If Lawrence and Bennett are involved on Saturday?...

[LE_Ram]

Haven't read all the topics this evening so apologies if this has been posted elsewhere, but...

I was genuinely sickened by the team selection tonight. To include these two when they're awaiting trial is a joke and it's let down so so many fans. I won't set off on Saturday until I know who's involved in the 18 and if either/both of them are named again, I won't be attending. 

Question is, what are other people thinking?

[oldtimeram]

They should not play again in my opinion

[Millenniumram]

Well one things for sure, I’ll make my feelings known when they’re names are announced. Which they undoubtedly will be, because the club from the very start has appeared to take a very weak stance. Tbh think there’s a legitimate point to be had in some sort of a protest against the club and the way the whole situation has been handled, it’s that serious. Be that in the way of not attending, banners, chanting I don’t know. But I’m not remotely happy with the current running of the club and frankly atm my support of cocu and MM hangs on a very thin thread. Almost feels like we need to reset the club and clear this all out, something has to change at least. 

Tbh I’ve felt awful all week so I’ll be battling to make it regardless, but I can’t bring myself not to go if I can. It’s still Derby, the club and the badge is bigger than some individuals representing it and running it. They’ll all go, and the club will still remain. I’ll be there cheering on Derby county, and other players giving their all like Paterson and Martin. I won’t be cheering on Lawrence, Bennett or anyone involved with them playing.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

I support the team. Lawrence and Bennett are on the team. Therefore, I will support Lawrence and Bennett.

[goldstar]

3 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I support the team. Lawrence and Bennett are on the team. Therefore, I will support Lawrence and Bennett.

You've got the blinkers on there. Shame because I agree with most of what you have to say usually.

[GeoffDerby]

The rule of law in the UK is a person is innocent until proven guilty. Let’s wait and see the outcome on 15th Oct when all the evidence is provided.  I am not condoning any actions, just saying it’s a little early to judge anyone and both players are entitled to fulfil their contracts, especially as neither has yet been found guilty. 

[PodgeyRam]

I would've been there except I'm working this weekend. But had I been there I would've cheered the others like I normally would. Undecided on whether I would boo Bennett and Lawrence or just stay silent. Leaning towards boo as the club needs to be made aware that a lot of people are unhappy with the decision to put them back in so soon after the crash.

[maxjam]

I probably won't cheer their names if/when they are announced but certainly won't boo.

[PodgeyRam]

1 minute ago, GeoffDerby said:

The rule of law in the UK is a person is innocent until proven guilty. Let’s wait and see the outcome on 15th Oct when all the evidence is provided.  I am not condoning any actions, just saying it’s a little early to judge anyone and both players are entitled to fulfil their contracts, especially as neither has yet been found guilty. 

Lets be honest, they're as good as convicted already, especially in the court of public opinion. Plus, I've never seen a drink driving case found not guilty at court.

[Anon]

Do you think that we hold our team to higher standards than most fan bases? Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not happy with Lawrence and Bennett playing right now or the situation in general, but the scale of the disapproval has caught me off guard. So many other teams fans barely bat an eyelid when one of their players is convicted of drink driving. There are several teams I can think of who have supported players that have literally killed others through dangerous driving.

I do wonder if the disproportional and sensationalist media coverage, due to the bizarre nature of the Derby drunk driving incident, has influenced people.

[RiddingsRam]

Been to Barnsley tonight and although I was a somewhat surprised to see their names on the team sheet I don't see a problem if Cocu sees them fit for selection. 

What happened last week was disgraceful to say the least , but it was a mistake a massive one but a mistake and they will pay for that for the rest of there lives with the guilt they will have endured from the while episode. But should mistakes not be forgiven ? Really think about what happened I'm not condoning it in the slightest and they will get there punishment for the actions but some of the comments seem a bit far fetched. 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

13 minutes ago, goldstar said:

You've got the blinkers on there. Shame because I agree with most of what you have to say usually.

We won’t agree on everything mate. 

[Tyler Durden]

7 minutes ago, PodgeyRam said:

Lets be honest, they're as good as convicted already, especially in the court of public opinion. Plus, I've never seen a drink driving case found not guilty at court.

From The Telegraph website:-

England cricketer Graeme Swann cleared of drink-driving

The England cricketer Graeme Swann, who was arrested when driving to buy a screwdriver to rescue his cat from under the floorboards, has been found not guilty of drink-driving.

