Joss Labadie

[Richinns]

There is nothing in it for Chesterfield for mud slinging and false accusations. As said earlier - they have bigger fish to fry.

As hard as it is to accept - it is likely he did it and also very likely the FA will punish him for this.

[PhilGull]

No matter what your views on it tackling is a part of the game. Yes, the tackle on Bodin was bad, mis-timed, over zealous, whatever. A tackle is part of the game, biting is not.
I would hope there would be no question of this. Any player, regardless of their value (either to the team or monetarily) found guilty of biting an opponent should be sacked for gross misconduct and (more importantly) bringing the good name of the club in to disrepute. No one, and I mean no one, player or otherwise is more important than Torquay United Football Club.
If (and it remains IF) Labadie is found guilty and then he should be sacked, even if that does mean relegation. I would rather support a well respected club in the Conference than be a scumbag Liverpool fan (Liverpool Football Club being the scumbags, not their fans).

[gullintwoplaces]

I have never said that the accusations are false, what I have said is that they have been made in a totally inappropriate way, ie through Twatter and in a national scandal rag. I do not know whether the accusations are true or false, all I have seen is a grainy bit of video, but these accusations have to be tested through due process not through the media/internet. All the points above are made on the basis of supposition and assumption, which are circumstantial not real evidence.

[PhilGull]

I have never said that the accusations are false, what I have said is that they have been made in a totally inappropriate way, ie through Twatter and in a national scandal rag. I do not know whether the accusations are true or false, all I have seen is a grainy bit of video, but these accusations have to be tested through due process not through the media/internet. All the points above are made on the basis of supposition and assumption, which are circumstantial not real evidence.

But we are not talking about a court of law here. The FA's priority is to uphold the high standards we all expect from our beloved game.

[gullintwoplaces]

I agree that it is not a court of law, but it does have to treat each case fairly and without prejudice. I am arguing that the Twatter and Daily Fail accusations have prejudiced the hearing. How can it be right for such accusations to be made through an Internet forum such as Twatter? How can it be right for a national scandal rag to set out accusations in such a prejudiced way?

[Fonda]

In reality, the media express opinions on most public interest cases.

[PhilGull]

If the newspapers weren't commenting on these things they would be about two pages in total.

[gullintwoplaces]

In reality, the media express opinions on most public interest cases.

It was a bit more than an opinion. An article full of pictures of Suarez, implying Labadie's guilt.

[Spireite]

I note what Spireite has said above, the tone of which is that Joss is guilty without having been to a hearing. As he says, he didn't see the incident, and nobody else did either, so how he can assume guilt like this I do not know.

Nobody would dispute the right of Chesterfield to complain if they feel that one of their players has been bitten. I am extremely unhappy, however, at the way that this has been played out. What idiot thought that it was a good idea to discuss the incident at the Chesterfield AGM? How on earth does Banks this it is OK to blast accusations over Twatter? The upshot of this is that the national, scandal rag/Twatter, publicity about this has prejudiced the case against Labadie. The FA tribunal will feel pressured into finding him guilty, even if the evidence is thin, and the Daily Fail articles will force the tribunal into throwing the book at him.

The matter should have been handled by a report to the FA, without alll the bollox on Twatter and without scandal rag articles. Labadie has undergone trial by media, and that stinks.

Hi, just picking the bones on the points you've raised above:
Correct, I don't believe anybody saw what happened at the time. The first we knew was when we saw Banks's tweet with a photo of the bite. Then when the video came out 24hours later, you saw at 3:27/28 minutes what happened. Regarding the AGM, it was during the general Q&A that a shareholder asked the manager about what had happened. Paul Cook's reply was that he had reported the incident to the ref and that it should be included in the ref's report and that it was now a matter for the FA. There seems to be some confusion on here, that it was our AGM that has instigated all this, when it wasn't as it was correctly reported to the ref at the end of the game. Regarding the journalist who was at the AGM, picked up on this and I guess saw it as a good media story aka Suarez.

I understand your frustrations. If it had been our player, of course the first course of action is to defend your own. But at the end of the day an alleged assault has been committed, it has been correctly reported to the ref and is now in the hands of the FA. Unfortunately, the media have got hold of it and blasted it all over the newspapers - but that's their job. And I have to ask if the journo hadn't reported it, would the FA have just ignored what is, a serious allegation?

As I've mentioned above, most Spireites have a soft spot for Torquay for some reason (must be the sea air), but your club would do well to distance itself from what Labadie has done, rather than try and defend him.

[gullintwoplaces]

Nobody is defending a proven case of biting. Proven biting has to be punished severely. You use the words "has done" at the end of your comment, which says it all to me. It should be "alleged to have done", and this is the problem that I have with how this has all been handled. The coverage of this case has taken this approach throughout.

[brucie]

Spireite - you say that you didn't see the incident but took the screen capture as Labadie bit Banks - how do you know he actually bit him? - Because your player chose to go on twitter and publicise the incident? Because some plank of a journalist (who is a Chesterfield fan) chose to write on the incident in the Daily mail.
On the subject of that article, it is outrageous. It is a total piece of garbage.
And also there is the insunation that Labadie bit another of your players. There doesn't seem to be a single shred of evidence to support that.

[Spireite]

Nobody is defending a proven case of biting. Proven biting has to be punished severely. You use the words "has done" at the end of your comment, which says it all to me. It should be "alleged to have done", and this is the problem that I have with how this has all been handled. The coverage of this case has taken this approach throughout.

Agreed, I didn't at the end. However, I did actually refer to the incident as alleged earlier in the post.

I'm not trying to be judge and jury here. I just wanted to put forward my own thoughts and views on this 'alleged' incident to contrast with your views ie 'cant convict him on that grainy photo'. Just to finish off, your point about 'how it has been handled', I imagine you are referring to the media, whose job it is to sensationalise to attract readership interest, just doing what they normally do. I'm confident the FA will 'handle it' based purely on the facts and the evidence presented.

[Spireite]

Spireite - you say that you didn't see the incident but took the screen capture as Labadie bit Banks - how do you know he actually bit him? - Because your player chose to go on twitter and publicise the incident? Because some plank of a journalist (who is a Chesterfield fan) chose to write on the incident in the Daily mail.
On the subject of that article, it is outrageous. It is a total piece of garbage.
And also there is the insunation that Labadie bit another of your players. There doesn't seem to be a single shred of evidence to support that.

Hi Brucie. How do I know? I don't. That's for the FA to find out. All I would ask however, is what motive would Banks have for doing this, if it wasn't without foundation? I'd ignore media stuff, they just do what they are paid to do. Its the facts and evidence that need to be considered and we don't know the details. All I've tried to do is offer another angle to a lot of understandable scepticism that has been posted on here.

Now, I don't want to become a bore on your board. So I'll leave it at that and wish your team well and hope you avoid the drop.

[chippygull]

Thanks, Spireite.. so do we but the hope is fading and the gloss tarnishing somewhat in the light of this alleged incident.

[ferrarilover]

Hi Brucie. How do I know? I don't. That's for the FA to find out. All I would ask however, is what motive would Banks have for doing this, if it wasn't without foundation? I'd ignore media stuff, they just do what they are paid to do. Its the facts and evidence that need to be considered and we don't know the details. All I've tried to do is offer another angle to a lot of understandable scepticism that has been posted on here.

Now, I don't want to become a bore on your board. So I'll leave it at that and wish your team well and hope you avoid the drop.

Ladders **** 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.