Kurt_Angle
County: Dublin
Posts: 12

1370357
Only because you maimed our best defender in a premeditated assault.

Hey lads, this is supposed to be a friendly, open discussion on a particular recent topic of interest in the GAA.

Kurt,

Let me start by welcoming you to HS. Not everything is as it seems & my post as well as a lot of posts on here was tounge in cheek. Believe me you will know when it gets genuinely hot & heavy!!!

MuckrossHead (Donegal) - Posts: 5030 - 19/04/2013 18:04:02    1370516

gotmilk
County: Fermanagh
Posts: 1292

1370284
Muckross what is this evidence then? From what I can see they are basing it on the word of one man. I do believe McBrearty was bitten but if the CCCC have evidence then why don't they make it public?

I can't answer that for you gotmilk, I frankly don't know. I suspect they never have done before but you would have to ask them.

MuckrossHead (Donegal) - Posts: 5030 - 19/04/2013 18:07:17    1370518

Joxer
County: Dublin
Posts: 984

1370427
Muckross...

Fair enough crossfield, but I have to repeat again that that is what the CCCC investigation was for. They collected the evidence from all parties involved & made a recommendation. Do we have photographs of the incident, no, but then many's a man was convicted in his day on the weight of circumstantial evidence & on the weight of probabilities.


Indeed! The Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 cases come to mind.

I wasn't aware that the CCCC or indeed the GAA in any form had anything to do with the Birmingham 6 or Guilford 4 cases.

If you know something then I would publish, there may well be money in it!!!

MuckrossHead (Donegal) - Posts: 5030 - 19/04/2013 18:15:29    1370520

crossfieldball
County: Galway
Posts: 213

1370246
iv followed all of 500 or so odd posts on this thread and I have to say 90% of people on here are at a stage where there talking absolute s***. The reality of it is the vast majoirty of us werent at the game nor were we even in Donegal on the day in queston and those of us who are didnt see the incident..or alleged incident.

Now im asking the Dublin users to take what im saying with a pinch of salt, but in my experience of dubs at GAA games iv found them to have a cockiness border lining on arrogence aboout them however that doesnt tarnish their unquestionable contribution to the game and their undying support as fans. But on this occasion I have to say im all for the Dublin lads , they've taken nothing but abuse on this thread from people from all over the country and the vast majortiy of them have condemed the alleged act and called for a lenghty ban if it is found to have happended.

On the other side of the story the Donegal users are jumping on the band wagon and saying 100% the incident took place, but lads how do you know? Seriously how do you know? word of mouth? heresay? the old lad down the road? I think its abit sickening to come on here and see Donegal lads hammering the Dublin team and player question and so on.

Lads will ye please get some rock soild proof and not just word of mouth before ye go drawing lines in the sand. Jeez we've Senior Championship next weekend in Galway I could come in after the match and say my marker spat in my face but sure whats my word against his at the end of the day.

lads come on now.


The question now is whether or not sufficient evidence is supplied for the GAA to issue a relevant discipline on the guilty party. Dublin claimed it wasn't a laceration, and their doctor witnessed a bruise. Regardless, If this bruise/Laceration was cause by another players teeth, then that player should be subject to GAA discipline.

I would bet that photo's were taken, however I can't see those seeing the light of day to the general public. Leave it to the GAA folks, I reckon they will get it right.

GaryMc82 (Derry) - Posts: 3057 - 19/04/2013 18:43:41    1370531

I've followed this thread with interest and can see both points of view, it is indeed wrong to convict someone without evidence however imo it is equally wrong to say if you can't prove it, it never happened and dosen't matter. Someone is not telling the full story here, there is no middle ground and hopefully following the appeal the full evidence will be made public

lillyboy (Kildare) - Posts: 429 - 19/04/2013 19:00:50    1370535

MuckrossHead
County: Donegal
Posts: 997

1370520
Joxer
County: Dublin
Posts: 984

1370427
Muckross...

Fair enough crossfield, but I have to repeat again that that is what the CCCC investigation was for. They collected the evidence from all parties involved & made a recommendation. Do we have photographs of the incident, no, but then many's a man was convicted in his day on the weight of circumstantial evidence & on the weight of probabilities.


Indeed! The Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 cases come to mind.