Graeme Swann drove to a local supermarket to buy some screwdrivers after finding one of his cats trapped under the floorboards 

The off-spinner was a key member of the side that won an Ashes series in Australia for the first time in 24 years.

He is in England's Cricket World Cup squad but has not travelled to Bangladesh as his wife is due to give birth.

At Nottingham Magistrates' Court Swann's trial, which has faced several adjournments because of his sporting commitments, came to an end as District Judge Julia Newton said it had not been proved that a blood sample taken from Swann on the night he was pulled over could be used as evidence.

At previous hearings the court heard he was stopped by officers on patrol in the West Bridgford area of Nottingham on April 2.

The court was told he had drunk three or four glasses of white wine earlier in the evening to celebrate his birthday.

When he returned to his £350,000 detached house in West Bridgford, he found one of his and wife Sarah's two cats - called Max and Paddy - stuck under the floorboards after builders had been working on their home.

Unable to find a screwdriver to undo the floorboards, Swann decided to drive his new white Porsche Cayenne to the nearest 24-hour Asda to buy a set of screwdrivers, the court heard.

The judge said: "On the evidence I have heard, I can't be sure that the 2ml sample of blood was insufficient or incapable of analysis by ordinary means.

"It may have been possible to analyse.

"It follows therefore that, in the specific facts in this case, I am not sure that the Crown can rely on the second sample of blood and therefore I find Mr Swann not guilty."

Leaving court, Swann, dressed in a black suit and black coat, did not offer much reaction to the verdict but told reporters: "I'm just looking forward to getting on with it - child due tomorrow, and winning the World Cup."

Swann's solicitor, Phillip Lucas, previously argued that there was no case to answer because one of the samples of blood taken from Swann on the night he was stopped could not be used as evidence.

Mr Lucas said that, because two samples were taken but the first could have been used for testing, the second should not be relied upon under legal guidelines.

That second sample had 83mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood, which is over the legal limit of 80mg.

Mr Lucas also argued that the blood sample taken from Swann may have been contaminated.

Defence expert Dr John Mundy, a forensic alcohol consultant who previously worked for the Metropolitan Police's laboratory, said sometimes samples could be contaminated by the rubber bungs used in the vials, which may have happened, especially if the nurse who took the sample, Lisa Hodgkinson, had "agitated" the blood by moving it up and down.

Dr Mundy said: "If you get a bung that has contaminants - and they do have contaminants, I have seen quite bad contamination - that can get into the blood and as such can interfere with the alcohol analysis one way or another."

He said the contaminants could add to the alcohol reading, making it higher than it really was.

But at a previous hearing, Ms Hodgkinson told the court that Swann told her he had been drinking for more than four hours on the night he was pulled over.

She said: "Mr Swann stated he drank approximately five glasses of white wine, which were home measures.

"He stated he started drinking at approximately eight in the evening and finished drinking about half twelve or one in the morning."

The court heard that she took a second sample of 5ml of blood from Swann as she feared her first sample of 2ml was not enough.

But Dr Mundy said the first sample would have been adequate.

He said tests could be carried out on as little as 0.24ml of blood.

The court heard that samples are split into two for tests, but Dr Mundy said technically the first 2ml sample could have been used as 1ml was "ample".

He said: "I think this sample should have been sent to the laboratory."

"As the day-to-day head of the Metropolitan Police laboratory, if this had been done in the daytime, which this wasn't, obviously, an officer would have phoned me up and said 'Will this be OK?' and I would have said 'Yes'."

Swann showed little reaction as the judge delivered her not-guilty verdict.

He was also asked by reporters as he left court if his back was improving and he replied: "Getting there. It's a bit stiff but I've had a lot of physio."

Summing up the prosecution case in court, Ms Kelly said the court had heard in August how Swann was pulled over by police near his home.

She said he told officers: "I know I probably shouldn't be driving but I only went to Asda to get some screwdrivers to get my cat out."

Mr Lucas said there were three issues - whether the second sample was admissible, whether it was reliable, and whether Swann had given his consent for the second sample to be taken.

[Alph]

Can't tell anyone that they should get behind them. They have to take all the backlash on the chin for being stupid and not getting away with it. That's how you learn. 

But thankfully in this world are people who clean up your poo. We have all needed it from time to time. Somebody to tell us how to get better rather than kick us while we are down. Who hasn't needed that 

You might not agree with Derby and Cocu. That's completely fair. But they might not agree with abandoning these lads. 

