Donegal Player Allegedly Bitten *Mod Note Post 225*

Justin10

keane2097 wrote: »

Well come on, you don't think that from what was reported the most likely possibility by far was that the incident took place?

I'm not certain it did obviously, and skepticism is a healthy thing, but the ways this could have been made up are orders of magnitude less believable than it just being true.

Im not doubting if something happened or not or not, I never said either way. All im doing is pointing out the very flimsy evidence.

For example, the chairman of the Dublin county board isnt going to come out and say its a bruise, if as reported in the star it was a laceration. Which im all sure we can agree is on the extreme side.

Compare that to BBC who couldn't even get Dublin's next game correct never mind the facts.

Facts he know is he was treated for a bite, which anyone would be if they claimed to be bitten. Proves nothing, and that is not me saying proves nothing so it didn't happen, its me looking for more information on something no one knows very little about.

copacetic

bruschi wrote: »

The CCCC made a decision to suspend, that the player has a right to defend. But if they got this wrong, and made a suspension without clearly having evidence, then they are bringing things into disrepute. I can not see how they could make such a ruling if they did not have clear evidence produced to them in the form of referees report, photographs and doctors notes.

all the reports say that the refs report simply repeats the allegations made by Donegal. Neither ref saw anything.

We don't know what evidence they have except the allegation and possibly some photographs of an injury. Certainly there is no footage of pictures to identify the player involved, simply an allegation they have believed.

He presumably will say he didn't do any such thing and there is no evidence that he did at his appeal.

I'd imagine the reason most people take nothing coming from Donegal at face value is because they started a media campaign after the game, rather than just following the procedures. Why the media campaign? And once you start one, whether to deflect from relegation or whatever, then everything you claim will be viewed in the light of the media campaign you are waging.

keane2097

Rochey18 wrote: »

Im not doubting if something happened or not or not, I never said either way. All im doing is pointing out the very flimsy evidence.

For example, the chairman of the Dublin county board isnt going to come out and say its a bruise, if as reported in the star it was a laceration. Which im all sure we can agree is on the extreme side.

Compare that to BBC who couldn't even get Dublin's next game correct never mind the facts.

Facts he know is he was treated for a bite, which anyone would be if they claimed to be bitten. Proves nothing, and that is not me saying proves nothing so it didn't happen, its me looking for more information on something no one knows very little about.

Yeah I think there's been a lot of very needless confusion spread around by all the various descriptions of the mark.

To be honest with you, knowing a little bit about the industry I can tell you the only reason one crowd are calling it a cut, another are calling it a bitemark and a third are calling it a laceration is because they're all copying each other and changing the wording around just enough to not be pinged by google for plagiarism and getting knocked down the search results over it.

The last bit of your post there is where I think a bit of logic comes into it. I don't buy that a guy ever makes up being bitten at half time in a delicately poised game. I mean, how do you ever decide to do that? It's just vanishingly unlikely.

Coupled with that, we know the staff took pictures of the mark, from which I don't think it's a big leap to say the mark must have looked fairly distinctly like a bitemark. It's possible they would have taken a picture of any old bruise, but again I think it's pretty likely it must have been plain enough what it was if they were irate enough to go for the cameras again at half time in an important game.

Next, the doctor examined the wound and decided it was a bitemark and a bad enough one to warrant a visit to the hospital. Again, you can say its possible the doctor was complicit in trying to build a story here but its hard to really buy that, particularly when the hospital doctors would seem to have gone along with the diagnosis.

Like I said, I just dont see how the whole thing ever gets to this point being made up.

corny

copacetic wrote: »

all the reports say that the refs report simply repeats the allegations made by Donegal. Neither ref saw anything.

We don't know what evidence they have except the allegation and possibly some photographs of an injury. Certainly there is no footage of pictures to identify the player involved, simply an allegation they have believed.

He presumably will say he didn't do any such thing and there is no evidence that he did at his appeal.

I'd imagine the reason most people take nothing coming from Donegal at face value is because they started a media campaign after the game, rather than just following the procedures. Why the media campaign? And once you start one, whether to deflect from relegation or whatever, then everything you claim will be viewed in the light of the media campaign you are waging.

Surely if thats true KOB has no case to answer and the CCCC would have had to drop the case?

keane2097

copacetic wrote: »

I'd imagine the reason most people take nothing coming from Donegal at face value is because they started a media campaign after the game, rather than just following the procedures. Why the media campaign? And once you start one, whether to deflect from relegation or whatever, then everything you claim will be viewed in the light of the media campaign you are waging.

