Donegal on slippery slope?

[orangeman]

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 ?.

[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

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

[muppet]

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.

[J70]

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?

[AZOffaly]

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.

[J70]

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.

[muppet]

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 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

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

[donegal lad]

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

[muppet]

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.

[J70]

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?

[muppet]

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.

[J70]

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?

[muppet]

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.

[seafoid]

Very slippery slope, singing Azealia Banks songs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUiOoRCDd44

4 decades of the rosary and wash those mouths out.