Joss Labadie

[Scott Brehaut]

We should appeal, solely in order to keeping him playing for us as long as possible, and thereby saving us from relegation. Everything the club says and does from now until the season's end should be directed towards this one objective.

Let's hope there is no fine for "frivolous" appealing then - if the club are going to appeal, I would hope it is because they have proof that he didn't do it (and if they do, one would have hoped that they had already submitted such evidence), rather than simply to get him to play as many games as he can.

[kevgull]

Let's hope there is no fine for "frivolous" appealing then - if the club are going to appeal, I would hope it is because they have proof that he didn't do it (and if they do, one would have hoped that they had already submitted such evidence), rather than simply to get him to play as many games as he can.

If the club appeals, don't care if we have proof or not, as long as he gets to play another game for us that suits me fine!

[Gullscorer]

Let's hope there is no fine for "frivolous" appealing then - if the club are going to appeal, I would hope it is because they have proof that he didn't do it (and if they do, one would have hoped that they had already submitted such evidence), rather than simply to get him to play as many games as he can.

Yep, that goes without saying, though proof of innocence, nor any new evidence, should not necessarily be required, just sufficient reasoning and advocacy, perhaps, to shift the balance of probabilities in the FA's minds as to guilt or innocence; for example, to point out something (if anything) everybody had previously not considered.

[okehampton gull]

he was hardly in the game last night, apart from scoring , if he has bit someone get rid of him. cheats never prosper. Ben Harding or Cooper are just as good if not better .
The last 2 games he has been woeful, I wonder sometimes if people actually watch the game .........

[okehampton gull]

we finally leave out Mansell and Hawley , which anyone you speak to would agree , and guess what we win..
we can still survive , 6 wins 3 draws 3 defeats ,,, or 7 wins 5 defeats will do , we still have to play Exeter,wycombe, Mansfield , bury, Newport , Bristol rovers , Cheltenham , who are all very beatable .
I just hope those dirty bastards Northampton go downnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn , knill you wanker

[kevgull]

he was hardly in the game last night, apart from scoring , if he has bit someone get rid of him. cheats never prosper. Ben Harding or Cooper are just as good if not better .
The last 2 games he has been woeful, I wonder sometimes if people actually watch the game .........

"he was hardly in the game last night, apart from scoring"

Cooper "who"
Harding "na"

[brucie]

The difference to the Labadie and Suarez incidents are that Suarez can clearly be seen biting an opponent. There is absolutely no proof from the video in the Chesterfield match that Labadie bit anybody.
If this was a criminal case there isn't a cat in hells chance that Labadie would have been found guilty.
SO a premier league manager is seen headbutting an opposition and basically gets banned from attending premiership matches for three games. A league 2 player who is convicted on the basis of dubious evidence at best gets 10 games.
Anyone remember the Uzzell/Blisett case when the FA Secretary - that fat **** Graham Kelly got up in court and said that there were similar challenges in every game.
We simply have to appeal this decision - even if its just to get Labadie two extra games.

[nickbrod]

My understanding is that the ban starts after Saturday's game at Cheltenham. Is this correct?
If the ban stands then surely Cooper must be fit soon. So forget my idea of Hawley in mid-field and put in Cooperman - our saviour!

[gullintwoplaces]

Brucie is correct, appeal whatever the evidence. Brucie reminded me of one of the reasons that I despise the FA, Graham Kelly.

[torq2u]

OK. Whatever. Moral high ground; he should be sacked by the club; let's appeal to keep him playing longer; it's so unfair; etc etc.

The essential fact is that, having served his ban, Labadie will be back and eligible for the play-offs!!

Yay!!!

[CapeTownGull]

10 games - that's totally unreasonable. Why is biting any worse than elbowing someone in the face or kicking someone in an off the ball incident. The player is not injured and it didn't affect the result. Unsavoury of course and should receive a 2 match ban. If Shireen Dewani can appeal endlessly and still not have to even stand trial after 3 years, then if there is any justice, we should at thet least be able to appeal enough to get to the end of the season! He would be a big loss - who else would have been in the right place to score the winner yesterday?

[jonnyfive]

If only our representations had focused on motive like ferrarilover would have liked...

Sack him if poss, if not then levy the heaviest fine permissible and pay him off whatever remains.

A bench-warming cannibal is not high on our list of priorities.

[jonnyfive]

I've only just seen this, but I feel this point must be answered. It would be as wrong to say "There was a motive: it must have happened" as it would be to say "No motive: probably didn't happen". But the question of motive, the presence or absence of it, in a situation such as this is something of a red herring.

More important is criminal intent or, rather, in this case the knowledge that a particular act is wrong (this is the principle of mens rea in law). And it should be obvious to all but the youngest child or the mentally ill that biting somebody is a wrong thing to do, regardless of motive.

Which means that the focus must be solely on what evidence is available to the FA to prove (in their eyes, probably on a balance of probabilities) whether or not such an offence occurred (remembering that we're talking here not about a criminal offence as such but an offence against the laws of the game).

You haven't really answered my point GS, just explained it long-hand. But thanks(?)

Sack Labitie!!

[Dutchgull]

The difference to the Labadie and Suarez incidents are that Suarez can clearly be seen biting an opponent. There is absolutely no proof from the video in the Chesterfield match that Labadie bit anybody.
If this was a criminal case there isn't a cat in hells chance that Labadie would have been found guilty.
SO a premier league manager is seen headbutting an opposition and basically gets banned from attending premiership matches for three games. A league 2 player who is convicted on the basis of dubious evidence at best gets 10 games.
Anyone remember the Uzzell/Blisett case when the FA Secretary - that fat **** Graham Kelly got up in court and said that there were similar challenges in every game.
We simply have to appeal this decision - even if its just to get Labadie two extra games.

[Gulliball]

Wait for the written verdict, and see what the evidence is that they have used to find him guilty. But there is no video evidence and the match officials didn't see it live, so what can there be? This would be thrown out of a courtroom in a second, but the FA judge to 'balance of probabilities' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt' so can do what they wish.

We should appeal, and then he will play the next few games at least. He has a maximum of 11 games left as a Torquay player. Appeal, then if necessary take it to the Court of Arbitration for sport, and if he can play a few more games then we have lost nothing.

If he has done it, and ends up with the ban then he's let himself and the Club down badly.