a huge apology, not to mind Donegal.
His name should never have come out as long as there were doubts over McBrearty's participation.
Quote from: J70 on May 13, 2013, 05:14:24 PM
The reason this thread continued so long was the insistence by a couple lads that there was NO bite.
All kinds of thinly veiled accusations were made impugning the character and motives of various Donegal people regarding an alleged conspiracy to damage a Dublin player for outlandish and inexplicable reasons. Now the GAA hierarchy are saying there was a bite. How long till the more ludicrous rumours circling in Dublin about the origin of the bite rear th heir ugly head here to "refute" that?
J70 I am a neutral in this.
If Donegal is accusing a Dublin player of a bite then get on with it, provide your all of your evidence and let the relevant authorities decide.
If Donegal is not willing and able comply with this fundamental of natural justice, then their fans, manager and management should just acknowledge they made a mess of it, and shut up about it once and for all.
If, as it appears, they are unwilling or unable to substantiate their allegations, then subsequently they should expect and understand the ire of everyone else for their cack-handed 'impugning' of a young Dublin footballer.
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2013, 04:59:15 PM
Quote from: donegal lad on May 13, 2013, 04:47:09 PM
Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2013, 04:44:19 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on May 13, 2013, 03:50:50 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 13, 2013, 03:28:07 PM
In fairness he said "I believe", you inserted "I know". Typical Donegal twisting words :)
You're right AZ, mea culpa. My old schoolteacher would not have been impressed ::) ::)
Mind you I would still like to know what these beliefs are based on.
Yes indeed, read the posts before making castigating remarks, you even got the Poster wrong!
As I said, what I or anyone else believes doesn't matter, but what we know is that there was no evidence presented at the appeal hearing and therefore the case collapsed.
That's technically incorrect again. Mcbearty wasn present to give evidence on it being mcbearty who bit him but there was evidence present to prove a bite did occur both in the form of photographs and the donegal team doctor being present
Donegal lads really need to think about the argument that they keep hanging their hat on.
"There was a bite" is a bit like having a body in a murder case.
To point to a guilty party you need a smidgeen more evidence than that.
If you have read the posts from me on this thread you will have seen I've always pointed out the fact there was no evidence to prove who bit him even said it in my post directly above yours
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 13, 2013, 05:19:20 PM
Again, from O'Brien's point of view, I think he has been absolutely left hang out to dry on this one. You have senior officials in the GAA basically saying 'we know he did it, but sure without McBrearty coming along we can't prove it'. Absolutely shocking trial by media of a player that had been found to have no case to answer at the appeal.
Of course maybe there's a bit of nudge nudge wink wink going on here with the eejits in Croker, but I think Dublin have badly let their own player down here if they truly believe his is innocent. It's scandelous.
If he is guilty, then fair enough, he deserves all he gets. But if he is not, then the GAA AND Dublin owe him a huge apology, not to mind Donegal.
I agree with most of what you said in that post but must clear something up donegal never named Kevin oriented in any media reports they did. It was 1 particular news paper that 1st carried his name in a story about the cccc proposed suspension
Quote
Quote from: donegal lad on May 13, 2013, 06:14:37 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2013, 04:59:15 PM
That's technically incorrect again. Mcbearty wasn present to give evidence on it being mcbearty who bit him but there was evidence present to prove a bite did occur both in the form of photographs and the donegal team doctor being present
Donegal lads really need to think about the argument that they keep hanging their hat on.
"There was a bite" is a bit like having a body in a murder case.
To point to a guilty party you need a smidgeen more evidence than that.
If you have read the posts from me on this thread you will have seen I've always pointed out the fact there was no evidence to prove who bit him even said it in my post directly above yours
It looks like I was addressing you personally with 'Donegal Lads' but I meant it generally. I can see how it would look otherwise though.
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2013, 05:30:59 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 13, 2013, 05:14:24 PM
The reason this thread continued so long was the insistence by a couple lads that there was NO bite.
All kinds of thinly veiled accusations were made impugning the character and motives of various Donegal people regarding an alleged conspiracy to damage a Dublin player for outlandish and inexplicable reasons. Now the GAA hierarchy are saying there was a bite. How long till the more ludicrous rumours circling in Dublin about the origin of the bite rear th heir ugly head here to "refute" that?
J70 I am a neutral in this.
If Donegal is accusing a Dublin player of a bite then get on with it, provide your all of your evidence and let the relevant authorities decide.
If Donegal is not willing and able comply with this fundamental of natural justice, then their fans, manager and management should just acknowledge they made a mess of it, and shut up about it once and for all.
If, as it appears, they are unwilling or unable to substantiate their allegations, then subsequently they should expect and understand the ire of everyone else for their cack-handed 'impugning' of a young Dublin footballer.
