Billy Walsh quits ** SEE MOD WARNING #643 BEFORE POSTING

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Think I remember him falling to the canvas after the decision, totally inconsolable. Was it even the first time he' been done?

Yes, in 2008 he lost a controversial decision to Manuel Félix Díaz in the semis. He was fairly ps££ed at that loss.

In 2012 he lost via CB. Can't recall that.

efb

walshb wrote: »

I had O'Reilly winning that fight, but it was a compettitve fight. The opponent was likely getting scored for his come foward approach.

I can understand boxers being really annoyed and frustrated right after a loss, but they and their teams need to show respect and restraint. I have never liked that such public whingeing about robbery this and robbery that.

I am sure there are rules and guidelines about such public criticism being spouted about organisations and events and tournaments. Similar to rules in the soccer whereby a charge of bringing the game into disrepute applies.

They can lodge formal objections and view the judges scores. If they don't do that I wouldn't think they believe they were actually robbed.

Judges are scrutinised very closely, that why clean shots score easiest - all see them

Joe_ Public

efb wrote: »

No. The French don't seem to get decisions.

From wikipedia:


At the 2008 Olympics, Vastine reached the semifinal where he faced Manuel Félix Díaz from the Dominican Republic. With Vastine leading by two in the final round, the Dominican fighter made a comeback and won the fight. Vastine lost the match by two points after being penalised twice by the referee, having four points deducted from his score. France 24 reported:

Vastine was robbed of his place in the final as he went down 12–10 due to a pair of two-point penalties. Vastine, who stood a full seven inches over his opponent, was largely in control throughout but was harshly penalised for pushing his opponent down, not just once but twice. Diaz was also fortunate to score on a number of wild haymakers that didn't look to have connected cleanly.[2]

walshb

efb wrote: »

They can lodge formal objections and view the judges scores. If they don't do that I wouldn't think they believe they were actually robbed.

Judges are scrutinised very closely, that why clean shots score easiest - all see them

Can they be sanctioned for public criticism of the judging and public criticism of the authorities?

efb

walshb wrote: »

Yes, in 2008 he lost a controversial decision to Manuel Félix Díaz in the semis. He was fairly ps££ed at that loss.

In 2012 he lost via CB. Can't recall that.

It was terrible I remember him sobbing at the apron, to be unfairly denied once is unfortunate, twice was criminal

walshb

efb wrote: »

It was terrible I remember him sobbing at the apron, to be unfairly denied once is unfortunate, twice was criminal

Did you see the London loss? Was that the fight you were referring to initially?

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

Can they be sanctioned for public criticism of the judging and public criticism of the authorities?

I agree about whingeing about contentious decisions, but sometimes it can be justified. Maybe the judging and scoring system is better and more transparent than it used to be, but it is still far from trustworthy in my opinion. Maybe Beijing is too far back, but there were serious allegations made of foul play there and they were mostly just swept under the carpet. There are still plenty of decisions made that leave you scratching your head so I understand in apparent clear-cut cases that boxers and coaches would go public with their frustration.

efb

walshb wrote: »

Can they be sanctioned for public criticism of the judging and public criticism of the authorities?

I've not seen it. But most of the time Trainers etc are allowed leeway as they are only concentrating on one boxer, unlike the judges who gave to look at 2.

efb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I agree about whingeing about contentious decisions, but sometimes it can be justified. Maybe the judging and scoring system is better and more transparent than it used to be, but it is still far from trustworthy in my opinion. Maybe Beijing is too far back, but there were serious allegations made of foul play there and they were mostly just swept under the carpet. There are still plenty of decisions made that leave you scratching your head so I understand in apparent clear-cut cases that boxers and coaches would go public with their frustration.

It's less transparent and more open to 'interpretation' now imo

efb

walshb wrote: »

Did you see the London loss? Was that the fight you were referring to initially?

