Off The Ball Official Thread <Mod Note - Post #1, #533, #6651>

CatFromHue · 03-01-2019 7:19pm

Yeah I remember that interview, Quigley is well able to talk and is a good speaker.

There is a point he is making in the Saunders case in that Saunders would have passed both the British and USADA tests but he failed under the VADA test. They should all have the same standards, it doesn't make sense for USADA and VADA to have different ones.

I can't remember what he said about Canelo though.

diusmr8a504cvk · 03-01-2019 7:42pm

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Very strange interview with Jason Quigley the other day. (Not sure if it was pre-record from earlier in the year or taken with Quigley while he was home for the Chrittmas, but certainly took place recently). Quigley was certainly forgiving of stable mate Billy Joe Saunders failing his drugs test because of a nasal spray, and pretty much mocked the stringent criteria that are in place for the boxer's to meet. He then went on to make excuses for Canelo and his mexican beef scandal. Now I was expecting a big backlash from the moral guardians of sport that OTB like to see themselves as, and given the collective opinions that they all have on Canelo's excuses for failing the drugs test.

But then as we discovered last year, when they took on board Boyle Sports as their sponsor having lectured us all for years on the dangers of gambling, the sport that OTB are most expert on is running with the hare and hunting with the hounds

I'm actually caught for words, unbelievable.

Tell me how · 03-01-2019 8:51pm

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Very strange interview with Jason Quigley the other day. (Not sure if it was pre-record from earlier in the year or taken with Quigley while he was home for the Chrittmas, but certainly took place recently). Quigley was certainly forgiving of stable mate Billy Joe Saunders failing his drugs test because of a nasal spray, and pretty much mocked the stringent criteria that are in place for the boxer's to meet. He then went on to make excuses for Canelo and his mexican beef scandal.

Was that interview done with Andy Lee?

jeremyj1968 · 03-01-2019 8:54pm

CatFromHue wrote: »

Yeah I remember that interview, Quigley is well able to talk and is a good speaker.

Being a stable mate of Billy Joe Saunders, I wasn't really surprised that Quigley was supportive of him. But I was surprised that Quigley would stand up for Canelo and give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially since even Billy Joe Saunders was calling Canelo a drug cheat at the time!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4ac6iDt5wg

As you might expect Billy Joe is sort of back in his box with regard to those sort of accusations since he got done for drugs himself. :pac:

diusmr8a504cvk · 04-01-2019 4:23pm

Just can't bare Ger Gilroy anymore. His snobbery at other sports, his bantery digs at people on the crappy quiz, the fact that he could write his knowledge of sport on the back of a postage stamp.
On the crappy quiz last night he asked a question about Darts and made a snoring noise.
Making me want to not listen anymore.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 04-01-2019 5:44pm

It's amazing how this bigotry is tolerated.

He views darts as a sport for the lower orders, ie working class scum.

Fella would want to cop himself on. Snobbery is not an attractive trait.

Utopia Parkway · 04-01-2019 10:19pm

Brayan Chilly Shoplifter wrote: »

Just can't bare Ger Gilroy anymore. His snobbery at other sports, his bantery digs at people on the crappy quiz, the fact that he could write his knowledge of sport on the back of a postage stamp.
On the crappy quiz last night he asked a question about Darts and made a snoring noise.
Making me want to not listen anymore.

He's become increasingly mouthy lately. He had a bit of a go at Liverpool for being bottlers the last day even before the Man City game. I wonder how much of it is just trying to get a reaction out of people? OTB has been going down the Talksport route a bit where they are happy to annoy listeners for clicks and views.

It's borderline unlistenable now when Gilroy is there being a smart arse and asking his usual extremely long winded questions.

Jumbo2018 · 04-01-2019 10:59pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It's amazing how this bigotry is tolerated.

He views darts as a sport for the lower orders, ie working class scum.

Fella would want to cop himself on. Snobbery is not an attractive trait.

These days anyone who is white or male (90% of darts audience in the UK and Ireland ) is fair game for being sneered at.

diusmr8a504cvk · 04-01-2019 11:06pm

Jumbo2018 wrote: »

These days anyone who is white or male (90% of darts audience in the UK and Ireland ) is fair game for being sneered at.

????????????????

