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

Jayesdiem · 28-07-2020 7:43am

generalgerry wrote: »

Good man Jay. This is an interesting topic which I have thought about as well. I struggle to find some sort of balance with the "he's a cheat but he's not" type of argument. Here's how I have managed to make sense of the whole thing in my head.

1. Kelly and Roche - I would say that they did take whatever was going at the time, but did not gain any significant advantage over the other competitors, who were on the same stuff.
2. Michelle Smith - I think she did gain an unfair advantage with the means that she used. Her crazy rate of improvement was indicative of this. Therefore I think the c word is appropriate (no, not that one, the five letter one :pac:)
3. Lance Armstrong - I have a big problem with the fact that OTB look down their nose at Armstrong, but treat all the other confessed drugged cheats who ratted on him as heroes. Lance was better at the doping than others, so that was an unfair advantage he would have had, but they were all doping.

Exactly what I am getting at. Doping is never a “will I, won’t I” decision. Dopers aren’t dastardly cartoon villains waiting around every corner to trap and hurt their nemesis. They make rational (some will argue irrational) economic decisions, as applied to their scenario and sport. Amongst the factors that will drive the decision making of a doper (like anybody who takes a risk) are the risk-to-reward ratio of the behaviour, the likelihood that close rivals are also doping, the cultural acceptance of doping in a given sport and maybe the moral beliefs of the individual. This creates a multivariate decision making process for the athlete, not the exclusive morally-driven univariate decision process implied to exist by OTB. For all the athletes we have just mentioned, each one will have encountered a different set and combination of these factors, and more. Let’s speculate for fun: Kelly and Roche competed in a sport in which success without doping was simply not possible. Maybe this factor drove their alleged decisions to dope by a factor of 90%. Don’t dope? Don’t win. Maybe Smith saw that her rivals were less likely to exhibit a chemical advantage so knowing she was late in her career, the potential rewards outweighed the risks whilst her personal relationship with a former doper “dulled” her moral opposition to doping. Lance was in the same spot as Kelly and Roche and with his sport’s cultural acceptance of the practice, saw the opportunity to enhance his public brand. His dissenters were maybe not attacked for their interference in his cycling performance but for the potentially enormous damage they could do to the rewards he could attain outside of cycling.

I’m just playing with make believe scenarios in my head but we see this in real life ALL the time. UFC, NFL and MLB report doping bans like they do hamstring injuries: 4 weeks out. Our morally-driven egos in this part of the world report them in a similar vein to rape and murder. I don’t know why this is but for the “multivariate” decision making process I’ve explained, I don’t, and will never, buy into it. Life’s not that simple.

Tell me how · 28-07-2020 11:35am

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Exactly what I am getting at. Doping is never a “will I, won’t I” decision. Dopers aren’t dastardly cartoon villains waiting around every corner to trap and hurt their nemesis. They make rational (some will argue irrational) economic decisions, as applied to their scenario and sport. Amongst the factors that will drive the decision making of a doper (like anybody who takes a risk) are the risk-to-reward ratio of the behaviour, the likelihood that close rivals are also doping, the cultural acceptance of doping in a given sport and maybe the moral beliefs of the individual. This creates a multivariate decision making process for the athlete, not the exclusive morally-driven univariate decision process implied to exist by OTB. For all the athletes we have just mentioned, each one will have encountered a different set and combination of these factors, and more. Let’s speculate for fun: Kelly and Roche competed in a sport in which success without doping was simply not possible. Maybe this factor drove their alleged decisions to dope by a factor of 90%. Don’t dope? Don’t win. Maybe Smith saw that her rivals were less likely to exhibit a chemical advantage so knowing she was late in her career, the potential rewards outweighed the risks whilst her personal relationship with a former doper “dulled” her moral opposition to doping. Lance was in the same spot as Kelly and Roche and with his sport’s cultural acceptance of the practice, saw the opportunity to enhance his public brand. His dissenters were maybe not attacked for their interference in his cycling performance but for the potentially enormous damage they could do to the rewards he could attain outside of cycling.

I’m just playing with make believe scenarios in my head but we see this in real life ALL the time. UFC, NFL and MLB report doping bans like they do hamstring injuries: 4 weeks out. Our morally-driven egos in this part of the world report them in a similar vein to rape and murder. I don’t know why this is but for the “multivariate” decision making process I’ve explained, I don’t, and will never, buy into it. Life’s not that simple.

Armstrongs behaviour, both in public and that reported by people who were at one time close to him is pretty much exactly that of the part in bold.

I haven't seen doping reported in same vein as rape and murder but one of the reasons many, including me, are so against it is because of the collateral damage of those who pay the ultimate price when doing so. There have been several deaths of young cyclists with heart failure in Europe, the latest being just a couple of weeks ago. For every one of these who actually die, I expect there are several more who don't die but have life long side affects from the practice.