This is by far the flimsiest argument of them all tbh. Id buy that he bit himself and made the whole thing up over the deflect from the relegation line.

K-9

listermint wrote: »

No, im afraid not. You were the crowd baying for blood, very simple really. Rather than letting the systems do what they are their for there was already people calling for rolling heads.


Your supposed 'logic' and 'deduction' was nothing more than opinion. Dress it up how ever you want.


Shows the type of poster really.

In fairness the conspiracy theory and "typical Donegal" posts didn't help. As they say, it is what it is, at the moment, nothing more, nothing less!

K-9

keane2097 wrote: »

This is by far the flimsiest argument of them all tbh. Id buy that he bit himself and made the whole thing up over the deflect from the relegation line.

Plenty of "her dress was too short" type posts all right.

copacetic

K-9 wrote: »

Plenty of "her dress was too short" type posts all right.

My post was clear about what I felt and why, why not argue against it, instead of just posting a crass, childish, over the top and frankly disgusting analogy?

68Murph68

copacetic wrote: »

I'd imagine the reason most people take nothing coming from Donegal at face value is because they started a media campaign after the game, rather than just following the procedures. Why the media campaign? And once you start one, whether to deflect from relegation or whatever, then everything you claim will be viewed in the light of the media campaign you are waging.

What media campaign?

When Jimmy was being interviewed after the game there was no mention of the incident.

I doubt anything was said to the papers by any of the Donegal squad as none of them had anything on Monday.

The story seems to have only broken on the Tuesday (and the first post on this thread was made Tuesday morning) If I had to guess I would say word leaked out informally in Donegal on the basis of McBrearty having to go to hospital and concern about whether he would be available for the U21 final.

Seems Donegal GAA were more concerned about the U21 final on the Wednesday night and even after that it seems there has been little to nothing to back up the notion of a Donegal media campaign.

Can anyone point to any evidence of a Donegal media campaign whatsoever?

keane2097

copacetic wrote: »

My post was clear about what I felt and why, why not argue against it, instead of just posting a crass, childish, over the top and frankly disgusting analogy?

Because it suggests a ludicrous level of planning for the eventuality that they might be relegated at half time in a game, an unrealistic overestimation of the media reaction to them being relegated, an unlikely level of interest from Jim McGuinness et al about what the media would say about them getting relegated and most importantly ignores everything about the bitemark, the doctors, the hospital, the treatment and all the rest.

Its absurd tbh, and I dont buy that anyone believes genuinely that Donegal would tar an innocent Dublin player with this accusation to avoid the media writing about them being relegated. I think its a bit sociopathic to even come up with it in all honesty (I know you didnt come up with it, Im not suggesting you are sociopathic)!

Captain Plan It

copacetic wrote: »

all the reports say that the refs report simply repeats the allegations made by Donegal. Neither ref saw anything.

We don't know what evidence they have except the allegation and possibly some photographs of an injury. Certainly there is no footage of pictures to identify the player involved, simply an allegation they have believed.

He presumably will say he didn't do any such thing and there is no evidence that he did at his appeal.

I'd imagine the reason most people take nothing coming from Donegal at face value is because they started a media campaign after the game, rather than just following the procedures. Why the media campaign? And once you start one, whether to deflect from relegation or whatever, then everything you claim will be viewed in the light of the media campaign you are waging.

Just on the notion that Donegal were trying to deflect attention from relegation, im not sure how it would. If the incident did not take place or if no allegations were made, the game and the relegation talk would have been let go by now with focus being on the championship. But, if anything, relegation talk has been prolonged in the media as most articles I've seen written about the biting allegations refer to the fact that it took place in the game which led to Donegal being relegated.

copacetic

keane2097 wrote: »

Because it suggests a ludicrous level of planning for the eventuality that they might be relegated at half time in a game, an unrealistic overestimation of the media reaction to them being relegated, an unlikely level of interest from Jim McGuinness et al about what the media would say about them getting relegated and most importantly ignores everything about the bitemark, the doctors, the hospital, the treatment and all the rest.

Its absurd tbh, and I dont buy that anyone believes genuinely that Donegal would tar an innocent Dublin player with this accusation to avoid the media writing about them being relegated. I think its a bit sociopathic to even come up with it in all honesty (I know you didnt come up with it, Im not suggesting you are sociopathic)!

I certainly didn't say or even imply they made up the incident, I said they have used it to wage a media campaign, briefing the media on it and making claims about the Dublin doctor seeing a bite in the media. Rather than just let their complaint to ref take its course.

keane2097

copacetic wrote: »

I certainly didn't say or even imply they made up the incident, I said they have used it to wage a media campaign, briefing the media on it and making claims about the Dublin doctor seeing a bite in the media. Rather than just let their complaint to ref take its course.