I wasn't aware that the CCCC or indeed the GAA in any form had anything to do with the Birmingham 6 or Guilford 4 cases.

They didn't but would appear that the foundation of their case is the same, circumstantial like you say, and we all know what happened in the above cases. Look if the accused himself comes out and says he doesn't know if he was bitten, and he appearing to be the only 'witness', then this case is becoming more and more flimsy by the minute.

Joxer (Dublin) - Posts: 4749 - 19/04/2013 19:15:38    1370544

Joxer
County: Dublin
Posts: 985

Look if the accused himself comes out and says he doesn't know if he was bitten.

Where did you get that from Joxer? First I've heard of it.

MuckrossHead (Donegal) - Posts: 5030 - 19/04/2013 19:30:31    1370549

The question now is whether or not sufficient evidence is supplied for the GAA to issue a relevant discipline on the guilty party. Dublin claimed it wasn't a laceration, and their doctor witnessed a bruise. Regardless, If this bruise/Laceration was cause by another players teeth, then that player should be subject to GAA discipline.

I think the key to this is the nature of the wound. Was it a laceration or a bruise or a graze? The fact that two medical professionals differ in opinion on it says a lot. It's clearly not obvious. It appears that nobody witnessed the bite, the victim included. Did McBrearty receive stitches as claimed? If be did then clearly there was a laceration/incision and that points to a bite. If he didn't receive stitches then presumably he received a tetanus (multiple injections apparently) as a precaution. Either way it appears that nobody witnessed the act, victim included.

I'm only playing devils's advocate here but IF the only evidence is the nature of a wound (presumably not a clearcut bite) and there are no witnesses then can you seriously ban a player, possibly destroying his inter county career, on that basis? Again not excusing the act or the player or anything else more the justice system here. Did the CCCC recommend a ban to placate the media and to be seen to be doing something rather than making a decision based on solid proof. Nobody knows I guess

Joxer (Dublin) - Posts: 4749 - 19/04/2013 19:36:56    1370551

Lads, this is a bit silly. Obviously someone in the CCCC picked up the phone and rang McBrearty and Letterkenny General Hospital to get the full story on what actually happened. You're hardly going to say a medical report is wishy-washy evidence?

donegalboy (Donegal) - Posts: 120 - 19/04/2013 19:42:50    1370552

Where are you getting this carry on about McBrearty not knowing if he was bitten?. By reporting it he's clearly stating that he was.

HEREBENJI (Donegal) - Posts: 448 - 19/04/2013 19:46:19    1370553

Joxer
County: Dublin
Posts: 986

It appears that nobody witnessed the bite, the victim included.

What does that mean? How can the victim of an assault not be a witness?

possibly destroying his inter county career,

Let's not get carried away here, he would not be the first GAA player to be suspended, why would his career be ended?

Did the CCCC recommend a ban to placate the media.

MuckrossHead (Donegal) - Posts: 5030 - 19/04/2013 19:47:01    1370554

McBrearty originally stated he was bit on the pitch.....and later said it happened in the tunnel.

Nobody saw the incident. Looks and smells fishy to be honest.

And if the Dublin player gets punished over a bruise and one guys word over anothers, the GAA are wading into murky waters. Suspensions on accusation alone?

JayP (Dublin) - Posts: 1772 - 19/04/2013 19:52:38    1370559

Did the CCCC recommend a ban to placate the media and to be seen to be doing something.

There was no need to placate the media who were hardly in a frenzy of bloodlust. Indeed I'd say they paid very little attention to it at all either before the CCCC verdict or since. There are more important things going on in the world at the moment!!

MuckrossHead (Donegal) - Posts: 5030 - 19/04/2013 19:58:12    1370561

JayP
County: Dublin
Posts: 191

1370559
McBrearty originally stated he was bit on the pitch.....and later said it happened in the tunnel.

JayP, unless you know something I don't, McBrearty has not spoken publicly about the incident at all. If you know better let's see it.

MuckrossHead (Donegal) - Posts: 5030 - 19/04/2013 19:59:53    1370562

HEREBENJI
County: Donegal
Posts: 93

1370553
Where are you getting this carry on about McBrearty not knowing if he was bitten?. By reporting it he's clearly stating that he was.