Jumbo2018 · 04-01-2019 11:29pm

Brayan Chilly Shoplifter wrote: »

????????????????

If Darts audience consisted of a large amount of ethnic minorities and was a sport largely associated with an ethnic minority group or women do you think Gilroy would be looking down it's nose at it and sneering at it's supporters.

Because Darts is as old fashioned and working class a sport as it can get it's an easy target for people like Gilroy who see it's supporters as the wrong type of people for the new modern world we live in.

diusmr8a504cvk · 04-01-2019 11:48pm

Jumbo2018 wrote: »

If Darts audience consisted of a large amount of ethnic minorities and was a sport largely associated with an ethnic minority group or women do you think Gilroy would be looking down it's nose at it and sneering at it's supporters.

Because Darts is as old fashioned and working class a sport as it can get it's an easy target for people like Gilroy who see it's supporters as the wrong type of people for the new modern world we live in.

Understood, thanks. For example, swap Darts with Basketball.

jeremyj1968 · 05-01-2019 10:13am

"For Nollag na mBan, we will have ALL women's voices, yes that's right, all five hours of broadcasting. Cliona Foley, Sinead O'Carroll, blah, blah, blah"

Honestly, what has this got to do with sports? Once again the priority of the show is to feed us their social justice bullsh1t instead of covering the sports that people actually want to listen to. No doubt it will be five hours similar to every all female panel show last year i.e. how poorly supported the women's game is, how they don't get the same treatment as the men, a panel discussion on what can be done to help the women's game, etc etc. As I said before, I will listen to whatever I want to listen to and I won't be "guided" by the virtue signalling of these hypocrites.

It must be tough being Ger Gilroy, having the voice of God on one shoulder telling him "thou must be equal in all thy coverage" and the voice of the devil (in the form of a Northsider with a french name) on the other telling him "Chelsea are great value at five to one next sunday".

bobbyss · 05-01-2019 11:00am

Listening to Stuart Lancaster and a Caroline Lennon , I think her name is, CEO of Eir talking about Leadership. I like Lancaster but this Lennon one !

'When I call it, I call it', she 'excelled'' at certain things. My goodness, she does have a high opinion of herself.

Listening to other people's opinion is important when you are a leader.
Giving your own opinion is also important.
Being careful with the media.
Having a vision.(Don't know if that was mentioned).

Blowing one's own trumpet is what I would call it.

deisedude · 05-01-2019 12:31pm

bobbyss wrote: »

Listening to Stuart Lancaster and a Caroline Lennon , I think her name is, CEO of Eir talking about Leadership. I like Lancaster but this Lennon one !

'When I call it, I call it', she 'excelled'' at certain things. My goodness, she does have a high opinion of herself.

Listening to other people's opinion is important when you are a leader.
Giving your own opinion is also important.
Being careful with the media.
Having a vision.(Don't know if that was mentioned).

Blowing one's own trumpet is what I would call it.

Normally listen to that show but wouldnt listen to the CEO of that Sh1tshow eir for love nor money

OldMrBrennan83 · 05-01-2019 12:32pm

One thing she doesn't excel at is running a company that isn't an absolute joke.

Cockford Ollie · 05-01-2019 12:37pm

Five hours of listening to women whinge about how their ****ty attempts at sport aren't supported. I'd say the listening figures will drop of a cliff today.

yosser hughes · 05-01-2019 12:58pm

yosser hughes wrote: »

Switched it off. How long have OTB been banging this drum? I wish they'd spend as much time on LOI football.
Why do they feel they need to be advocates? Women's sports need more women to support them really. Most aren't arsed with sport and you can't force people to like something.
It's not the focking patriarchy!!

The above was a post from December 1st after they spent several hours going on about getting more coverage for women's sport.
During the week Pat Kenny interviewed Maire Treasa Ni Cheallaigh who I believe is hosting today's programme. Pat mentioned the Man City- Liverpool game on TV the other night and how none of the women in his house, were in the least interested and are never really interested in watching sport. Maire reckoned that the women in Pat's life, were very much in a minority and that all of her mates were chatting about the match on WhatsApp so QED as far a she was concerned. It's breathtaking arrogance. She couldn't countenance that she maybe living in a filter bubble at all. That her friends maybe her friends precisely because they are in to sport or are virtue signalling media luvvies. Most texters in to the show, both men and women agreed with Pat that maybe just maybe, most women are just not that arsed about sport and that's fine.There are other things in life, many would say more important and fulfilling things to be interested in. Most women I have known are not remotely interested in sport either.
Maybe Maire shouldn't use her mates as a sample size and extrapolate from that what 'most' women are interested in.
The filter bubble afflicts the media terribly in this country and as a result, they are ever more distanced from the general public.

