blanch152 wrote: » No, it isn't important to try to deliver a full view of what exactly is the story. The only part of the story that is relevant is the handling of the complaint by the club. Who was right or wrong in relation to the various incidents complained of is completely immaterial. I believe that the GAA has come out of this really really well. There was a dreadful breach of procedure by a club and they have been sanctioned very very heavily. The club has come out very very badly, and I would not send a child to that club as a result.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » Well what is most discussion on the internet, if not largely speculation? I don't think people can really be blamed for that. Indeed, many articles in papers are speculation also, or at the very least, one persons take on an event. I think some people seem to think that kimmage's take is gospel and the guy has just been before the courts. Id agree on the details you outlined above, but I'd also feel that it is important to try to deliver a full view of what exactly is the story, and the more information people have to make a decision the better I believe. I think kimmage wasn't really looking to do that, and his article reflected as much. To what end, I am speculating, but I would say he is pushing the stereotype of the over-aggressive, bad tempered gaa coach, who smokes in the dressing room, only cares about a win and horses young lads out of it at every opportunity, something like the d'unbelievables manager skit from years ago.
evolving_doors wrote: No more information has been forthcoming in this thread or any other news source (open to correction) to attempt to deliver a 'full view'. Only thing i see is speculation on the supposed ulterior motives of the journalist and parents, arguing to the absurd and people bemoaning the loss of a season for kids, who are apparently 'the real victims'.
Happyilylost wrote: » Just to add the kids are back hurling.
BrianBoru00 wrote: » Sweet Jesus
MayoAreMagic wrote: » No I mean the gaa in general, as in those everyday people who are involved in the game itself. His take on jim gavin's comments on mayo last year - I felt he made a lot of it for what it actually was. He was a bit clumsy in his words maybe but not a whole lot else. It's not an easy thing to speak in font of reporters willing you to word something poorly and trying to catch you out. As for him not having a quip to reply, maybe the guy just isn't that witty, it isn't a crime. In this instance I feel he has crafted a kind of gaa caricature for the nation to take aim at.Yet many with genuine knowledge of the thing are saying that this is in fact not as straightforward as it appears and his reporting is not in fact a fair reflection. I cant help but feel his approach to reporting on gaa stories might have one eye on the actual game itself. The only time Ive heard him speak positively about gaa people, was about the mayo team, but that was part of his stick for beating gavin with. I'm curious if he has ever had a good word to say about the sport without it being part of some other point where he was looking to knock someone else...
evolving_doors wrote: How do you mean 'the kids'. All the kids in the club?
evolving_doors wrote: » No more information has been forthcoming in this thread or any other news source (open to correction) to attempt to deliver a 'full view'. Only thing i see is speculation on the supposed ulterior motives of the journalist and parents, arguing to the absurd and people bemoaning the loss of a season for kids, who are apparently 'the real victims'.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » Well i dont know about that. There are people on this thread that have knowledge of the case and have offered other details. For example, we have been told that there is more to the case. That it wasnt as one sided as kimmage has described etc.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » I dont see how that is the only part that is relevant to discussion. Maybe it is in your opinion for whatever reason, but for most other people many facets of the story warrant discussion. You dont have to discuss them yourself if you dont feel like it, but dictating to others what they can discuss isnt going to fly. As for the gaa image, well how about the image of gaa club members? He hasnt portrayed any of them in a very good light - kids parents included. They all seem to play up to bad stereotypes to tell a particular story. Id just be conscious of what kimmage might have in mind longterm. Now I accept that could prove to be wrong, but I think it is worth keeping an eye on - he makes money off a crusade and he doesnt really care who he upsets along the way. I find it interesting that so many old team mates etc dislike him to the level they do. Is that because they were all on drugs like he suggests (without actually saying so), or is it because he has painted that stereotype onto all of them to portray a particular story that will further his own career, and it isnt in fact the reality.. Id say a bit of both. I suppose im trying to say that it is worth keeping in mind that kimmage looks out for kimmage.
blanch152 wrote: » The people on this thread who are offering more information that is not in the public domain are as guilty of breaching child protection guidelines as the club is. The fact that they are generally trying to damn the children and their parents shows that the mentality in the club doesn't appear to have changed. The "Valley of the Squinting Windows" approach of those who encourage the extra details is pretty disgusting as well. You are just shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the issue.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » 1. They are no more guilty of such a breach than paul kimmage is.. 2. Who said they were involved with the club? 3. Again, that isnt what shooting the messenger is. Maybe google shooting the messenger before you make the the comment a third time
Happyilylost wrote: » evolving_doors wrote: How do you mean 'the kids'. All the kids in the club? Yes all the kids.
Twiceasnice97 wrote: » Are you really posting that? Seriously , about cycling, you believe that maybe teammates don't like Kimmage because he made up storys about drug taking rather than thinking that they don't like him because they were drugged up to the eyeballs and kimmage told the truth about it.
MayoAreMagic wrote: That isn't to say that in this case the club official got it right and nobody is saying he wasn't wrong. What I am saying is to take Kimmage's narrative as gospel, I would consider to be quite naïve. I think he chose the details he wanted and chose the ones he didn't want to mention. I think he had an idea of 'this is the story I want to tell', rather than going in and just telling the story.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » I believe, after reading his book, interviews with his team mates and indeed actions of team mates, interviews with other cyclists, subsequent articles that Kimmage has written across a wide range of topics as well as discussions he has had on radio etc, that Kimmage is looking out for Kimmage first and foremost, rather than the paragon of virtue looking to deliver the truth to the people that he might like people to think. And while I don't doubt that there was plenty of drug taking, neither do I doubt that Kimmage was above throwing a few innocents to the lions if it meant portraying his story how he wanted to for maximum effect. That isn't to say he named innocent people, but Id suggest he maybe didn't go out of his way to name them as innocent in the knowledge that his conspiracy theory would benefit, regardless of what that might do to their reputation. That isn't to say that in this case the club official got it right and nobody is saying he wasn't wrong. What I am saying is to take Kimmage's narrative as gospel, I would consider to be quite naïve. I think he chose the details he wanted and chose the ones he didn't want to mention. I think he had an idea of 'this is the story I want to tell', rather than going in and just telling the story.
evolving_doors wrote: » [/b] What didn't he want to mention?
