CaleyD

I think it would have made a huge difference if they had done the full chest Saltire in a contrasting colour.

Manny - I like the horizontal stripes But I think people prefer the vertical Yes I know, too much time on my hands

Hart should not be forced to do anything. The opportunities have been there all along for him to enroll in such a course and I'm certain their will have been no shortage of media hounds around only to willing to print his apology if he saw fit to make one. That's what bugs me about situations such as this - if they were remorseful and sorry then the individuals would take it upon themselves to do these things and not be forced to go through the motions simply because their jobs depended on it. By demanding someone makes an apology, regardless of whether they are sorry or not, makes it meaningless. He had his opportunity when he spoke "exclusively" to the Highland News, but instead chose to concentrate on how hard done by he was by having to plead guilty to something he was caught doing red handed. When I was growing up we were taught that an apology should actually mean something, and just because you apologised didn't mean you weren't punished....if you were lucky it might mean your punishment was reduced, and that was about it. Broadfoot is a plum and I can't believe so many are buying in to the article. Nowhere in the entire page does it place responsibility for events at the feet of Hart in any way shape or form. It is just an endless list of nonsense excuses aimed at deflecting responsibility anywhere and everywhere apart from at the person ultimately responsible. Granted their is a larger issue in society regarding it's mindset towards drugs, in fact, the problem lies in the mindset towards drink in comparison to drugs, but that is not the subject in question right here. Just because society takes a more lenient view on drinking should not automatically conclude that they should take the same appraoch involving drugs. And if we were going down the route of arguing that point then I would be more for increasing punishments for drinking than decreasing punishments for drugs....although as is often the case, the answer probably lies somewhere in between.

Don't do it....look what happened with the ICT v Killie match...you'll just jinx it :029:

:012:

Just wanted to make sure I had them 100% accurate :001: Like the "absorbed" reference :015:

Opinion will always be split....that's the nature of the beast when it comes to talking about any football player. It would be a very boring world if everyone agreed on everything all the time.

Ok, I'm trying to clear up some confusion as to the exact (recognised) founding dates for Caledonian FC and Inverness Thistle FC. I seem to have 2 dates for Caley...1885 and 1886. I noticed the gates at Telford Park had 1886 so I'm guessing this would be the "recognised" date? Haven't look so much in to Thistle, but from what I have seen it would seem the date for them was 1885. The only confusion seems to be that some sources quote them as being 110 years old at the time of the merger which would place the founding date as 1884. Help!!!!

I see where your coming from, but it is the thought of such consequences which act as the deterrent. Remove the deterrent and people start to run amok. You just have to look at the problems society faces just now when dealing with kids due to the deterrent of a good boot up the erse having been removed to see the kind of problems the kid gloves approach to punishment can cause.

And on that logicv...nobody should ever be sacked from their jobs ever again :029: Someone asked further back about whether he was tested at the time...it would seem that when your caught in possession it's not standard practice to issue a test unless your behaviour is also being called in to question (i.e. driving, being disorderly etc), so it is extremely unlikely Hart would have been submitted to a test at the time.

Think I may have referred to him as the messiah at one point when winding IHE up, but I'll happily admit that he's not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy.

Could never understand the "consumption" thing. Surely if you test positive then you are in possession, otherwise how could they find positive traces!!! Possession is not proof of consumption, but surely consumption is proof of possession!!!

Can't call it a Swoosh if it's Adidas...Nike will sue ya :015:

And I'm sure he's done nothing to show any remorse whatsoever....without going in to the realms of how each of us can be so sure and who've we've perhaps been speaking to then I guess we just settle on stalemate!!!

How can people berate others for making assumptions in one sentence and then go on to assume that he is in any way remorseful in the next - pot and kettle???

What should we be supporting exactly? OUR player and OUR team. Yes, 10/10 for stating the obvious - although I fail to see where anyones support of the team has been (or should have been) called in to question. As a player wearing the ICT shirt Hart has always got my support whilst on the park, but it seems your suggesting that because I support ICT that I should blindly support all players and the actions of all players regardless of what they are, regardless of the law and regardless of my own personal opinions/standards...would that be right?

[attach=1]

What should we be supporting exactly? His right to buy drugs? His right to possess drugs? His right to think he is above the law? His right to do as he pleases without any regard for the consequences?

Had Hart positioned himself such that he had shown any remorse for what he had done, then certainly their would be merit in his passing on the lessons learned from the whole experience. I just think it would be extremely hypocritical to expect parents to allow him to talk to their children when the only thing he seems sorry about is getting caught. Also, if he was truly sorry and wanted to pass on the lesson, then he could do that whether he was employed by the club or not...or are we expecting him to get paid for doing it?

For the record, I have six siblings. None of us are angels, but we were all brought up to understand that if you broke the rules and got caught then you had to suffer the consequences. The club have to be careful of whatever precedent they set either way. As I've said already, whether the club decide he should be punished and allowed to stay or sacked, that should be the end of it and it should not be turned in to some kind of circus act. If he is a user then it is obviously a recreational thing (for the reasons pointed out by IHE) and therefore he needs no rehab or narcotics anonymous classes, so all this talk of "support" is nonsense. His comments to the HN show no signs that he is sorry for what he has done, so sending him out to schools or holding him up as some kind of positive example simply serves to insult the intelligence of sensible thinking folk. In short, allowing him to stay would not put me up nor down provided he was punished by the club. Allowing him to stay whilst paying for unnecessary rehab and holding him up as some kind of remorseful reformed character and treating him like some kind of victim that shouldn't be punished but revered I would strongly object to. His comments to the HN will do him far more harm than good, both in regards to his position at ICT and any future position he may have been seeking should he move on (through his own choice or otherwise).

You'd think that with so many games in such a short spell they'd want to encourage as many people through the gates as possible to build on the euphoria. Plus the european income isn't going to leave them short of a penny or two so not like they need to be raking in the cash. Que Sera

I can't believe what I read in the HN....how stupid can you get. He may never have tested positive for drugs, but someone should have tested him for something after he spoke to that reporter.

What "support" do those calling for it think the club should be giving him, and who should be paying for it? Should it be coming out of our ticket price, should it be coming out of club sponsorship money or money from commercial deals. Maybe we should redirect funds from the legends night to pay for this "support". Or how about we stick up the kids tickets by another ?5, after all this "support" will serve to teach them all a valuable life lesson about how bad drugs are and making them pay will help reaffirm that messing with drugs comes at a cost. Meanwhile Hart can continue to drive his BMW, live in his ?250,000 house and not have to suffer in the slightest for his error...after all, why should he suffer when his actions can be used to teach everyone else such a great lesson. In fact we should all personally write and thank the guy...he's actually a hero. :029:

Lets set the whole nature of the crime to the side for just one moment. What we have is a player who was charged with a crime back in June (?). He gave certain assurances to his employer that resulted in them continuing to employ him and he's drawn about ?9000 to ?10,000 in wages since then. He then stands up in court and pleads guilty to the crime. If I was the employer, that fact alone would piss me off no end. Do you think for one second the club would have failed to suspend him at the time if he had told them he'd been caught red handed and was going to plead guilty? I very much doubt it. Those actions alone are grounds for dismissal IMO, regardless of the crime.

Wasn't referring to any comment in particular and you can swap private for personal in my comment and I still stand by it. We have all done/do stuff in our personal/private life that we wouldn't necessarily want made public. If he wanted to brush up on his cocaine preparation technique then sitting in a car in a public car park wasn't the wisest of places to do it...so whether or not you describe it as personal or private, he was the one who made it public.