Donegal on slippery slope?

[J70]

McGuinness (or is it Rory Gallagher?) must have the goods on Duffy!

[Hound]

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.

[orangeman]

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.

[Fuzzman]

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.

[screenexile]

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?

[BluestackBoy]

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.

[Mike Sheehy]

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.

[Hound]

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.

[Fuzzman]

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.

[BluestackBoy]

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.

[AZOffaly]

In fairness he said "I believe", you inserted "I know". Typical Donegal twisting words

[J70]

So is the Dublin line now going to be that there might have been a bite, but it was "severely provoked"?

[BluestackBoy]

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.

[Hound]

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.

[donegal lad]

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