kumnio Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Having not paid any attention to this, mainly because I dont care. Two separate panels have found Tonev guilty, correct? Well whats the issue here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Not at all. But your claims that rules in place should be circumvented just because it suits you, is as stupid as it is hilarious. It's like talking to a 12 year old. God forbid anyone ever disagrees with rules, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotunited Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 The SFA released the notes and reasons for the the verdict. They believed Logan and didn't believe Tonev. There was no other evidence of what was said. Not proven IMHO. is this the same that happens in court cases when a person pleads not guilty - jury looks at evidence and believes one person over another? why would Logan make it up? why ? does not make sense to suddendly decide he had been abused, if Tonev said he misheard what was said it would have been a bit credible, but he did not even use that as a defence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cove_Sheep Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 is this the same that happens in court cases when a person pleads not guilty - jury looks at evidence and believes one person over another? Well, yes, but if a case is pretty weak, the sherrif can chuck it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 It's like talking to a 12 year old. God forbid anyone ever disagrees with rules, eh? You can disagree with the rules. Answer me a question, do you think players should be judged on the basis of the rules in place at the time the offence was committed? Yes or no will do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 You can disagree with the rules. Answer me a question, do you think players should be judged on the basis of the rules in place at the time the offence was committed? Yes or no will do I think the not proven verdict should have been applied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I think the not proven verdict should have been applied. So you won't even answer a simple question? This is why folk call you blinkered and disregard your comments as biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 So you won't even answer a simple question? This is why folk call you blinkered and disregard your comments as biased. I've said all along I didn't think there was enough evidence to convict him for such a serious offence and for such a lengthy ban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I think the not proven verdict should have been applied. But you think that because you're a Celtic fan. 2 panels consisting of neutral members thought otherwise, and found him guilty. Are you actually saying that you're right, and they're wrong ? You're getting dangerously close here to proving that no-one connected with Celtic is able to accept any blame or responsibility, for anything. The permanent victim syndrome. I'm sure you don't mean to sound like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 You're getting dangerously close here to proving that no-one connected with Celtic is able to accept any blame or responsibility, for anything. Close, dangerously fecking close Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cove_Sheep Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I'm sure you don't mean to sound like that. He doesn't. It's just the weather that makes him sound that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 2 panels consisting of neutral members thought otherwise, and found him guilty. Are you actually saying that you're right, and they're wrong ? Yes, yes I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Yes, yes I am. Fair enough. I just wanted to avoid any confusion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Fair enough. I just wanted to avoid any confusion... It's hard to get confused when since the first verdict came out I have disagreed with it. There's no way to take from that that I don't think they were wrong. Even Parky gets that, Rossy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotunited Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 It's hard to get confused when since the first verdict came out I have disagreed with it. There's no way to take from that that I don't think they were wrong. Even Parky gets that, Rossy. 2 panels have come to the same decision, but because he plays for Celtic they are wrong? tell me what more evidence would be acceptable for you ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 2 panels have come to the same decision, but because he plays for Celtic they are wrong? tell me what more evidence would be acceptable for you ? Let's look at it another way. What if they had said that Tonev's evidence was reliable and Logan's wasn't and banned Logan for lying about it without any other evidence to back it up? How would you feel about that, balance of probabilities and all that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 But Tonev is guilty, the evidence released is clear for a blind mand to see! Tonev would get more respect accepting punishment and apologising to Logan and Celtic for his comments I haven't made any judgment on whether he is guilty or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotunited Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 the evidence is there - you just choose to ignore it, if Logan was lying ( and why would he?) he would deserve every ban he got. 2 panels have decided that he was telling the truth, the reaction of the player, and the defence from Tonev, proves that hewas telling the truth. are you saying if it happened to A celtic player your reaction would be the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 the evidence is there - you just choose to ignore it, if Logan was lying ( and why would he?) he would deserve every ban he got. 2 panels have decided that he was telling the truth, the reaction of the player, and the defence from Tonev, proves that hewas telling the truth. are you saying if it happened to A celtic player your reaction would be the same? Nothing has been proven. Balance of probabilities by its nature means that the decision has been made on the balance of probabilities, unsurprisingly, not on any proof. I don't think the evidence is enough to even make a decision on balance of probabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 And yes I would be saying it if it was a Celtic player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 And yes I would be saying it if it was a Celtic player. What would you be saying if he was a Rangers player? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred_Zeppelin Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 What would you be saying if he was a Rangers player? No, he would have got not proven, even if there were 3 cameras on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotunited Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 No, he would have got not proven, even if there were 3 cameras on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 No, he would have got not proven, even if there were 3 cameras on him. And Tartan Teddy would be a very reliable witness from the main stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hauniscots Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 If there are further steps available then Celtic will rightly pursue them. If any of them involve a court of law, he will almost certainly be cleared of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.