I can only imagine there's more evidence. How can they say there's a bite from the pictures we've seen. they must've seen bite marks at the time or something to sway them towards guilty.ARNU wrote:He probably did do it but I think the Stevenage fella was a bit rough with him cos they were losing.Cant see the club getting rid of him over it and to be honest I don't think they should now.Maybe the picture of the severed finger might change my mind....I somehow don't think one exists.This aint the Suarez incident is it ? Labadie is quite a lairy player,always getting in rows so that in itself is definitely a potential liability,then again you cant have passion and maximum effort without a bit of that.I didn't like him but hes grown on me.You cant sack him for that.
Charged
-
- Posts: 1156
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:15 am
-
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:48 am
I guess this may be why the FA are now taking action. If Henry has told the police he doesn't want him charged with assault then it can be treated as simply a football issuematt_drfc wrote:I actually heard that Ronnie Henry wasn't taking it any further, but obviously makes no difference.
It would explain the delay
Unless there was a fairly serious injury it's doubtful he'd have been found guilty in court
-
- Posts: 2619
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:47 am
If he denied it it would become an expensive prosecution. Firstly you had to find how any injury got there. Dare say there is expensive lawyers somewhere who would argue a case. Bite marks would be examined closely to see if they can be matched to the alleged assailant. You have a dogs dinner here Mr Prosecutor somebody trying to make a dogs dinner out of pan of boiling water, remains to be seen if they fail.its all good wrote:I guess this may be why the FA are now taking action. If Henry has told the police he doesn't want him charged with assault then it can be treated as simply a football issuematt_drfc wrote:I actually heard that Ronnie Henry wasn't taking it any further, but obviously makes no difference.
It would explain the delay
Unless there was a fairly serious injury it's doubtful he'd have been found guilty in court
- Mike the Dagger
- Posts: 2307
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am
- Contact:
No doubt the FA have a very different level of proof required to that in a court of law.
Labadie has previous and if there is any kind of evidence of teeth marks, I would guess he's looking at a ban that takes him way past the end of the season, and he's plauyed his last game for us.
Labadie has previous and if there is any kind of evidence of teeth marks, I would guess he's looking at a ban that takes him way past the end of the season, and he's plauyed his last game for us.
He's contracted here till Summer 2016Mike the Dagger wrote:No doubt the FA have a very different level of proof required to that in a court of law.
Labadie has previous and if there is any kind of evidence of teeth marks, I would guess he's looking at a ban that takes him way past the end of the season, and he's plauyed his last game for us.
- Mike the Dagger
- Posts: 2307
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am
- Contact:
Given Labadie's history, I would hope that he has a very tight "gross misconduct" clause in his contract and we can just say goodbye. If there is not, we need to look at how we write player contracts. As noted when we signed him, we have offered him a second chance at the Daggers. If he's blown that then it should be curtains.matt_drfc wrote:He's contracted here till Summer 2016Mike the Dagger wrote:No doubt the FA have a very different level of proof required to that in a court of law.
Labadie has previous and if there is any kind of evidence of teeth marks, I would guess he's looking at a ban that takes him way past the end of the season, and he's plauyed his last game for us.
-
- Posts: 317
- Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 7:51 pm
- Location: Kent
- Contact:
He'll be no chunk out of the team....
Appreciate this side of it... But there are surely either bite marks or not. If there is no finger injury he can't be found guilty. If there is I can't see how he denies the charge.Mark wrote:The FA can pretty much do what they like with little evidence. They don't have to prove anything beyond doubt they just have to think it probably happened. If there was evidence the old bill would've charged him.
Still amazed if he's banned for more than ten games and we can't get rid
So basically if you want to get Labadie in trouble just say he bit you when hes run rings round you all day.I'd have given him man of the match that day.Id still like to see the pictures,then I could shut up about it.
Bollix to Shampoo, it's real poo we want !
-
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:48 am
I think it's violent conduct for Labadie & failing to control players for the clubMasked Man wrote:Do we know exactly what the charges are?
-
- Posts: 1255
- Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 7:14 pm
- Location: Becontree
- Contact:
Saw Thommo bundling Labadie into a room by the Players entrance yesterday and they emerged 5 mins later. Aldo despite making the bench he only emerged after the teams and didn't warm up.