Donegal reported it to the ref at half time (and to the sub ref at full time). Once it was in his report, it moved on to the CCCC. Were Donegal supposed to make an ultimate determination that McBrearty would cooperate, in the heat of the battle, at half time, with him still to go out and play a half of football?
Say they figured by the Monday or Tuesday (by which time McBrearty said he wanted to move on) that they didn't want to pursue it any further, could Donegal have approached the ref and said "ah sure don't bother about it, just remove it from your report". Could they have done that?
Quote from: J70 on May 13, 2013, 09:29:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2013, 05:30:59 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 13, 2013, 05:14:24 PM
The reason this thread continued so long was the insistence by a couple lads that there was NO bite.
All kinds of thinly veiled accusations were made impugning the character and motives of various Donegal people regarding an alleged conspiracy to damage a Dublin player for outlandish and inexplicable reasons. Now the GAA hierarchy are saying there was a bite. How long till the more ludicrous rumours circling in Dublin about the origin of the bite rear th heir ugly head here to "refute" that?
J70 I am a neutral in this.
If Donegal is accusing a Dublin player of a bite then get on with it, provide your all of your evidence and let the relevant authorities decide.
If Donegal is not willing and able comply with this fundamental of natural justice, then their fans, manager and management should just acknowledge they made a mess of it, and shut up about it once and for all.
If, as it appears, they are unwilling or unable to substantiate their allegations, then subsequently they should expect and understand the ire of everyone else for their cack-handed 'impugning' of a young Dublin footballer.
Donegal reported it to the ref at half time (and to the sub ref at full time). Once it was in his report, it moved on to the CCCC. Were Donegal supposed to make an ultimate determination that McBrearty would cooperate, in the heat of the battle, at half time, with him still to go out and play a half of football?
Say they figured by the Monday or Tuesday (by which time McBrearty said he wanted to move on) that they didn't want to pursue it any further, could Donegal have approached the ref and said "ah sure don't bother about it, just remove it from your report". Could they have done that?
What they could have done is withdrawn the complaint.
The ref would have had no option but to drop it.
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2013, 09:40:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 13, 2013, 09:29:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2013, 05:30:59 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 13, 2013, 05:14:24 PM
The reason this thread continued so long was the insistence by a couple lads that there was NO bite.
All kinds of thinly veiled accusations were made impugning the character and motives of various Donegal people regarding an alleged conspiracy to damage a Dublin player for outlandish and inexplicable reasons. Now the GAA hierarchy are saying there was a bite. How long till the more ludicrous rumours circling in Dublin about the origin of the bite rear th heir ugly head here to "refute" that?
J70 I am a neutral in this.
If Donegal is accusing a Dublin player of a bite then get on with it, provide your all of your evidence and let the relevant authorities decide.
If Donegal is not willing and able comply with this fundamental of natural justice, then their fans, manager and management should just acknowledge they made a mess of it, and shut up about it once and for all.
If, as it appears, they are unwilling or unable to substantiate their allegations, then subsequently they should expect and understand the ire of everyone else for their cack-handed 'impugning' of a young Dublin footballer.
Donegal reported it to the ref at half time (and to the sub ref at full time). Once it was in his report, it moved on to the CCCC. Were Donegal supposed to make an ultimate determination that McBrearty would cooperate, in the heat of the battle, at half time, with him still to go out and play a half of football?
Say they figured by the Monday or Tuesday (by which time McBrearty said he wanted to move on) that they didn't want to pursue it any further, could Donegal have approached the ref and said "ah sure don't bother about it, just remove it from your report". Could they have done that?
What they could have done is withdrawn the complaint.
The ref would have had no option but to drop it.
So you CAN request a referee delete something from his report a few days later?
Quote from: J70 on May 13, 2013, 10:07:20 PM
So you CAN request a referee delete something from his report a few days later?
Stop putting words in my mouth.
They made the complaint to the ref who knew nothing about it.
They could simply have informed Croke Park that they were withdrawing the complaint.
Very slippery slope, singing Azealia Banks songs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUiOoRCDd44
4 decades of the rosary and wash those mouths out.
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2013, 10:08:55 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 13, 2013, 10:07:20 PM
So you CAN request a referee delete something from his report a few days later?
Stop putting words in my mouth.
They made the complaint to the ref who knew nothing about it.
They could simply have informed Croke Park that they were withdrawing the complaint.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. It was a simple question. I'm going under the assumption that you know more about the rules than I do, given that you're making these suggestions (I've not been directly involved in GAA for a long time and I'm not well up on the technical details of these issues). I was under the impression that once the referee submitted his report, the GAA had to act on it, that it was out of the referee's and teams' hands. I may well be wrong.
Quote from: J70 on May 13, 2013, 10:14:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2013, 10:08:55 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 13, 2013, 10:07:20 PM
So you CAN request a referee delete something from his report a few days later?