Smith614 wrote: » I heard a 10 yr old tell his manager to F**k off during a blitz in past few weeks. The parents didnt act , i wonder can the club go to Croke Park to get the player removed from tthe club?
MayoAreMagic wrote: » Well, it is strange to me that he doesn't attempt to speak with the actual u-14 coach in the entire thing. They are kind of a key figure in that their approval can normalise the kids actions, and isolate the club official. While their disapproval turns some of the focus onto the kids parents... They are sort of a neutral third party here, who had access to both sides. Did he encourage the players to go to the u14 training or did he just go along with it on the night when they arrived? Did he say to come along to the match to view it after their doing the training, or did he tell them to tog out as full blown team members? Could he even have maybe had a word with the club official about them togging out with the team above their grade and asked what was that about? Those details are kinda brushed over. We are led to believe that he didn't bat an eyelid, by virtue of the fact that he is completely ignored in the article. I have my doubts about that.
blanch152 wrote: » How many times do you need to be told that the rights and wrongs of the issue involving the U-14 coach have absolutely nothing to do with the club being suspended. The club is quite rightly suspended because they couldn't manage to keep a confidential child protection issue confidential. Simple as that. Nothing else is relevant.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » Im not discussing the club being suspended though, and have never said they shouldnt have been suspended. Im discussing kimmage's article. The club werent suspended on the back of the article, so I dont know why you keep bringing up the suspension in response to a post about an article in the paper. Also, surely the club would be hindered keeping the thing confidential, when the parent of the child involved goes to the national media about the story. Short of kidnapping kimmage, what could they have done in that scenario?
clint_silver wrote: » Totally agree. Involved with GAA at underage. The mentor was badly let down by club and the GAA here by having his name mentioned anywhere outside the clubs 4 walls. All the meetings were beyond unnecessary. Seen many bad incidents. Seen horror stories of how kids AND parents mis-interpreted things. Gards nearly being called over things that never even happened. Soon as I read the story about mentor said "youll never put a jersey on", youre saying to yourself, that didnt happen like that. Really shouldnt have been alone with kids though, a golden rule. But youre relying on every mentor in the country to use the exact words that every child will interpret the exact right way, every time the mentor talks to them. You can have every welfare course under the sun done. Never gonna get that right. Who works with people where that happens, and we're adults. Why didnt Kimmage write about the mentor not putting his own kids to bed as he had to stay behind after a game to take down nets and put them away and that was even after he'd asked parents of the team he coaches to help him? Nothing sexy in that is there. Kimmage is no doubt a fine writer but theres an agenda behind this story.
clint_silver wrote: » If Kimmage understood mentoring kids he wouldnt have wrote it the way he did. The club shouldnt have spoke to him without asking what his agenda was, and the club should have said you know what damage this will do individual volunteers, volunteers across the sport, across any sport?
blanch152 wrote: » Oh my God, the club had already called a number of public meetings about a child protection issue, long before Kimmage wrote his article, he couldn't have written it until the club put the allegations into the public arena. If you cannot see how wrong the club was, and how right Kimmage was to expose the murky dealings of the club, well, I don't know what to say. Kimmage was lambasted by the cycling elite for exposing the cheats. Seems the defences are up from the GAA elites.
clint_silver wrote: » murky dealings of the club is a bit extreme. theyre volunteers. Theres methods from bottom to the top for dealing with things. If its a child welfare issue, the mentor on the team is first port of call or another mentor if thats where the issue is. Then, for a club of that size they should have one, the child welfare officer for that code.. Then theres an executive club board with a club welfare officer. An executive county board with a child officer if needs be. A gaa exec council with a welfare officer (gearoid in this case). If theres conflict with any point you go one higher, if you go straight to the top like what happened here, they will refer you back down the chain and rightly so. As for a coach swearing at kids, do me a favor, was it an isolated incident, was he constantly swearing at them? did the kids have a problem with it or just the parents? did the coach go on severall courses paid for out of his own money, apply proper RAMP warmup principles to the team, use latest games model for coaching, maximize the kids potential whilst navigating the minefield of "child welfare" where an isolated use of a swear word is thrown into nearly the same bracket as a potential grooming case? but theres another coach in another club, he watched a couple of gaa games when he was growing up, he throws his name in the ring, he's now a coach too. not interested in doing a course, doesnt have time, kids are going backwards under him, but oh yeah, he's good, he doesnt use swear words. Kids give up when theyre 14-15, cos theyre losing every week. they know theyre not getting better. But that doesnt matter because the coach doesnt use swear words. The point is, you pick and choose what you want to highlight. what is and isnt an actual problem. The first fella needs a word in the ear, and/or the welfare course if he hasnt done it. the second fella needs a lot more. The story shouldnt have left the 4 walls of the club, county or GAA. Whats printing in a national newspaper going to do? rectify it? make anyone do anything different?
blanch152 wrote: » A fundamental point of disagreement with you is that the main issue isn't any of the above - you even make some reasonable points - but that the main issue is confidentiality of child protection. The club broke this, the club should suffer.
