TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

ferrarilover wrote: Ladders f*** his mum. Twice.

What motive would Lads have to bite him? I've already mentioned the 'no smoke without fire' argument. It doesn't hold water, I'm afraid.

Matt.

Yes, we should definitely focus on motive. Because no guilt should ever be attached to amoral, irrational and antisocial actions otherwise.

It is acceptable for bored teenage hoodies to happy-slap a granny? "No motive: probably didn't happen."

I can't believe you make any pretence towards intellect.

Spireite wrote: And what do you say to the photo of Banks' photo of the bite? Is that nonsense? Considering your earlier posts, I would suggest you would say yes: that's nonsense too. So, on that thought I'd be interested why you think Banks would 'tweet' such 'nonsense'?

If it can be proven beyond all doubt that Labadie bit Ollie Banks, then he should have the book thrown at him. However, neither the ref nor the linesman spotted anything otherwise he would have been red-carded. Presumably, all that will be in the ref's report is that Banks complained that he had been bitten. There is your grainy video clip which, frankly, proves nothing. Admittedly the club may have clearer video evidence. Chesterfield FC did not wish to take the issue further, preferring to leave it to the Torquay management to deal with which I hope and believe they would. In my opinion, that is where the issue should have stopped. It is only because a two-bit reporter working for a one-bit newspaper thought he had the scoop of the year that the F.A. have got involved. The evidence, as we understand it, is so weak that the FA is blowing it out of all proportion. And before you jump down my throat, no - I don't for one moment think biting can be excused in any way.

I'd just like to add, Spirerite, that your previous postings have been fair but to suggest the manager condones Labadie's behaviour by supporting him at the hearing is unfair and uncalled for. Any manager would support his players unless there was damning evidence against them. There isn't in this case.

And another thing, Spireite - yes, Labadie, who has only been with us for a few games, is a combative midfielder. It's what we've been bliddy well missing all season ...... along with a couple of full backs and a couple of strikers

While they pay players that they cant afford and are millions in debt but WTF they wlll carry on as if it doesn't matter because they are a northern proper club and will do what the feck they like.

That's right J5, you keep missing the point entirely because you're too thick to keep up.

Matt.

tomogull wrote: If it can be proven beyond all doubt that Labadie bit Ollie Banks, then he should have the book thrown at him. However, neither the ref nor the linesman spotted anything otherwise he would have been red-carded. Presumably, all that will be in the ref's report is that Banks complained that he had been bitten. There is your grainy video clip which, frankly, proves nothing. Admittedly the club may have clearer video evidence. Chesterfield FC did not wish to take the issue further, preferring to leave it to the Torquay management to deal with which I hope and believe they would. In my opinion, that is where the issue should have stopped. It is only because a two-bit reporter working for a one-bit newspaper thought he had the scoop of the year that the F.A. have got involved. The evidence, as we understand it, is so weak that the FA is blowing it out of all proportion. And before you jump down my throat, no - I don't for one moment think biting can be excused in any way.

I'd just like to add, Spirerite, that your previous postings have been fair but to suggest the manager condones Labadie's behaviour by supporting him at the hearing is unfair and uncalled for. Any manager would support his players unless there was damning evidence against them. There isn't in this case.

What the referee or assistant referee saw is irrelevant. Time and time again, retrospective video evidence has condemned players for offences the referee missed, going right back to Paul Davis breaking Glenn Cockerill's jaw. The ref missed it, the TV cameras didn't and Davis was subject to a lengthy ban.

In the video clip, Labadie's head can clearly be seen at the body of the Chesterfield player at a similar height to a bite mark that appears on the Chesterfield player. I would imagine it is unlikely that the Chesterfield player is going to go on twitter and make it up that he has been bitten, when he hasn't.

To be fair, it is to the Chesterfield player and club's credit, that they are not the ones pursuing this. The blindly partial on here, would be urging TUFC to take action if the same had happened to our player.

However, I think there is enough evidence to suggest Labadie did bite the player and whilst I hope he didn't and I hope the charge comes to nothing, I will be amazed if this doesn't result in a lengthy ban for Labadie.

suffered a bad challenge on him late on, guy falls over and kicks out studing him in the thigh, retrospectively should be a red card

Does anyone know if a date has been set by the F.A. for Labadie's hearing?

taxilady wrote:https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 8935,d.d2k

Ooo ...... er - thanks Taxilady. Interesting if he lodges an appeal (should the charge be upheld) he can continue playing. Maybe the appeal hearing would be delayed until the end of May (don't think we've got a smilie for tongue in cheek)

Banned for 10 games subject to appeal, available for cheltenham but misses last 10 games.

Just what we didn't need. Still if he's guilty then...
Looks like Saturday will be the last time we see him in a Torquay shirt. Let's hope he bows out with a hat-trick!
He makes our mid-field combative,can either Mansell or Harding do that?

If we appeal then perhaps he would be available for the Bury game? In which case we should appeal.

Thinking about mid-field options I'd put Hawley there. He's no longer a striker but he can get hold of the ball and be creative.
Don't expect everyone else to agree!

Sadly, it wasn't a difficult decision for the FA to make and I feared he would get a lengthy ban. I have to say, I am surprised at the actual length of it and perhaps it has been set that long so an appeal reduces it to say 6 or 7 games but a stupid thing to have done and it has cost him and the club. I would consider recalling Craig, may as well have him in the squad at the very least.