Donegal on slippery slope?

[J70]

Those 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! ), 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?

[muppet]

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.

[J70]

If Donegal invented it, how would have it made it past the CCCC with a recommendation for a severe penalty?

[Zulu]

Those 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! ), 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.

[muppet]

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.

[J70]

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?

[orangeman]

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.

[J70]

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

[Premier Emperor]

Did O'Brien bite the Donegal lad or not?

[haranguerer]

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

[The Boy Wonder]

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 

[orangeman]

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.

[Zulu]

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.

[muppet]

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?

[heffo]

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.