Charged

Discuss all matters related to Dagenham and Redbridge
The Romford Dagger
Posts: 1156
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:15 am

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.
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.
its all good
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:48 am

matt_drfc wrote:I actually heard that Ronnie Henry wasn't taking it any further, but obviously makes no difference.
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 issue
It would explain the delay
Unless there was a fairly serious injury it's doubtful he'd have been found guilty in court
SUSSEX DAGGER
Posts: 2619
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:47 am

its all good wrote:
matt_drfc wrote:I actually heard that Ronnie Henry wasn't taking it any further, but obviously makes no difference.
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 issue
It would explain the delay
Unless there was a fairly serious injury it's doubtful he'd have been found guilty in court
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.
User avatar
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.
matt_drfc
Posts: 1332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:58 pm

Mike 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.
He's contracted here till Summer 2016
User avatar
Mike the Dagger
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am
Contact:

matt_drfc wrote:
Mike 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.
He's contracted here till Summer 2016
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.
rebeldagger
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 7:51 pm
Location: Romford
Contact:

He'll be no chunk out of the team....
Lcbdagger
Posts: 1883
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:17 pm

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.
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.

Still amazed if he's banned for more than ten games and we can't get rid
User avatar
ARNU
Posts: 3746
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:43 pm

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 !
User avatar
Masked Man
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:45 pm

Do we know exactly what the charges are?
its all good
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:48 am

Masked Man wrote:Do we know exactly what the charges are?
I think it's violent conduct for Labadie & failing to control players for the club
DaggerJoel11
Posts: 1192
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.
''Dagenham & Redbridge look a very different side to about ten or fifteen minutes ago when they were on the back foot, and here's Benson...BRILLIANT!''
Post Reply