Yes I watched both Bejing and London and wondered who's cornflakes did the French pîss on...

efb

London 2012 was a judging decision, 2008 was a reffing one

Joe_ Public

Also read this on the Vastine page. Puts a lot of stuff into perspective I reckon:

"His 21-year-old sister Célie, also a talented amateur boxer, had been killed in a car accident in France just two months before.[9]"

efb

@KevooByrne: Not a comprehensive breakdown of every issue by an means but an attempt to address some of them between Walsh/IABA
https://t.co/8FbsVJkTpQ

slow

Just over 9 hours left for the IABA to make the inevitable announcement.

walshb

efb wrote: »

@KevooByrne: Not a comprehensive breakdown of every issue by an means but an attempt to address some of them between Walsh/IABA
https://t.co/8FbsVJkTpQ

Very good article that is completely impartial.

Joe_ Public

efb wrote: »

@KevooByrne: Not a comprehensive breakdown of every issue by an means but an attempt to address some of them between Walsh/IABA

Thanks for posting. It's quite an interesting take on things. At least gets to the heart of it all a bit more.

walshb

According to Mulvey the cut isn't a complete cut....

Something good I suppose.

"The IABA for all practical purposes is almost totally funded by the state. It is not my intention and it will never be the intention of the board to go hurt the athletes, the boxers, the coaches. All of them can get a guarantee from me here this morning that they will not be touched. They will be the best financial support that we can do. My concern is that portion of the grant that is given to the IABA for central headquarter administration. I am putting that marker down now and I hope I will be supported on this. We will review that for the 2016 funding round until we are assured that everything that is required on transparency and corporate governance is to our satisfaction. It’s not today or yesterday that this arose. It’s not working properly and it needs to be fixed."

hinault

gordongekko wrote: »

They have a duty to protect public money. You fall to realize that the iaba have broken an agreement with the isc so the blame is wholly with them and not the isc.

Exactly.

IABA have been shown to be disingenuous throughout this entire affair.

If the IABA cannot be relied upon to act honourably in it's commercial negotiations with it's staff, then it cannot be trusted to manage public funds honestly and honourably.

All public funding needs to be stopped until trust about how the IABA manages it's commercial affairs can be established.

IABA are at fault.

Barbaric Gentleman

What an utter farce this whole situation is. I have no idea who is to blame, but to allow it to come to this just reflects poorly on everyone.

Joe_ Public

Barbaric Gentleman wrote: »

What an utter farce this whole situation is. I have no idea who is to blame, but to allow it to come to this just reflects poorly on everyone.

The bottom line is if there are issues about governance it is better they surface sooner rather than later and, if something needs to be addressed, then it is. Problem here is the timing, seven months out from the Olympics. That's just crazy really whoever you want to blame for it.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Problem here is the timing, seven months out from the Olympics. That's just crazy really whoever you want to blame for it.

Whomever is to blame I believe that Billy had reached the end. Everyone has a breaking point, and listening to him it seemed that he had been broken. It seems that he gutted it out and hung in for as long as he could.

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

Whomever is to blame I believe that Billy had reached the end. Everyone has a breaking point, and listening to him it seemed that he had been broken. It seems that he gutted it out and hung in for as long as he could.

I doubt there are too many here who would disagree with a word of that. Took quite some time but he was, indeed, finally worn down. A broken and, clearly, broken-hearted man.

barney4001

one wonders just what is the I A B A s reasoning in this affair and just how many members are on its board,how many accompany boxers to the championship boxing

Birdie Num Num

hinault wrote: »

Exactly.

IABA have been shown to be disingenuous throughout this entire affair.

If the IABA cannot be relied upon to act honourably in it's commercial negotiations with it's staff, then it cannot be trusted to manage public funds honestly and honourably.

All public funding needs to be stopped until trust about how the IABA manages it's commercial affairs can be established.

IABA are at fault.

I can't claim to have any knowledge about the dealings or conversations between the IABA, Billy Walsh or the Irish Sports Council. Public money is an important investment in many things in Ireland and many sports. What Mulvey was saying on TV yesterday about cutting funding to the sport was bordering on Blackmail.

