Rory Gallagher - A dismissed case that was dealt with and brought to attention? Mod Note in OP

robbiezero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123379225#Comment_123379225

Was he not temporarily disbarred prior to the review?

From https://www.kfmradio.com/news/localnews/breaking-naas-opt-not-to-appoint-rory-gallagher-as-senior-football-coach/

In September, Ulster GAA confirmed that Gallagher was “temporarily debarred, without prejudice, from the GAA until the Ulster GAA Safeguarding panel conclude their work."

robbiezero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123376956#Comment_123376956

I asked how the poster knew that the report contained

findings well above and beyond what's in the public sphere on the case

I'm afraid your answer was not any help there. Also what conclusion can be drawn from

The facts are that a review into the circumstances of his case recommended changes to safeguarding procedures.

Seems a bit of a leap to make that he is guilty of the allegations based on that which is what I presume you are expecting people to conclude.

TsuDhoNimh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123379800#Comment_123379800

Kinda. That article is questionably loosely worded.

Rule 7.8(b) can only be used after an investigation or disciplinary process has started, so not prior. That said, the GAA didn't actually get around to the debarment for months after Gallagher voluntarily stepped down, a period in which they believed he had been debarred but never actually told him he was.

Much better to look through the actual DRA report if you're interested in finer details, including the timeline of events.

One of the more pertinent sections would be Section 37 (for context, Rule 7.8(b) is a temporary debarment while an investigation is ongoing while 7.8(a) is a (permanent) debarment):
"The Respondents squarely rely on Rule 7.8(a), not the Adult Safeguarding Policy, so it is perhaps unnecessary to delve any deeper into the issue."

http://www.sportsdra.ie/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/24.02.26-Final-Decision.pdf

For someone unhappy with the GAA (or their stance on the Gallagher case) there's plenty of ammunition in there to angrily throw at them. They completely fluffed updating the rule-book to empower the Provincial Safeguarding Panel's (despite having previously done it properly for children) and completely fluffed pursuing a case like this under a variety of other means of punishment where it wouldn't have hit the wall on rules.

As a TL;DR:
The temporary debarment (eventually) occurred in September '23.
The Safeguarding Review was finalised in October '23.
The debarment was (forcibly, due to messing up the writing of the original rules) lifted in September '24, while quoting the permanent debarment sub-rule (though actively questioning the application of both temperary and permanent given the slips in the permissions from the Official Guide).

robbiezero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123380651#Comment_123380651

It isn't a very high bar for an investigation, especially one specifically set up to "determine what, if any risk, derives from the Claimants behaviours in relation to the GAA" to uncover more than we've seen shared on TV or in-print.

When that determination then led to the unprecedented attempt to disbar a manager? I think it's quite clear to any reasonable person they had access to more than we've seen shared in the papers.

Is the bolded piece not false or "questionably loosely worded" given that the attempt to "temporarily disbar" him occurred prior to any "determination"?

TsuDhoNimh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123381883#Comment_123381883

Only if you feel they forgot to remove it in the months between October '23 & September '24 and that the DRA mistakenly judged it under 7.8(a) as an error.

I wouldn't think those, so it's a description I'm perfectly happy with as being accurate given the information available.

robbiezero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123382634#Comment_123382634

I think we will leave it at that. Just going round in circles. I'm happy with my original assertion that the GAA president was mistaken to send that email to Naas and I have not seen anything to persuade me otherwise.

Lets see how the court case pans out……

Gusser09

It will absolutely used against Burns that he is so quiet on the Armagh incident and Kyle Hayes. It seems personal with Gallagher.

Now im fully behind Naas's decsion to not proceed. The previous management ticket who have just left brought trouble. Not surprised they thought Gallagher would be an addition.

But Burns needs to be consistent. Inter county all ireland winners have a huge influence on people.

StormForce13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123379225#Comment_123379225

In which case I keenly await Burns's defence in the Courts when all of the sly, snide innuendo will, one assumes, need to be replaced by evidence.

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123384892#Comment_123384892

when all of the sly, snide innuendo will, one assumes, need to be replaced by evidence.

"Innuendo" means something implied or suggested, but I think everything in this case has been pretty well publicised so innuendo it is not.

But more importantly, the onus is not on Burns to prove anything.

Gallagher's case is (apparently) for malicious falsehood, which means Gallagher must prove that Burns made statements that a) he knew to be untrue and b) that Gallagher sustained a financial loss as a result.

If Burns can show that he acted in good faith and only made statements he had a good basis to believe were true, he has a solid defence. He doesn't need to prove anything about the actual facts of the Gallagher case.

And how Gallagher will claim financial loss for an amateur, voluntary role still isn't clear.

They are very big hurdles for Gallagher to get over, I would think.

And while "shure he never said anything about Kyle Hayes" is grand fodder for the internet, it's not really a legal argument.