Also, you say 'morally driven egos' like it is a bad thing. Many would simply see it as decency.

Jayesdiem · 28-07-2020 11:46am

Tell me how wrote: »

Armstrongs behaviour, both in public and that reported by people who were at one time close to him is pretty much exactly that of the part in bold.

I haven't seen doping reported in same vein as rape and murder but one of the reasons many, including me, are so against it is because of the collateral damage of those who pay the ultimate price when doing so. There have been several deaths of young cyclists with heart conditions in Europe, the latest being just a couple of weeks ago. For every one of these who actually die, I expect there are several more who don't die but have life long side affects from the practice.

Also, you say 'morally driven egos' like it is a bad thing. Many would simply see it as decency.

Look, you and I are cut from very different moral cloths. You are the good guy and I, clearly am the dastardly villain. There is no collateral damage exerted by dopers on those who chose not to dope. The ones who did and got away with it are heroes, those who didn’t were naive and will be forgotten (assuming they had the physical raw materials to compete in the first place). I question the deaths that you loosely cite can be attributed to doping or doping alone. Young people die suddenly all the time though if it is due to doping for argument’s sake, there can be no better rationale for legalising their use and having qualified medical professionals administer doses.

Tell me how · 28-07-2020 12:21pm

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Look, you and I are cut from very different moral cloths. You are the good guy and I, clearly am the dastardly villain. There is no collateral damage exerted by dopers on those who chose not to dope. The ones who did and got away with it are heroes, those who didn’t were naive and will be forgotten (assuming they had the physical raw materials to compete in the first place). I question the deaths that you loosely cite can be attributed to doping or doping alone. Young people die suddenly all the time though if it is due to doping for argument’s sake, there can be no better rationale for legalising their use and having qualified medical professionals administer doses.

Just to be clear, I don't see myself as a good guy or you as a villain, those are your words, I don't really know why you need to presume such positions in a discussion. All I'm doing is expressing an opinion.

You can question the deaths, of course, but, you yourself has said that the sport is rife with it, and there seems to be a larger proportion of such athletes dying from heart failure at young ages than there seems to be in other sports or generally in the population. Maybe we just hear about these cases more.

I don't see this as a rational for legalising doping because if so, young athletes will become absolute guinea pigs at the whims of unscrupulous coaches or, those in the shadows or just outside the elite will push the boundaries even more to try to gain an advantage. There will still be illegal doping, just on top of a widespread foundation of legalised doping.

Jayesdiem · 03-08-2020 7:59pm

Right, I’m such a moaning b@stard so I want to give credit where it’s due and because it’s the only OTB show I listen to anymore, despite it being more miss than hit, the paper review was very good this week. It should come as no surprise that this was because they actually talked about sport instead of social justice issues that happened to intertwine with sport. And they only talked about Covid as relevant to context, so that was welcome. I’m actually not entirely sure who head presented it but to do so without any major sporting stories at the moment was no mean feat.

dr.kenneth noisewater · 04-08-2020 7:37pm

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Right, I’m such a moaning b@stard so I want to give credit where it’s due and because it’s the only OTB show I listen to anymore, despite it being more miss than hit, the paper review was very good this week. It should come as no surprise that this was because they actually talked about sport instead of social justice issues that happened to intertwine with sport. And they only talked about Covid as relevant to context, so that was welcome. I’m actually not entirely sure who head presented it but to do so without any major sporting stories at the moment was no mean feat.

Will O'Callaghan was presenting. Used to really enjoy his show on Midlands 103 and hoped he'd be presenting more since he moved to OTB full time. Hopefully he gets more chances over the next while

04-08-2020 8:18pm

dr.kenneth noisewater wrote: »

Will O'Callaghan was presenting. Used to really enjoy his show on Midlands 103 and hoped he'd be presenting more since he moved to OTB full time. Hopefully he gets more chances over the next while

He was very good in the hotseat. Really enjoyed the job he did. Has a strong voice but let the guests do their stuff.

The last few times I've listened to the paper review there has been at least one wally of a guest - Sweeney and Declan Lynch from the Indo, Cliona Foley - or someone who doesn't make much of a contribution and it can ruin it. D

an McDonnell and Kieran Cunningham are both strong and straight talkers and really made for good listening on Sunday just gone.

If I were a boss in Newstalk I'd be throwing money at Dan McDonnell to get involved full time. The show has lost an awful lot of its journalistic integrity of late and they could do with someone who's not just a show pony.

Jayesdiem · 04-08-2020 8:46pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He was very good in the hotseat. Really enjoyed the job he did. Has a strong voice but let the guests do their stuff.

The last few times I've listened to the paper review there has been at least one wally of a guest - Sweeney and Declan Lynch from the Indo, Cliona Foley - or someone who doesn't make much of a contribution and it can ruin it. D

an McDonnell and Kieran Cunningham are both strong and straight talkers and really made for good listening on Sunday just gone.

