TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

ferrarilover wrote:Being charged means the FA see a case to be answered. Without knowing what's gone on, we can't possibly know whether he'll be found guilty or not. However, if he's denied it and the FA are seeking to rely upon that ropey footage we've all seen, he might well walk. Something about this doesn't seem quite right.

Matt.

But the FA take an accusatory role. They will have reviewed the evidence before bringing a charge; any hearing will be an exercise in rubber-stamping. How many cases ever appear in the media where the accused walks? I can't remember a single one.

If/when found guilty, Labadie's wages should be withheld for the duration of his ban. If he doesn't like it, or if the ban runs to near the end of the season, sack him for GM. He wouldn't stay on anyway if/when we drop.

All such a pity as he looked a real player when on loan last year, but this sort of behaviour is just another cause (and symptom) of the current malaise.

Stats aren't easy to come by (for the amount of effort I'm willing to put in), but this suggests that you might well be right: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16430580

Those mentioned in the article aren't the only ones with concerns. I share the view that any system averaging a failure to prosecute successfully every 200 cases is doing something fundamentally wrong.

Matt.

I think the expression is 'judge, jury and executioner'.

The hearing is effectively a sentencing, with the player offering a mitigation plea. Hard to see how Joss could explain his actions in this instance. He was an idiot, I am afraid to say.

Was he captain for this game?

He was.

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:Stats aren't easy to come by (for the amount of effort I'm willing to put in), but this suggests that you might well be right: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16430580
Those mentioned in the article aren't the only ones with concerns. I share the view that any system averaging a failure to prosecute successfully every 200 cases is doing something fundamentally wrong.
Matt.

The principles of Actus Rea and Mens Rea appear to be dying out, not only at the FA but in the modern judicial system generally.

Not that the FA is in any way bound by the principles of criminal law, but I think strict liability would apply to biting a lump out of someone in front of 5,000 witnesses!

But there may be yet a reasonable doubt..

Nice thought GS; would love to hear your defence ;0)

MR: He chose to bite him.
AR: He bit him.

Utd have a better chance of staying up than Labadie has of escaping justice!

You're assuming he's guilty, then.. But he's not a cannibal, is he..? Is he..?

Bummer
He added bite to the middle of the park...

But will the FA swallow his story..??

If it was Tonge perhaps the damage wouldn't have been so bad and the situation wouldn't have been so serious.!

According to WMN today, the club received no contact about any incident until Monday when the FA charge came in. The club are contesting the incident.

found the link for you.....
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Tor ... story.html

Scott Brehaut wrote:Was he captain for this game?

No Mansell was captain. Labadie led the team at Pompey.

The video is surely not enough to find him guilty. While you can see him burying his head in Banks's chest, you can't see him actually biting him. Strange that it's taken this long for the FA to make a decision. Glad we're contesting the charge - he should be available for Fleetwood and maybe Rochdale. By then we will probably be all but relegated so it won't matter and if he's found guilty we can tear up his contract and save some money as there's no way he would stay with us in the Conference.