Tell me how · 05-01-2019 1:22pm

Cockford Ollie wrote: »

Five hours of listening to women whinge about how their ****ty attempts at sport aren't supported. I'd say the listening figures will drop of a cliff today.

It's tomorrow kid.

They're going to interview a member of the only Irish team to compete in a World Cup final. (That's a woman's team in case you haven't figured it out).

yosser hughes wrote: »

The above was a post from December 1st after they spent several hours going on about getting more coverage for women's sport.
During the week Pat Kenny interviewed Maire Treasa Ni Cheallaigh who I believe is hosting today's programme. Pat mentioned the Man City- Liverpool game on TV the other night and how none of the women in his house, were in the least interested and are never really interested in watching sport. Maire reckoned that the women in Pat's life, were very much in a minority and that all of her mates were chatting about the match on WhatsApp so QED as far a she was concerned. It's breathtaking arrogance. She couldn't countenance that she maybe living in a filter bubble at all. That her friends maybe her friends precisely because they are in to sport or are virtue signalling media luvvies. Most texters in to the show, both men and women agreed with Pat that maybe just maybe, most women are just not that arsed about sport and that's fine.There are other things in life, many would say more important and fulfilling things to be interested in. Most women I have known are not remotely interested in sport either.
Maybe Maire shouldn't use her mates as a sample size and extrapolate from that what 'most' women are interested in.
The filter bubble afflicts the media terribly in this country and as a result, they are ever more distanced from the general public.

So let me understand this. You think Maire should not form an opinion on the numbers of women interested in sport based on a sample size of her mates, and to support your argument, you use (in part) your sample of the women you know? Why is your sample more relevant than hers?

Everyone knows that there is an imbalance in both participation and watching but that is partially because young girls don't see many role models which they can aspire to. The premise of the 20x20 is as follows.

More visible role models
More young girls take up the sport
More parents become interested in following and supporting them
The numbers participating improve
Facilities and supports improve
Standards improve
Public interest improves.

Let me ask you this. Why do you have a problem with that?

jeremyj1968 · 05-01-2019 1:28pm

Tell me how wrote: »

You think Maire should not form an opinion on the numbers of women interested in sport based on a sample size of her mates, and to support your argument, you use (in part) your sample of the women you know?

The problem is not with the fact that Maire Treasa says that all of her friends are interested in sport. The problem is that Pat Kenny isn't allowed to make a similar observation about the women in his family NOT being interested in sport, without somebody jumping down his throat.

But we live in a world now where true facts and opinions are secondary to not offending anybody.

Tell me how · 05-01-2019 1:37pm

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

The problem is not with the fact that Maire Treasa says that all of her friends are interested in sport. The problem is that Pat Kenny isn't allowed to make a similar observation about the women in his family NOT being interested in sport, without somebody jumping down his throat.

Who jumped down his throat? I didn't hear the piece but I sincerely doubt it became 'aggressive'. Pat gave his point, Maire gave hers and the texters were more aligned with Pat's view than not. Is that not how discussions go?

What should Maire have done? Not given her opinion because Pat had a different one? Is her experience invalid because it is different to Pat's?

Look at the crowd when the camera pans to it. You will see plenty women attending. Still more men, but more and more women are attending.

Jayesdiem · 05-01-2019 1:38pm

Tell me how wrote: »

It's tomorrow kid.

They're going to interview a member of the only Irish team to compete in a World Cup final. (That's a woman's team in case you haven't figured it out).

So let me understand this. You think Maire should not form an opinion on the numbers of women interested in sport based on a sample size of her mates, and to support your argument, you use (in part) your sample of the women you know? Why is your sample more relevant than hers?

Everyone knows that there is an imbalance in both participation and watching but that is partially because young girls don't see many role models which they can aspire to. The premise of the 20x20 is as follows.