If I were a boss in Newstalk I'd be throwing money at Dan McDonnell to get involved full time. The show has lost an awful lot of its journalistic integrity of late and they could do with someone who's not just a show pony.

Just shows how good it can be when sticking to the bread and butter and leaving the morally outraged outside of the conversation. Also, just picking the best contributors instead of this Noah’s Ark philosophy.

Ahwell · 04-08-2020 9:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If I were a boss in Newstalk I'd be throwing money at Dan McDonnell to get involved full time.

He was full-time on the football show for a couple of years, but they decided to go with Ex-Pro's like Kevin Kilbane instead. I much preferred it with Dan, Kilbane didn't add a whole lot imo.

Tell me how · 04-08-2020 10:30pm

Ahwell wrote: »

He was full-time on the football show for a couple of years, but they decided to go with Ex-Pro's like Kevin Kilbane instead. I much preferred it with Dan, Kilbane didn't add a whole lot imo.

Kevin was very good in the first year or so I felt and definitely helped them to get some key interviews with the likes of Chris Waddle and Alan Shearer. Dan is very good though, wouldn't mind to see him getting back in to a more regular fixture.

dr.kenneth noisewater · 04-08-2020 10:58pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Kevin was very good in the first year or so I felt and definitely helped them to get some key interviews with the likes of Chris Waddle and Alan Shearer. Dan is very good though, wouldn't mind to see him getting back in to a more regular fixture.

I'd imagine Dan got tired doing it everyday. I'd guess he's doing 2-5 articles a day for the Indo and hanging around Newstalk for a few hours in the evening, something had to give

Muscles Schultz · 04-08-2020 11:00pm

dr.kenneth noisewater wrote: »

I'd imagine Dan got tired doing it everyday. I'd guess he's doing 2-5 articles a day for the Indo and hanging around Newstalk for a few hours in the evening, something had to give

Interacting with the woke dweebs would get tiresome for most tbf

Ahwell · 04-08-2020 11:20pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Kevin was very good in the first year or so I felt and definitely helped them to get some key interviews with the likes of Chris Waddle and Alan Shearer. Dan is very good though, wouldn't mind to see him getting back in to a more regular fixture.

Maybe I'm being too harsh on Kilbane, but I was annoyed at the time when Dan lost the gig.

Tell me how · 05-08-2020 1:15am

Muscles Schultz wrote: »

Interacting with the woke dweebs would get tiresome for most tbf

Did somebody hurt you?

Jayesdiem · 05-08-2020 6:10am

Ahwell wrote: »

Maybe I'm being too harsh on Kilbane, but I was annoyed at the time when Dan lost the gig.

Did he “lose” it though? In my own experience (I have some) - when a company gets rid of me, I’d refuse to interact with them again. I think that is human nature?

05-08-2020 8:33am

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Did he “lose” it though? In my own experience (I have some) - when a company gets rid of me, I’d refuse to interact with them again. I think that is human nature?

He's a full-time employee of the Independent. He was just moonlighting for OTB in the evening as a freelancer. He has gotten married and was renovating a house according to LOI pod so I am sure he stepped back himself. I meant that OTB should get him on board as a full-time presenter rather than a regular contributor.

05-08-2020 8:35am

Ahwell wrote: »

He was full-time on the football show for a couple of years, but they decided to go with Ex-Pro's like Kevin Kilbane instead. I much preferred it with Dan, Kilbane didn't add a whole lot imo.

I don't think that's true at all. I'm sure he stepped back himself as doing his daily full-time job and then heading into Newstalk four nights a week must have been punishing.

05-08-2020 8:41am

On a sidenote, I'm not sure if anyone has ever listened to the Dadcast, but mother of God it is the single most cringeworthy item ever committed to the airwaves. I've two small kids and should in theory be interested but it's hard to listen to.

generalgerry · 05-08-2020 10:29pm

Have they ever addressed the issue of MTK with Andy Lee since he has come back or are they expecting us all to have forgotten about that?

Felexicon · 05-08-2020 10:40pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

On a sidenote, I'm not sure if anyone has ever listened to the Dadcast, but mother of God it is the single most cringeworthy item ever committed to the airwaves. I've two small kids and should in theory be interested but it's hard to listen to.

Really enjoyed it at first but it's gone down hill now. They kind of just talk about old episodes.

Think Dave is the best out of them.

pauldoo · 05-08-2020 10:45pm

Is Kilbane gone now? Haven't heard him in a while

Ahwell · 05-08-2020 10:47pm

pauldoo wrote: »

Is Kilbane gone now? Haven't heard him in a while

He's Living in Canada now. Was on last week for the first time in ages.