Stop putting words in my mouth.
They made the complaint to the ref who knew nothing about it.
They could simply have informed Croke Park that they were withdrawing the complaint.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. It was a simple question. I'm going under the assumption that you know more about the rules than I do, given that you're making these suggestions (I've not been directly involved in GAA for a long time and I'm not well up on the technical details of these issues). I was under the impression that once the referee submitted his report, the GAA had to act on it, that it was out of the referee's and teams' hands. I may well be wrong.
I am also out of the game for a long time.
But this is pretty simple, rules or no rules.
Donegal made a complaint to ref who saw nothing but included in his report that Donegal made a complaint.
If Donegal subsequently withdraw the complaint then all they have is a ref who saw nothing, no camera evidence and a player who denies involvement.
It ends there.
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2013, 10:18:10 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 13, 2013, 10:14:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2013, 10:08:55 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 13, 2013, 10:07:20 PM
So you CAN request a referee delete something from his report a few days later?
Stop putting words in my mouth.
They made the complaint to the ref who knew nothing about it.
They could simply have informed Croke Park that they were withdrawing the complaint.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. It was a simple question. I'm going under the assumption that you know more about the rules than I do, given that you're making these suggestions (I've not been directly involved in GAA for a long time and I'm not well up on the technical details of these issues). I was under the impression that once the referee submitted his report, the GAA had to act on it, that it was out of the referee's and teams' hands. I may well be wrong.
I am also out of the game for a long time.
But this is pretty simple, rules or no rules.
Donegal made a complaint to ref who saw nothing but included in his report that Donegal made a complaint.
If Donegal subsequently withdraw the complaint then all they have is a ref who saw nothing, no camera evidence and a player who denies involvement.
It ends there.
Assuming there would be no repercussions for Donegal for doing so, you' may be right. But, they figured that they'd persuade McBrearty to change his mind. Apparently they tried and failed.
Mind you, that still leaves the one man's word against another issue.
They say he's a quiet modest lad.. Once bitten twice shy
Amazing that it took 21 pages.
Leinster chiefs to quiz Dublin and DCU as they weigh up probe into 'bite'
Leinster Council have asked both Dublin and DCU for their views on a reference to a biting allegation contained in the report of referee David Gough after Sunday's O'Byrne Cup match between the teams in Parnell Park.
The report will be discussed at an unscheduled meeting of Leinster's Competition Controls Committee in Portlaoise tomorrow evening. Leinster's disciplinary arm had not been scheduled to meet until next week.
It is understood that the referee was made aware that a DCU player was the victim of an alleged bite during the course of the second half, and that the allegation came from a DCU player.
Both Dublin and DCU have been invited to comment on the contents of the report as Leinster CCC explore whether or not there is a case to investigate the matter further.
There are strong connections between the Dublin team and DCU. Dublin have used DCU's Glasnevin facility St Clare's as their training base since Pat Gilroy's reign, while the Dubs' skills coach Mick Bohan is also a coach with the DCU team.
Former Dublin selector Michael Kennedy is also involved and one of Gilroy's advisers, Professor Niall Moyna, is DCU manager.
A Dublin player was at the centre of a biting allegation last year when Donegal's Paddy McBrearty was the apparent victim during a league match in April. McBrearty was treated in hospital, where he received injections.
But after a lengthy investigation there was insufficient evidence available to the Central Hearings Committee to suspend the player in question and the case against him was "not proven".
Have we covered all the tooth/biting puns or has a sufficent period elapsed that we can start again?
Quote from: Jinxy on January 14, 2014, 10:38:59 AM
Have we covered all the tooth/biting puns or has a sufficent period elapsed that we can start again?
New year/new puns please
Hopefully we'll get the tooth this time around
About time we had a topic we can sink our teeth into..
The Dubs look hungry this year
You'd want to be some enamel altogether to bite another human being.
Another brush with the CCCC.
Dubs going well I hear - they're whitening fast this year.
Be careful lads The Dubs have fillings too..
Leinster GAA are going to check up on this.
I can see someone getting implanted for this.
And to crown it all, DCU bate them.
How did it ever gum to this?
They'd better brace themselves.
A plaque for the best pun.
Them Dublin lads would take you out by the root.
You'd question the wisdom of this pun competition. There are too many gaps in this.
Quote from: orangeman on January 14, 2014, 03:03:06 PM
You'd question the wisdom of this pun competition. There are too many gaps in this.
Aye a bridge too far...
Quote from: Dinny Breen on January 14, 2014, 03:59:04 PM
Quote from: orangeman on January 14, 2014, 03:03:06 PM
You'd question the wisdom of this pun competition. There are too many gaps in this.
Aye a bridge too far...
It's all cosmetic anyway.
Some very tenuous puns there orangeman.
I like your enthusiasm though.
