yes they did.
yes they did.
It's like banging your head against a particularly think wall. For the last time, not having enough evidence to prove something happened is not the same thing as saying that something did not happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
Absolutely correct. They did not prove that it did happen to the satisfaction of those investigating the claim. Neither did they prove, however, that nothing at all happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
I don't know what you mean by my 'criteria'?
There is a basic contradiction in your two arguments. You can't say that the onus is on the person who made the claim to prove the allegations, and then on the other hand say that a claim without any evidence whatsoever to support it should be accepted simply because it can't be disproven.I've already agreed with this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
Wich makes this one even more illogical.
AS I've already said, if you can show me footage taken from the game on which there is incontrovertible evidence of anti-semetic behaviour on the part of Limerick fans, I'll accept it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BYCTWD
In Rovers case, however, there is footage on which there is incontrovertible evidence (in my opinion, and the opinion of many others) of racist abuse by Rovers fans, but you refuse to accept it. You've tried to argue that the claim wasn't made until after doctored youtube footage had surfaced, but were proven to be wrong, and you and other Rovers fans have explained it as "short-booing", and chants of "Hoops", neither of which are even the slightest bit convincing.
If the evidence is 'incontravestible' why do you think the fai threw out the allegation?
I'm going to argue the point with you any more, for a number of reasons.
The fact that you are unable to understand or unwilling to accept that a decision not to pursue a claim due to lack of evidence does not equate to proof that nothing happened is one reason.
The fact that you believe, or pretend to believe, that a claim of anti-semitism against Limerick fans without any evidence whatsoever to support it should be considered as valid as a claim of racial abuse against Rovers fans based on actual television footage is another reason.
The fact that you have repeatedly tried to assert that the original claim was made two weeks after the event and was based on a doctored youtube clip, when both of these things have been proven wrong, is a third reason.
I've seen the TV4 footage, and I believe what I heard was racist abuse. The decision by SARI and the FAI doesn't change that. Even a number of Rovers supporters on here accepted that what the footage showed was racism. It's hard for me to believe that anybody could come to a different conclusion, but you, and some other Rovers supporters, apparently can.
Because of the club involved - simple as. Just like the reaction of the same body to the flares lit and the bottle striking a lino at the same game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jicked
Look, if any poster here wants to carry on dening what some of your own fans accept happened then fine (there is none so blind...) it was a very small minority involved and I would hope not reflective of the majority of hoops supporters BUT it did happen and no amount of denial or FAI fudge will change that.
You mean the fine of almost two thousand euros issued by the FAI?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
fairly tame for a lino getting hit by a bottle don't you think ? Any ground in europe would be closed for the same incident. Incidentally bohs were fined about two years back when a small minority of so called "fans" made a racial comment about a bray player, there was no recording of it (unlike the Ndo case) but the FAI still felt the need to fine the club, same standards ??????Quote:
Originally Posted by EnglishSource