Im not sure what your point is if youre not suggesting that they made it up.

I'd imagine the reason most people take nothing coming from Donegal at face value is because they started a media campaign after the game

What does this mean other than you dont believe what theyre saying?

68Murph68

copacetic wrote: »

I certainly didn't say or even imply they made up the incident, I said they have used it to wage a media campaign, briefing the media on it and making claims about the Dublin doctor seeing a bite in the media. Rather than just let their complaint to ref take its course.

Seriously you believe they "waged a media campaign"

Did they mention it in the post-match interview?

Surely they should have brought McBrearty out and shown the RTE boys the bite on camera.

Did they issue any statements to the press on the matter?

Did either McGuinness or McBrearty or Donegal GAA make any statements about the incident?

Did anyone from the Donegal camp go on national or local radio or television about the matter?

Did they release the pictures of the bite to the media?

At this stage I'm beginning to wonder if I'm living in an alternate universe where Donegal have been waging a massive media blitz and I completely missed it.

copacetic

keane2097 wrote: »

Im not sure what your point is if youre not suggesting that they made it up.



What does this mean other than you dont believe what theyre saying?

It means that they used the incident to drive a media campaign, briefing journalists about their 'outrage' who then contacted the Dublin chairman.

That's a fact. Why they would do that is anyones guess, but in my opinion once a group starts briefing media they exaggerate and I personally don't believe much of that they apparently said. Especially since they claimed the Dublin doctor saw a bite and that they had informed Dublin authorities. Neither of which was true.

keane2097

copacetic wrote: »

I personally don't believe much of that they apparently said.

copacetic wrote: »

I certainly didn't say or even imply they made up the incident, I said they have used it to wage a media campaign, briefing the media on it and making claims about the Dublin doctor seeing a bite in the media. Rather than just let their complaint to ref take its course.

Are you deliberately wasting my time or just doing it by accident?

To clarify, you do believe they've made this up in order to deflect attention from the media about their relegation? If not, I'd be interested to hear what you actually think happened.

DDC1990

copacetic wrote: »

It means that they used the incident to drive a media campaign, briefing journalists about their 'outrage' who then contacted the Dublin chairman.

That's a fact. Why they would do that is anyones guess, but in my opinion once a group starts briefing media they exaggerate and I personally don't believe much of that they apparently said. Especially since they claimed the Dublin doctor saw a bite and that they had informed Dublin authorities. Neither of which was true.

You say neither is true on the back of Kettle's comments, but don't believe any comments from anyone else, stating there is no evidence.

Why is Andy Kettle more reliable then anyone else?

It suits Kettle to say that they hadn't been contacted or that the skin wasn't broken.

68Murph68

DDC1990 wrote: »

You say neither is true on the back of Kettle's comments, but don't believe any comments from anyone else, stating there is no evidence.

Why is Andy Kettle more reliable then anyone else?

It suits Kettle to say that they hadn't been contacted or that the skin wasn't broken.

Given Andy Kettle's comments to the media, I think it's more accurate to say that Dublin have been waging a media campaign on this issue.

K-9

68Murph68 wrote: »

Given Andy Kettle's comments to the media, I think it's more accurate to say that Dublin have been waging a media campaign on this issue.

Indeed, you'd assume the doctor might have mentioned it in passing to the team set up, I mean, why did he think he was asked to look at McBrearty?

68Murph68

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, you'd assume the doctor might have mentioned it in passing to the team set up, I mean, why did he think he was asked to look at McBrearty?

He'd obviously heard what happened to Cassidy for speaking out about the going-ons in the Donegal dressing-room and wasnt prepared to take any chances.;)

Or maybe they brought him in to admire McBrearty. "come here Dublin doc and look at this fine figure of a Donegal man. Tell all them lads back in the capital the calibre of men we have on the Donegal team"

Freedom2

Let me state from the get go that as a Dub supporter, I am appalled by the fact that a Dublin player actually "bit" another player. I don't in any way, shape or form condone it. But you have to ask yourself, what on earth would provoke a person to do such a thing? or indeed was it an out and out accident. Is it possible that McBrearty tried to shrug Kevin O'Brien off his shoulder because O'Brien was right at his back? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. I remember leaving teeth mark on my sons arm when he was a toddler, because he swung his arm right into my mouth. Clearly I didn't intend to bite my child, but it could have been misconstrued that way. I would love to have ALL the evidence before me ahead of making my final decision. If he simple bit McBrearty out of pure viciousness then I wouldn't want to see him on the Dublin team again.

copacetic

DDC1990 wrote: »

You say neither is true on the back of Kettle's comments, but don't believe any comments from anyone else, stating there is no evidence.