More visible role models
More young girls take up the sport
More parents become interested in following and supporting them
The numbers participating improve
Facilities and supports improve
Standards improve
Public interest improves.

Let me ask you this. Why do you have a problem with that?

Probably because it is pushed upon him so as a result he can’t listen to OTB this week. Look, the proof is in the pudding. You are so knowledgeable on all things OTB, why don’t you obtain the listener numbers for this all woman farce this weekend and let’s see if the numbers tuning in are down. You don’t need a role model to get involved in sport. You just need an interest in it and on average, most women don’t have one. That’s ok because the sexes are different. I hope I don’t get a ban for that really controversial statement. If I worked on OTB, I’d probably be out of a job.

Tell me how · 05-01-2019 1:45pm

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Probably because it is pushed upon him so as a result he can’t listen to OTB this week. Look, the proof is in the pudding. You are so knowledgeable on all things OTB, why don’t you obtain the listener numbers for this all woman farce this weekend and let’s see if the numbers tuning in are down. You don’t need a role model to get involved in sport. You just need an interest in it and on average, most women don’t have one. That’s ok because the sexes are different. I hope I don’t get a ban for that really controversial statement. If I worked on OTB, I’d probably be out of a job.

This is (unsurprisingly) ridiculous.

What is being pushed upon him? Seriously, some complain how everyone gets offended these days and you row in with a perfect example of what getting offended for absolutely no reason looks like. "It's being pushed upon him so he can;t listen to OTB this week." :pac:

How's that tuning out from all things OTB New Years resolution going for you?

Jumbo2018 · 05-01-2019 1:47pm

Tell me how wrote: »

It's tomorrow kid.

They're going to interview a member of the only Irish team to compete in a World Cup final. (That's a woman's team in case you haven't figured it out).

So let me understand this. You think Maire should not form an opinion on the numbers of women interested in sport based on a sample size of her mates, and to support your argument, you use (in part) your sample of the women you know? Why is your sample more relevant than hers?

Everyone knows that there is an imbalance in both participation and watching but that is partially because young girls don't see many role models which they can aspire to. The premise of the 20x20 is as follows.

More visible role models
More young girls take up the sport
More parents become interested in following and supporting them
The numbers participating improve
Facilities and supports improve
Standards improve
Public interest improves.

Let me ask you this. Why do you have a problem with that?

There is loads of womens sport on TV and loads of female role models aswell. People will follow any sport in Ireland if someone is good at it look at the coverage Sonia O'Sullivan and Katie Taylor got coverage because people were interested in them because of how great they were/are. However forcing media companies to broadcast something,write about it when people are not interested is not really a good idea.

Coverage of sports follows general interest of the population, it's why Soccer,GAA and Rugby take up 90% of space in the sports pages in Ireland.

If Off the Ball really care then perhaps from now on they should dedicate 50% of every single show they do to womens sport and see what happens to their listenership figures and their advertising revenue.Most people complaining about lack of womens sports coverage know exactly why there is a supposed lack of coverage for women's sport because people are less likely to watch it because it's of a lower standard than the male equivalent.Why watch the lesser version of the sport when you can watch the better version of it.There is very little you can do about that whether people like it or not, do you think people would choose to watch a Swedish top flight match as opposed to a Premier League game if given a choice.

There is nothing stopping girls from participating in sport if they want to there is nothing stopping them from being interested in listening to sport on the radio or watching it on TV.Sports coverage does not reflect what is good for society it reflects people's listening,watching and reading preferences.

Why should media outlets be forced to cover something just to keep feminists happy if it is not what their customers want.

Tell me how · 05-01-2019 1:53pm

Jumbo2018 wrote: »

There is loads of womens sport on TV and loads of female role models aswell. People will follow any sport in Ireland if someone is good at it look at the coverage Sonia O'Sullivan and Katie Taylor got coverage because people were interested in them because of how great they were/are. However forcing media companies to broadcast something,write about it when people are not interested is not really a good idea.

Coverage of sports follows general interest of the population, it's why Soccer,GAA and Rugby take up 90% of space in the sports pages in Ireland.

If Off the Ball really care then perhaps from now on they should dedicate 50% of every single show they do to womens sport and see what happens to their listenership figures and their advertising revenue.Most people complaining about lack of womens sports coverage know exactly why there is a supposed lack of coverage for women's sport because people are less likely to watch it because it's of a lower standard than the male equivalent.Why watch the lesser version of the sport when you can watch the better version of it.There is very little you can do about that whether people like it or not, do you think people would choose to watch a Swedish top flight match as opposed to a Premier League game if given a choice.