Read posts above. Could be hearsay, like a lot of this, but apparently McBrearty himself said he didn't know if it was a bite. I presume that by that he was chomped from behind so to speak. Kind of makes sense I guess as I presume he would have seen the bite coming if it was head on and no player is likely to bite head on as the offence would be obvious. Anyway I was playing devil's advocate like I said.

Joxer (Dublin) - Posts: 4749 - 19/04/2013 20:12:03    1370567

MuckrossHead
County: Donegal
Posts: 1002

1370561
Did the CCCC recommend a ban to placate the media and to be seen to be doing something.

There was no need to placate the media who were hardly in a frenzy of bloodlust. Indeed I'd say they paid very little attention to it at all either before the CCCC verdict or since. There are more important things going on in the world at the moment!!

You need to read more papers. This has been all over press, Belfast Telegraph, Donegal Daily, Times, independent.. Could you imagine the mess if they decided to do nothing and so much speculation and talk of injections, stitches, antibiotics and so on?

Joxer (Dublin) - Posts: 4749 - 19/04/2013 20:16:35    1370569

MuckrossHead
County: Donegal
Posts: 1002

1370554
Joxer
County: Dublin
Posts: 986

It appears that nobody witnessed the bite, the victim included.

What does that mean? How can the victim of an assault not be a witness?

possibly destroying his inter county career,

Let's not get carried away here, he would not be the first GAA player to be suspended, why would his career be ended?

This player is young and only in the door of the senior squad. Dublin have absolutely no shortage of backs so anybody just in with a blot on their copybook, and in these circumstances, is likely to really struggle for a jersey in the future. In other words the stakes are huge here. We're not talking about a guaranteed experienced first teamer here like Paul Galvin for example. We're talking about a young fella trying to break into what is probably the strongest squad in the country. So don't think I'm getting carried away in clarifying the stakes here. A lot riding on circumstantial evidence so.

Joxer (Dublin) - Posts: 4749 - 19/04/2013 20:28:55    1370571

Muckross have you ever heard of another case where the evidence has been made clear or came to public knowledge?

gotmilk (Fermanagh) - Posts: 4971 - 19/04/2013 21:47:04    1370599

Joxer
County: Dublin
Posts: 990

1370551
I think the key to this is the nature of the wound. Was it a laceration or a bruise or a graze? The fact that two medical professionals differ in opinion on it says a lot. It's clearly not obvious. It appears that nobody witnessed the bite, the victim included. Did McBrearty receive stitches as claimed? If be did then clearly there was a laceration/incision and that points to a bite. If he didn't receive stitches then presumably he received a tetanus (multiple injections apparently) as a precaution. Either way it appears that nobody witnessed the act, victim included.

I'm only playing devils's advocate here but IF the only evidence is the nature of a wound (presumably not a clearcut bite) and there are no witnesses then can you seriously ban a player, possibly destroying his inter county career, on that basis? Again not excusing the act or the player or anything else more the justice system here. Did the CCCC recommend a ban to placate the media and to be seen to be doing something rather than making a decision based on solid proof. Nobody knows I guess

If it was a bruise and not a laceration, but this bruise was caused by another players teeth, It will still amount to a player being guilty of biting another. A graze can be considered a laceration if sufficient enought to leave blood clotting on the skin, especially when caused by animal or human bite.

However nobody on HS knows what evidence was supplied to the CCCC, but we can presume at the very least a photograph was taken. And while the Donegal doctor and Dublin doctor's opinions will be taken into account, Id imagine the A&E doctor will be asked to supply his/her opinion too.
There must be a relatively strong case if 1. It was reported, and 2. The CCCC were recommending a ban. But time will tell.

I believe the GAA will deal with this matter in the best way possible. If evidence is not of a high enough standard to charge a player, then they simply won't.

GaryMc82 (Derry) - Posts: 3057 - 19/04/2013 21:50:05    1370600

HEREBENJI
County: Donegal
Posts: 93

1370553
Where are you getting this carry on about McBrearty not knowing if he was bitten?. By reporting it he's clearly stating that he was.


See Bluwave's post on the Dublin forum. Could be yet more hearsay but pretty shocking if true.

Joxer (Dublin) - Posts: 4749 - 19/04/2013 21:52:12    1370602