If the club feel that the players are emotionally battered from the ordeal and they don't want to tread on them some more then I can't say i have a huge problem with that. 

We don't know the players. But if they really are in deep regret and are suffering then how much further do you push them? 

Maybe the club feels the players will take all their medicine off the fans, the people in the street, their families, their court case and maybe the players just need a little support to help them face it. 

Derby might just say "get out there. Do your job, get on with your life, keep fit, keep playing and face what comes" 

I'm not in to kicking people if they're down. I don't care much that they played (although I don't rate them so...) and I don't care that they were booed. 

Maybe they don't care and are laughing about how much trouble they're in. Maybe they can't cope with much more of a battering. Who knows.

But what point do you want Cocu to take them to? It's easy to advise Cocu and Mel what to do but if those lads were you're responsibility do you feel some duty to guide them? Make sure they learn but also take care of their mental health. 

Everyone needs someone in their corner. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't play. Just saying that when you think you've fecked it all up you really need an arm around you because time travel isn't real

[Archied]

14 minutes ago, GeoffDerby said:

The rule of law in the UK is a person is innocent until proven guilty. Let’s wait and see the outcome on 15th Oct when all the evidence is provided.  I am not condoning any actions, just saying it’s a little early to judge anyone and both players are entitled to fulfil their contracts, especially as neither has yet been found guilty. 

Yep they are entitled to fulfill their contracts ,,,if only they had seen it that way there would be no court case

[Kirkbyram]

I don’t think they should have played tonight or on Saturday but that seems to be the clubs stance. Clearly the players should be severely punished but they should also be given the opportunity to make amends. Im sure neither of them were thinking at all when they got in the car - they didn’t for example go out knowingly attacking people, or abusing children etc ... They made a stupid decision to drive when drunk. It could have been disastrous if they had hit any innocent bystanders - they are lucky they didn’t. But it was a spur of the moment error of judgement. I get that it is raw for some people affected by drink driving and I’d find it hard to forgive them but im going give them some time to prove their genuine remorse. Do some charity work, raise awareness and make sure it doesn’t happen again. We all make mistakes, those of us who drink and who drunk a lot when we were younger will I am sure have made terrible errors of judgement that could have had awful consequences. Most of the time nothing comes of it. I for one will not cheer them for a while but I will continue to support the rest of team and hope that both the lads are aware that they must work incredibly hard to make it up to the supporters of our great club. 

[Rambalin]

I was at Barnsley tonight both players got a few boos initially but once the game got going there was nothing.

 

[TommyPowell]

26 minutes ago, PodgeyRam said:

Lets be honest, they're as good as convicted already, especially in the court of public opinion. Plus, I've never seen a drink driving case found not guilty at court.

I am sure the club are aware of that but they cannot be seen to be jumping the gun.We are all shocked and amazed by what we have read in the papers along with a few seconds of video footage.I am a Rams supporter and i have been over 60 nothing will stop me from doing so.I know that the inclusion tonight would have been made on a pure footballing basis,they cant have been picked from thinking they deserve to be picked because they were feeling down.On the 15th the court will hand out their punishment,and we will also know more facts about the case.Did i agree with them playing tonight NO will i stop supporting the  Rams NO am i convinced the those two will get what they deserve Yes.

[papa_lazarou]

We aren't privy to all the details so it's difficult (for me) to understand the rationale in selecting either of them in the squad tonight.

I have zero sympathy for either of them. They don't deserve our support until publicly they acknowledge their actions and have received their punishment both legally and by the club. Then they are entitled to earn that support back and be given a second chance. I personally think the decision to include them tonight was a mistake.

Mentally they can't be focused to perform at their best, and you can debate whether at their best they deserve to wear the shirt anyway.

They need to earn the right to wear the shirt again, not just be gifted it back as part of some ill thought out re-integration (my opinion).

I always want the club to put out the strongest and most competitive side, but my view is their inclusion should have waited until the legal and internal investigation had concluded and the punishment been decided as a minimum.

This way, they and the club can publicly acknowledge what steps have been taken and their forced silence negated. It's also important I feel for the players to be given the chance to apologise before they got to play again, and show the remorse most of us feel is missing because they can't say anything with the impending legal cases.

 

 

[PodgeyRam]

7 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

From The Telegraph website:-

England cricketer Graeme Swann cleared of drink-driving

The England cricketer Graeme Swann, who was arrested when driving to buy a screwdriver to rescue his cat from under the floorboards, has been found not guilty of drink-driving.