There is nothing stopping girls from participating in sport if they want to there is nothing stopping them from being interested in listening to sport on the radio or watching it on TV.Sports coverage does not reflect what is good for society it reflects people's listening,watching and reading preferences.

Why should media outlets be forced to cover something just to keep feminists happy if it is not what their customers want.

Who is suggesting that anyone should be forced to do anything?

Jumbo2018 · 05-01-2019 1:58pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Who is suggesting that anyone should be forced to do anything?

This 20/20 thing is because they are trying to increase media coverage for womens sports , media outlets should have freedom to cover whatever the hell they want based on how interested their customers are not in being induced to cover something for the sake of it.

if people are interested the media will cover it, the market dictates what the media cover and that's the way it should be.

Tell me how · 05-01-2019 2:03pm

Jumbo2018 wrote: »

This 20/20 thing is because they are trying to increase media coverage for womens sports , media outlets should have freedom to cover whatever the hell they want based on how interested their customers are not in being induced to cover something for the sake of it.

if people are interested the media will cover it, the market dictates what the media cover and that's the way it should be.

So, anyone who is promoting something is 'forcing' participation?

Was encouragement to talk about mental health 'forcing' people to do so?
Is advertising towards male to participate in exercise 'forcing' them to do so?

Maybe everyone would realise that the world isn't full of people who get offended by everything if they themselves didn't get offended by everything.

Jayesdiem · 05-01-2019 2:04pm

Tell me how wrote: »

This is (unsurprisingly) ridiculous.

What is being pushed upon him? Seriously, some complain how everyone gets offended these days and you row in with a perfect example of what getting offended for absolutely no reason looks like. "It's being pushed upon him so he can;t listen to OTB this week." :pac:

How's that tuning out from all things OTB New Years resolution going for you?

Pretty good actually. I didn’t know about this all women’s farce for a start. And yes, it is being pushed. Note I didn’t say “forced” because that wouldn’t be entirely accurate. It is being pushed and for those listeners who don’t want to tolerate the feminist nonsense, their usual listening pleasure has been disrupted. Not mine of course.

Tell me how · 05-01-2019 2:10pm

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Pretty good actually. I didn’t know about this all women’s farce for a start. And yes, it is being pushed. Note I didn’t say “forced” because that wouldn’t be entirely accurate. It is being pushed and for those listeners who don’t want to tolerate the feminist nonsense, their usual listening pleasure has been disrupted. Not mine of course.

How would you feel if a commentator was on OTB talking about a match which they had neither seen or attended. You'd be up in arms with righteous indignation.

And yet, here you are, talking about something you didn't know about being pushed. Really?

Ol' Donie · 05-01-2019 2:35pm

Tell me how wrote: »

It's tomorrow kid.

They're going to interview a member of the only Irish team to compete in a World Cup final. (That's a woman's team in case you haven't figured it out).

So let me understand this. You think Maire should not form an opinion on the numbers of women interested in sport based on a sample size of her mates, and to support your argument, you use (in part) your sample of the women you know? Why is your sample more relevant than hers?

Everyone knows that there is an imbalance in both participation and watching but that is partially because young girls don't see many role models which they can aspire to. The premise of the 20x20 is as follows.

More visible role models
More young girls take up the sport
More parents become interested in following and supporting them
The numbers participating improve
Facilities and supports improve
Standards improve
Public interest improves.

Let me ask you this. Why do you have a problem with that?

Great post. Well said.

Jumbo2018 · 05-01-2019 2:42pm

Tell me how wrote: »

So, anyone who is promoting something is 'forcing' participation?

Was encouragement to talk about mental health 'forcing' people to do so?
Is advertising towards male to participate in exercise 'forcing' them to do so?

Maybe everyone would realise that the world isn't full of people who get offended by everything if they themselves didn't get offended by everything.

I don't object to encouraging participation, it's encouraging media companies to cover more that is the issue.Media should base there coverage on what their customers want not on what might be good for society.

Off The Ball Official Thread <Mod Note - Post #1, #533, #6651>

Comments