Why is Andy Kettle more reliable then anyone else?

It suits Kettle to say that they hadn't been contacted or that the skin wasn't broken.

I personally believe what he said more because he put his name to what he said, he didn't off the record brief numerous journalists asking them not to say who made the statements.

68Murph68

copacetic wrote: »

I personally believe what he said more because he put his name to what he said, he didn't off the record brief numerous journalists asking them not to say who made the statements.

Can you point to all the media articles on the basis of these supposed off-the-record briefings? You'd think that this media campaign would have seen the story get constant mention in the GAA press. The two teams who won the All-Ireland in the last two years play each other and there is an accusation of biting and there seems to be a distinct lack of media interest from what I can see. If there were numerous GAA journalists briefed off the record, don't you think at least one of them would have reported the much bigger story of Donegal conducting off-the-record briefings to target opposition players? That would surely have been a far far bigger story.

Is it possible these supposed off-the-record briefings a possible figment of the imagination.

Did these briefings take place in a variety of parking garages or was it via phone while the person in question was stroking a white pussy cat while trying to spinning around in an office chair dramatically?
Was there any dossiers? [You really need a dossier to have a proper media campaign. Of course tis only a posh word for some paper but you still need it]
Did these media campaign have an online street team element to it flooding social media?

Seriously if Donegal were waging a media campaign as you claim, it was one half-assed piss-poor effort.

Given the punishment is a massive three games do you seriously think this was a massive Donegal conspiracy or do you think something happened and Donegal reported it to the proper authorities and the media then got hold of the story and pursued it. Donegal GAA said nothing officially and the local media in Donegal picked the story up on Monday. The national media picked up on this local media report and reported it nationally on Tuesday. By Wednesday the media story had died down a bit as there was no new details from anyone. The story came back to life today after the CCCC meeting last night.

Clareman

Folks, do not feed the trolls.

Clareman

Actually, looking through this thread I notice a lot of trolling and people trying to wind each other up, with that in mind any further trolling or "being a dick" and I will ban the user (or users) for 1 month.

fullstop

Slattsy wrote: »

A doctor from Donegal (so it blends in well with the 'incident')

How do you know the doctor was from Donegal? There are a lot of foreign doctors in our hospitals :rolleyes:

copacetic wrote: »

I personally believe what he said more because he put his name to what he said, he didn't off the record brief numerous journalists asking them not to say who made the statements.

You've been asked several times to provide evidence of this supposed 'media campaign' waged by Donegal. Either back up your statements or change the record.

ThunbergsAreGo

Heard it was just a love bite

Just cos Paddy gave no love back......

muffler

Im flabbergasted that the player involved received only a 3 match ban. That type of assault (yes, it was an assault) has no place in any sport and I have to say the GAA should have taken a much harder lie on it.

Its the first time I have seen or heard of this type of thuggery brought to the CCCC and I would have thought they would have laid down a proper marker.

notfromhere

is that because its a player from dublin

muffler

notfromhere wrote: »

is that because its a player from dublin

In this specific case, yes because it was a Dublin player that carried out the assault.

smashey

notfromhere wrote: »

is that because its a player from dublin

Let me point something out here. The fact that the player is from Dublin is irrelevant. Totally irrelevant.

DoctaDee

Any further updates on the Jason Quinn spitting incident in the Cookstown/Finuge match ?

DDC1990

DoctaDee wrote: »

Any further updates on the Jason Quinn spitting incident in the Cookstown/Finuge match ?

Unfortunately not.

Nothing of the other Cookstown player that may have spat, or the Finuge Maor that also may have spat.

Disappointing, but the footage didn't appear until quite a long time after the match, and afaik, Finuge didn't make a formal complaint.

Ceist_Beag

muffler wrote: »

Im flabbergasted that the player involved received only a 3 match ban. That type of assault (yes, it was an assault) has no place in any sport and I have to say the GAA should have taken a much harder lie on it.

Its the first time I have seen or heard of this type of thuggery brought to the CCCC and I would have thought they would have laid down a proper marker.

Completely agree muffler, 3 match ban is completely the wrong signal to send out for an offence like this.

DoctaDee

DDC1990 wrote: »

Unfortunately not.

Nothing of the other Cookstown player that may have spat, or the Finuge Maor that also may have spat.

