Joss Labadie

[Trojan 67]

Back in the day, there was "Norman bites yer legs"(Norman Hunter,Leeds United)

Even by today's standards, that is f*ck*ng low.

Only one to come close to being that low was "Bryn the dawg" (Bryn bites yer arse).

[SuperNickyWroe]

joss gets the backing of CH and the club..........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26481118

[Scott Brehaut]

Wouldn't have expected anything less.

[frenchgull]

Simply ask joss ladabie if he is guilty and look him in the eye,if He said no I did not bite him then back him,if you see doubt then send him on his way and tell him he has let down three thousand people.

[hector]

I think they will find him guilty. In the video it looks quite likely that he bit the other player and the other player has a bite mark. Coincidence?

[jonnyfive]

Sadly, it's an open and shut case. As Hector suggests, 2+2=4. If he just gets fined, then let him try to make up for his behaviour on the pitch. If he is (justly) banned for most of our remaining games, then sack him. Labadie owes TUFC, not the other way round.

[jonnyfive]

PS That isn't my being petty and vindictive, just pragmatic. If/when we go down, the chances are that Joss will be gone in sixty seconds. He doubtless considers himself above playing for us in the Conference, so why would we want to pay his wages to sit in the stand for 2 months?

[ferrarilover]

I think they will find him guilty. In the video it looks quite likely that he bit the other player and the other player has a bite mark. Coincidence?

That's not good enough. We can't be reducing the equivalent of criminal law to the standard of the balance of probabilities.

Like I said about 6 pages ago, if you were shown that video and asked what was going on, there's no way in hell you'd suggest (unprompted) that Ladders is biting their bloke. Equally, the picture on Twitter could be just about anything.
If the allegation was that Joss had reached up the bloke's shirt and ripped out his nipple piercing, that's what you'd see when you looked at the video and that's also what you'd see when you looked at the picture because that's what you'd be looking for.

I think we're beginning to see the problem with jury trials.

Matt.

[Gullscorer]

Labadie is plainly innocent. The video proves nothing. If anything, it appears to show the Chesterfield player attempting to elbow Labadie in the face.

[Spireite]

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.

What motive would 'lads' have to bite him? Well like I've said, I was there, and have to say, before the 'alleged' biting took place, me and a number of others sat near me all seemed to be of the same opinion that Torquay had turned up with 10 players and 1 windup merchant. No prizes for guessing who the windup merchant was. Now I've read that your manager is defending him, would lead me to believe that this was part of your manager's game plan ie to get Labadie to wind up our players in an attempt to get one of ours booked or sent off, to even up the odds of getting a result. Just speculation on my part of course... But also implies a motive, now enhanced by your managers defence of him......

[Gullscorer]

Sorry but that's nonsense. Implying a motive is not the same as establishing one, and establishing a motive is not alone sufficient to prove guilt. Corroborative evidence is required, and what evidence there is proves nothing one way nor the other.

[Spireite]

Sorry but that's nonsense. Implying a motive is not the same as establishing one, and establishing a motive is not alone sufficient to prove guilt. Corroborative evidence is required, and what evidence there is proves nothing one way nor the other.

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'?

[hector]

That's not good enough. We can't be reducing the equivalent of criminal law to the standard of the balance of probabilities.

Like I said about 6 pages ago, if you were shown that video and asked what was going on, there's no way in hell you'd suggest (unprompted) that Ladders is biting their bloke. Equally, the picture on Twitter could be just about anything.
If the allegation was that Joss had reached up the bloke's shirt and ripped out his nipple piercing, that's what you'd see when you looked at the video and that's also what you'd see when you looked at the picture because that's what you'd be looking for.

I think we're beginning to see the problem with jury trials.

Matt.

But that is what it is...so many convictions are based on such...

...the facts here are as such...but anyway...this isn't a criminal case its the FA and bearing in mind with John Terry, they arrived at a different outcome that the courts, who is to say what the FA will do with Labadie?

[jonnyfive]

And just like the criminal case against Terry, or indeed OJ Simpson, a skilled lawyer could introduce the necessary scintilla of doubt. But we aren't in a courtroom, we are on a football forum discussing the outcome of an FA tribunal.

There is no other plausible explanation for the events and the physical marking.

He bit the bloke and that's that. Suggesting anything else is a one-eyed evasion of the truth. At least be honest and phrase it as "He may escape justice because the evidence isn't conclusive."

[tomogull]

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'?

Actually, the bite could have been as a result of a spot of passion the night before ......