Donegal on slippery slope?

[J70]

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.

[yellowcard]

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. 

[heffo]

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

[heffo]

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

[Syferus]

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.

[LeoMc]

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'

[J70]

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?

[J70]

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?

[heffo]

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

[J70]

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?

Hadn't heard your angle either. That at least sounds plausible.

[J70]

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?

[heffo]

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?

[heffo]

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?

[BluestackBoy]

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.

[J70]

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".