Graeme Swann drove to a local supermarket to buy some screwdrivers after finding one of his cats trapped under the floorboards 

The off-spinner was a key member of the side that won an Ashes series in Australia for the first time in 24 years.

He is in England's Cricket World Cup squad but has not travelled to Bangladesh as his wife is due to give birth.

At Nottingham Magistrates' Court Swann's trial, which has faced several adjournments because of his sporting commitments, came to an end as District Judge Julia Newton said it had not been proved that a blood sample taken from Swann on the night he was pulled over could be used as evidence.

At previous hearings the court heard he was stopped by officers on patrol in the West Bridgford area of Nottingham on April 2.

The court was told he had drunk three or four glasses of white wine earlier in the evening to celebrate his birthday.

When he returned to his £350,000 detached house in West Bridgford, he found one of his and wife Sarah's two cats - called Max and Paddy - stuck under the floorboards after builders had been working on their home.

Unable to find a screwdriver to undo the floorboards, Swann decided to drive his new white Porsche Cayenne to the nearest 24-hour Asda to buy a set of screwdrivers, the court heard.

The judge said: "On the evidence I have heard, I can't be sure that the 2ml sample of blood was insufficient or incapable of analysis by ordinary means.

"It may have been possible to analyse.

"It follows therefore that, in the specific facts in this case, I am not sure that the Crown can rely on the second sample of blood and therefore I find Mr Swann not guilty."

Leaving court, Swann, dressed in a black suit and black coat, did not offer much reaction to the verdict but told reporters: "I'm just looking forward to getting on with it - child due tomorrow, and winning the World Cup."

Swann's solicitor, Phillip Lucas, previously argued that there was no case to answer because one of the samples of blood taken from Swann on the night he was stopped could not be used as evidence.

Mr Lucas said that, because two samples were taken but the first could have been used for testing, the second should not be relied upon under legal guidelines.

That second sample had 83mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood, which is over the legal limit of 80mg.

Mr Lucas also argued that the blood sample taken from Swann may have been contaminated.

Defence expert Dr John Mundy, a forensic alcohol consultant who previously worked for the Metropolitan Police's laboratory, said sometimes samples could be contaminated by the rubber bungs used in the vials, which may have happened, especially if the nurse who took the sample, Lisa Hodgkinson, had "agitated" the blood by moving it up and down.

Dr Mundy said: "If you get a bung that has contaminants - and they do have contaminants, I have seen quite bad contamination - that can get into the blood and as such can interfere with the alcohol analysis one way or another."

He said the contaminants could add to the alcohol reading, making it higher than it really was.

But at a previous hearing, Ms Hodgkinson told the court that Swann told her he had been drinking for more than four hours on the night he was pulled over.

She said: "Mr Swann stated he drank approximately five glasses of white wine, which were home measures.

"He stated he started drinking at approximately eight in the evening and finished drinking about half twelve or one in the morning."

The court heard that she took a second sample of 5ml of blood from Swann as she feared her first sample of 2ml was not enough.

But Dr Mundy said the first sample would have been adequate.

He said tests could be carried out on as little as 0.24ml of blood.

The court heard that samples are split into two for tests, but Dr Mundy said technically the first 2ml sample could have been used as 1ml was "ample".

He said: "I think this sample should have been sent to the laboratory."

"As the day-to-day head of the Metropolitan Police laboratory, if this had been done in the daytime, which this wasn't, obviously, an officer would have phoned me up and said 'Will this be OK?' and I would have said 'Yes'."

Swann showed little reaction as the judge delivered her not-guilty verdict.

He was also asked by reporters as he left court if his back was improving and he replied: "Getting there. It's a bit stiff but I've had a lot of physio."

Summing up the prosecution case in court, Ms Kelly said the court had heard in August how Swann was pulled over by police near his home.

She said he told officers: "I know I probably shouldn't be driving but I only went to Asda to get some screwdrivers to get my cat out."

Mr Lucas said there were three issues - whether the second sample was admissible, whether it was reliable, and whether Swann had given his consent for the second sample to be taken.

That's interesting, I hadn't seen that before. So in that situation, it seems they didn't take a breathalyser test in the station, but took a blood sample. 

Maybe I'm just being dense, but why couldn't they use the second sample? Because the first sample was nowhere to be found and they needed two samples? Or is it something else?