Disappointing, but the footage didn't appear until quite a long time after the match, and afaik, Finuge didn't make a formal complaint.

But you can see where the inconsistency lies tho ? There's relatively compelling evidence of the 2 instances that you mention - they maybe both had bouts of hayfever and sneezed in the direction of the opposition, but we still wait the outcome. Match played the 9th Feb, GAA ask both clubs to submit "unedited" video evidence on 15th March and over a month later nothing, whereas O'Brien is indicted in just over a fortnight.

Makes you wonder whether there is a "triage" in the CCCC office, and tbh if it was Paul Galvin sending a gollier into a Cookstown player he'd be swinging from the lynching tree now.

rpurfield

just a few points on this and im trying to be objective as a neutral meathman firstly i find it odd that its being reported all week without the name of the player thats facing the suspension.how many times have we seen a high profile incident and the player facing the suspension all over the news before hes done so why change now?and secondly can people please stop saying its a three match ban yes he will miss three games but thats a coincidence of the timing of it as opposed to some progressive thinking of moving to match bans!!

Justin10

Heard news tonight, which goes exactly with what I've said all along, would expect it to come out during the week.

DDC1990

Rochey18 wrote: »

Heard news tonight, which goes exactly with what I've said all along, would expect it to come out during the week.

It was Suarez wasn't it?

muffler

Rochey18 wrote: »

Heard news tonight, which goes exactly with what I've said all along, would expect it to come out during the week.

Well, what have you been saying all along and whats this mystery news you heard?

Justin10

muffler wrote: »

Well, what have you been saying all along and whats this mystery news you heard?

You will see in the coming days.
Sure I have no links to post up for people looking for my scource :P

DDC1990

Would you mind PM'ing me.

I don't care if its true or not, I just would genuinely like to know what the word on the street is.

Dublinproud

Rochey18 wrote: »

Heard news tonight, which goes exactly with what I've said all along, would expect it to come out during the week.

Any chance of a PM Rochey?

DoctaDee

Not being in the know, it struck me that other than the one instance in irish Times that there was a severe reluctance (particularly in the Indo) to mention the player involved ... which sort of sets you thinking that they were covering eventualities ...

ThunbergsAreGo

If it turns out he hasnt bit him, should/can punishment be handed out for a false accusation?

keane2097

naughtb4 wrote: »

If it turns out he hasnt bit him, should/can punishment be handed out for a false accusation?

If it was me I'd be taking a civil case regardless, not sure if the GAA's laws are set up to deal with it.

DoctaDee

keane2097 wrote: »

If it was me I'd be taking a civil case regardless, not sure if the GAA's laws are set up to deal with it.

Yeah keane, which was my take on the reluctance of newspapers to publish a name, covering possible indemnity

muffler

Rochey18 wrote: »

Heard news tonight, which goes exactly with what I've said all along, would expect it to come out during the week.

Well, here's what you have been saying all along in this thread....

Rochey18 wrote: »

but you do need to see evidence and at the minute there is none.

Rochey18 wrote: »

What ever the result I would be very interested in what the evidence was put forward.

Rochey18 wrote: »

How can most reasonable people conclude that, when they have seen no evidence

Rochey18 wrote: »

It was a bruise, thats why im interested to see what other evidence there is.

Rochey18 wrote: »

Thats why I said earlier I be very interested in the evidence.

Rochey18 wrote: »

Which again I really hope evidence is released, be very interesting how he was found guilty.

Rochey18 wrote: »

so that is one reason why im very interested in seeing the evidence.

Rochey18 wrote: »

All im doing is pointing out the very flimsy evidence.

You have harped on about you not seeing any evidence or that you would like to see evidence.

So you are telling us now that you know for a fact there is no evidence and that the assault never happened and you are willing to stand over this?

DoctaDee

Without putting words in Rocheys mouth, I'm sure the evidence that he spoke of was to do with the actual bite, not the fact that there wasn't a injury to McBrearty's shoulder

Justin10

What im saying is, County Boards shouldnt be getting into players business, and maybe let them make the decisions.

keane2097

DoctaDee wrote: »

Without putting words in Rocheys mouth, I'm sure the evidence that he spoke of was to do with the actual bite, not the fact that there wasn't a injury to McBrearty's shoulder

I hope that's not what ends up happening because the attitude it would admit is pathetic. If we end up with an acknowledged bite and nobody being held responsible you'd question what direction the sport is going in at all.

As I said at the very start, this ought not to take a GAA investigation, Dublin players, coaches, manager et al ought to have the moral fibre to say they don't accept it.