Joe_ Public

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

I can't claim to have any knowledge about the dealings or conversations between the IABA, Billy Walsh or the Irish Sports Council. Public money is an important investment in many things in Ireland and many sports. What Mulvey was saying on TV yesterday about cutting funding to the sport was bordering on Blackmail.

Haven't seen the full transcript of what Mulvey is saying, but can't say I am mad about his contribution so far. And the Sports Council definitely doesn't get a free pass here. Remember, these are underlying and longstanding issues. USA Boxing didn't cause these, they just helped bring them to a head. The time for the SC to get involved was after London when the debriefing - conducted independently - raised serious issues of governance within the IABA. Instead, it doesn't seem like anybody did anything, Billy Walsh just carried on under apparent duress, and finally the whole situation blew up in all their faces. The Sports Council, so eager to tell us how active they were over the past few months, cops a fair share of the blame for this.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

I can't claim to have any knowledge about the dealings or conversations between the IABA, Billy Walsh or the Irish Sports Council. Public money is an important investment in many things in Ireland and many sports. What Mulvey was saying on TV yesterday about cutting funding to the sport was bordering on Blackmail.

Not even close to blackmail. It's simply an instruction for them to get their house in order in terms of governance and until then they will withhold a certain amount of funding that will mainly affect the board and not the athletes themselves.

Bang on the money if you ask me (and pardon the pun)

hinault

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

I can't claim to have any knowledge about the dealings or conversations between the IABA, Billy Walsh or the Irish Sports Council. Public money is an important investment in many things in Ireland and many sports. What Mulvey was saying on TV yesterday about cutting funding to the sport was bordering on Blackmail.

Perhaps it is.

However, it is clear that the public cannot rely upon the IABA in relation it's bona fides concerning employment contracts. That much is crystal clear.

The IABA are derelict in their responsibilities for employment contracts, what other areas are they also derelict in?

Public money should be with held from IABA until trust and transparency can be re-established.

walshb

hinault wrote: »

Perhaps it is.

However, it is clear that the public cannot rely upon the IABA in relation it's bona fides concerning employment contracts. That much is crystal clear.

The IABA are derelict in their responsibilities for employment contracts, what other areas are they also derelict in?

Public money should be with held from IABA until trust and transparency can be re-established.

Stop skirting around the issue. It's ONE man's employmenet issues, and you are trying to make out that the IABA are incapable of running the organisation full stop. Holy god..

The bolded bit is pure nonsense. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

Where is the evidence that the IABA are inept/bent/corrupt/incapable and out of touch with reality? The Walsh saga aside, where is there any shred to imply or suggest this? Did I miss something? Have there been other workers up in arms about how bad it is to work for the IABA?

They supposedly renegned on an agreement, and that then turns into: public cannot rely upon the IABA in relation it's bona fides concerning employment contracts

The main problem seems to be the ridiculous over the top sensationalism attached to this.

Ctrl Alt Delete

walshb wrote: »

Stop skirting around the issue. It's ONE man's employmenet issues, and you are trying to make out that the IABA are incapable of running the organisation full stop. Holy god..

The bolded bit is pure nonsense. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

Where is the evidence that the IABA are inept/bent/corrupt/incapable and out of touch with reality? The Walsh saga aside, where is there any shred to imply or suggest this? Did I miss something? Have there been other workers up in arms about how bad it is to work for the IABA?

They supposedly renegned on an agreement, and that then turns into: public cannot rely upon the IABA in relation it's bona fides concerning employment contracts

?

I think your completely missing the point. If good governance had been in place then the issue would not have arose.

And primarily when it comes to funding the ISCs main focus is on correct governance policies.

It seems a blind eye may have been turn to IABA issues by the ISC. But the ISC are still perfectly within their rights to pull them up on it at any time they choose regardless of their motivations for doing so

walshb

pac_man wrote: »

Just because it doesn't hit the pockets of the boxers directly, doesn't necessarily mean it won't affect them.

So true. The staement and threat alone is damaging. And was just not needed.