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

Have you an example of this 99%?

If a woman made allegations of this kind against you, are you saying you wouldn't deny them? As I've said multiple times now, I would deny them and it'd be up to people to make up their own minds once they knew my side of the story

Can't get any stronger denial than this. This is a full and unequivocal denial.

“I categorically deny the allegations levelled against me. I have engaged with every procedure available to me,” continues Gallagher in his statement.

The link Robbie posted advised that RG denies. The Irish Times article actually has the quote from the statement.

It's as clear as day. RG categorically denies the allegations. I don't know if he did was was alleged against him or not. But no point in saying that he hasn't denied it. His legal team would be all over this. What was said in statements to date would be ratified by solicitors. If there wasn't a categorical denial previously, it would be on legal advice. But now he has denied it. End of story.

That is fine, it's a judgement call. I suspect you would just end up putting a target on your back and making things worse. As the saying goes, if you are explaining you are losing.

If the authorities investigate and take no further action then best to say nothing and try to move on. Rory should not have threatened to sue, it's just made more people believe he is guilty. It's resulted in a discussion on the late late show implying that he is guilty.

If others are happy to accept a single line ("I categorically deny the allegations levelled against me") in a statement about the Naas manager's job more than a year after the allegations were made as sufficient to believe that Gallagher didn't do what he's accused of, then fair enough.

For my part, if I were in a situation where I was accused of anything like that, I'd be certain to make an explicit and unequivocal denial at the time.

Link to where anyone has stated that the fact he has denied it means that he is not guilty.

You are the one saying that he is guilty because you are unsatisfied with his denials.

You might want to note the word "if" at the beginning of that post.

Since we're doing this though, link to where I said that he is guilty pls 😂

It's behind closed doors so everyone will form their own opinion. I for one can't understand how naas could feel they could appoint this man to a role within their club without any outrage. A very poor decision from the club in my view.

You are deflecting. I can't speak for others, but I didn't at any time say he didn't do what he's accused of. The issue here is that you said he didn't deny it, but it has been pointed out with proof quoting an actual statement that he did deny it. You questioned a poster and advised that they lied about not looking for that statement on google. When I googled, I found it in 20 seconds. So I do think that that poster did not actually do a search for the statement or quotes from the statement.

Yes he asked about Hayes and why he hadn’t intervened there also. 

Burns felt it was different because Gallagher was a coach and in a position of authority and influence whereas Hayes was only a player.

Regarding the Armagh incident Burns has said that he will comment in due course, but can’t at the moment for legal reasons.

I just feel that Burns has opened up a can of worms here. Such is the size of the GAA I am sure that there are bound to be other coaches with allegations against them or with criminal records. Is he going to intervene there also?

"So if he didn't deny them why was he not charged and why did the GAAs own investigation find that his suspension was invalid (a process completely ignored by Burns)."

The suspension was declared invalid by the DRA on the basis that the Ulster Council “did not have power to debar the Claimant in the manner it sought to do for the reasons discussed earlier.” It had nothing to do with the Gallagher case per se and purely on the GAA's own Rules & Regs & them simply not (yet, sounds like they're planning to review those rules) having an ability to debar like that.

http://www.sportsdra.ie/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/24.02.26-Final-Decision.pdf (19 pages of negative craic, but it's there in public if anyone wants to dig into details)

The GAA's "own investigation" was the (usually referred to as the McGibbon) Safeguarding Panel Review. It's that review that led to the decision to suspend/debar and would have been a factor in Burns' decision to send the e-mail to Naas (the Naas club, like the general public, wouldn't have had access to the report). We don't know the contents, but safe to say the people involved in that investigation were working with a lot more information than the few bits and bobs we've sadly (for the family involved) seen splashed over the papers in recent months.

Boards epileptic page loading is making the site so hard to read

If it affected the main things in my life e.g. family relationships, job, social life - then I think I would deny it if it was in the public domain.

But when the legal ramifications are introduced into it, it changes that completely. I don't really understand it to be honest, but there you'd often hear people releasing limited statements and advising that they cannot discuss further for legal reasons. A topical example if Ja Burns this weekend declining to comment on the Armagh controversary for legal reasons.

I don't believe him.

Hope Gallagher is sucessful and the whole thing ends with Jarlath Burns getting fired. I think he feels he's the CEO of the GAA instead of President which is effectively an honourary position (much like Irish state President).

Below is another case of Jarlath Burns interference

Whatever about Gallaghers past Jarlath Burns should not be interfering in a jobs process, and the fact he sent an email is a rookie mistake.

He has left himself open to this legal case.

Rule number 1, don't leave a paper trail. Surely a face to face would have worked better...