Quote from: Jinxy on January 14, 2014, 11:40:21 PM
Some very tenuous puns there orangeman.
I like your enthusiasm though.
Go easy. I'm very sensitive.
Quote from: Jinxy on January 14, 2014, 11:40:21 PM
Some very tenuous puns there orangeman.
I like your enthusiasm though.
Less of your lip! ;)
This could damage Dublin's crown
Liam Hayes was going mad in the paper the other day. He was raging that Dublin haven't come out and made some comment on the incident.
I think Hayes might need a bit of sedation.
He should just sit back or lie back and relax in his chair.
??? ??? ???
Nothing to do with CCCC. All Dublin and Donegal's fault. We could do no more.
Padraic Duffy blasts Dublin and Donegal in annual report over "reprehensible" response to McBrearty bite
COLM KEYS– 21 January 2014
Dublin and Donegal damaged the reputation of the GAA by their collective failure to hold anyone to account for the "disgusting and shocking" bite sustained by Paddy McBrearty in a league match last April.
In a stinging attack on both counties in his annual report to next month's Congress the GAA's director general Paraic Duffy describes it as "reprehensible" that no one could be held to account for what happened to the young Donegal forward and criticises the lack of leadership in both counties.
A Dublin player was charged for the offence and had a three match ban proposed by the Central Competition Controls Committee but that charge was "not proven" at a subsequent Central Hearings Committee meeting when McBrearty decided not to attend to give evidence.
Duffy's strong comments on the issue come as Leinster Council's CCC probe the latest biting allegation involving Dublin contained in referee David Gough's report on last week's O'Byrne Cup match with DCU.
Duffy describes the act of biting as "primitive behaviour" which is "shocking and dangerous" and has no place in the association.
He refers to the controversy as one of "the low points of 2013" and describes the bite mark to the arm sustained by McBrearty as "severe."
"That was a disgusting and shocking incident in itself, but what is just as reprehensible is that no one could be held to account for what happened," he writes.
"The Central Competitions Control Committee (CCCC) investigated the matter as thoroughly as possible, but was greatly hindered by the absence of video and other evidence.
"The CCCC, therefore, was reliant on the integrity of those involved to play their part in ensuring that justice was served. However, no one was proved to have inflicted the bite simply because no one admitted to having done so and because the player who was bitten decided not to attend a hearing on the case.
"The counties involved may have chosen to deal with this incident solely in terms of their own interests; be that as it may, they did not emerge with any credit and succeeded only in damaging the reputation of the Association."
Duffy defended the actions of the CCCC throughout the affair and said they "did everything within their power to ensure that the perpetrator was held to account."
"The responsibility for limiting the damage to the reputation of the Association lay with players, team officials and county committee officers," he writes.
"Leadership was required from the counties involved to protect the good name of the Association: it is disappointing that it was not forthcoming."
Dublin's Jason Whelan banned for eight weeks
Ballymun Kickhams footballer will not contest ruling after investigation into allegations of biting
Dublin's Jason Whelan has been suspended for eight weeks after the Leinster Council investigation into allegations of biting in the O'Byrne Cup match between the All-Ireland champions and DCU two weeks ago.
A statement from the council tonight gave details of the process: "At a meeting tonight, the Leinster Council GAA imposed a suspension of eight weeks on a Dublin player Jason Whelan, arising from incidents in the O' Byrne Cup SF game - Dublin v DCU - played on Sunday, 12th January, 2014.
"The suspension was imposed in accordance with Rule 7.2 Category III (vii) - 'inflicting injury recklessly'.
"The Dublin County Board and the player have indicated to the Leinster Council that they will accept the proposed sanction."
The matter had been under investigation over the past week in the wake of the allegation, which arose during the match at Parnell Park and formed the basis of an incident referred to in the report of Meath referee David Gough.
Leinster's Competitions Control Committee had appointed a sub-committee to investigate the matter and the full CCC met today to consider its findings. Dublin were represented at that meeting.
Whelan, from Ballymun Kickhams, has been a panellist on a couple of occasions with the team, although he wasn't part of the All-Ireland winning squad. He will be out of the running for Dublin's first three national league fixtures against Kerry, Westmeath and Cork.
Suspensions in provincial competitions remain time-based whereas at national level they are now imposed as match bans.
Lads can we move on from the biting and the stupid puns and focus on Dublin's league opener against Kerry.
A mouth-watering clash.
Quote from: Ohtoohtobe on January 26, 2014, 04:36:08 AM
Lads can we move on from the biting and the stupid puns and focus on Dublin's league opener against Kerry.
A mouth-watering clash.
You've had a bellyful?
Quote from: Ohtoohtobe on January 26, 2014, 04:36:08 AM
Lads can we move on from the biting and the stupid puns and focus on Dublin's league opener against Kerry.
A mouth-watering clash.
What an appetiser.