Jayesdiem · 08-08-2020 7:43pm

The goodwill couldn’t last. Enthused by a great paper review, I listened to part of the Saturday panel today and was met with the most inane (not insane, but not far off), “revert to type”, conformist garbage that I’ve been conditioned to expect whenever I switch this show on. John Duggan playing the role of chief whip this time, the dilemma at hand was the not insignificant issue of Covid causing some midlands GAA fixtures to be called off. Cue the usually expected banal comments along the lines of “shur isn’t the public health more important than any of us” and “haven’t the GAA done a great job” [of wetting it’s own bed - yes it has]. I admittedly turned this sh1te off but no individual, up to the half hour mark at least, had the stones to at least play devil’s advocate on the seemingly random cancellation of scheduled games on a whim, all towing the party line like good little boys. Why can’t these decisions be questioned? Why, at the drop of a hat, can a chain reaction of game cancellations occur off the back of singular personal reports of somebody with the sniffles feeling a little off on match day? That is literally all it takes to upend the season whether the individual’s symptoms are related to Covid or not. This is insane because once we get to flu season, even more games are likely to be called off due to false positive reports of people displaying Covid-like symptoms when their illness may not even be Covid-related! The contributors did opine that the likelihood of inter county games taking place this year seems low and on this farcical capitulation by the GAA, fully endorsed by an indoctrinated media, I can’t say I disagree. You can kiss GAA goodbye for a few years at this rate, never mind the 2020 season.

Higgins5473 · 08-08-2020 8:21pm

Ahwell wrote: »

Maybe I'm being too harsh on Kilbane, but I was annoyed at the time when Dan lost the gig.

You’re not, he’s sh*t compared to Dan in terms of insight and analysis. Kilbane and that Mayo fanfare stuff is painful.

Higgins5473 · 08-08-2020 8:27pm

Jayesdiem wrote: »

The goodwill couldn’t last. Enthused by a great paper review, I listened to part of the Saturday panel today and was met with the most inane (not insane, but not far off), “revert to type”, conformist garbage that I’ve been conditioned to expect whenever I switch this show on. John Duggan playing the role of chief whip this time, the dilemma at hand was the not insignificant issue of Covid causing some midlands GAA fixtures to be called off. Cue the usually expected banal comments along the lines of “shur isn’t the public health more important than any of us” and “haven’t the GAA done a great job” [of wetting it’s own bed - yes it has]. I admittedly turned this sh1te off but no individual, up to the half hour mark at least, had the stones to at least play devil’s advocate on the seemingly random cancellation of scheduled games on a whim, all towing the party line like good little boys. Why can’t these decisions be questioned? Why, at the drop of a hat, can a chain reaction of game cancellations occur off the back of singular personal reports of somebody with the sniffles feeling a little off on match day? That is literally all it takes to upend the season whether the individual’s symptoms are related to Covid or not. This is insane because once we get to flu season, even more games are likely to be called off due to false positive reports of people displaying Covid-like symptoms when their illness may not even be Covid-related! The contributors did opine that the likelihood of inter county games taking place this year seems low and on this farcical capitulation by the GAA, fully endorsed by an indoctrinated media, I can’t say I disagree. You can kiss GAA goodbye for a few years at this rate, never mind the 2020 season.

Jaysus lad. You’re worse than me with the aul anger issues. The worlds a f*ckef up place at the moment and it’s a lot of guess work...I don’t trust any of it but I certainly have no control over it so in terms of action getting on this sh*t site and writing that muck is fairly pointless, no?

Tell me how · 08-08-2020 8:59pm

Jayesdiem wrote: »

The goodwill couldn’t last. Enthused by a great paper review, I listened to part of the Saturday panel today and was met with the most inane (not insane, but not far off), “revert to type”, conformist garbage that I’ve been conditioned to expect whenever I switch this show on. John Duggan playing the role of chief whip this time, the dilemma at hand was the not insignificant issue of Covid causing some midlands GAA fixtures to be called off. Cue the usually expected banal comments along the lines of “shur isn’t the public health more important than any of us” and “haven’t the GAA done a great job” [of wetting it’s own bed - yes it has]. I admittedly turned this sh1te off but no individual, up to the half hour mark at least, had the stones to at least play devil’s advocate on the seemingly random cancellation of scheduled games on a whim, all towing the party line like good little boys. Why can’t these decisions be questioned? Why, at the drop of a hat, can a chain reaction of game cancellations occur off the back of singular personal reports of somebody with the sniffles feeling a little off on match day? That is literally all it takes to upend the season whether the individual’s symptoms are related to Covid or not. This is insane because once we get to flu season, even more games are likely to be called off due to false positive reports of people displaying Covid-like symptoms when their illness may not even be Covid-related! The contributors did opine that the likelihood of inter county games taking place this year seems low and on this farcical capitulation by the GAA, fully endorsed by an indoctrinated media, I can’t say I disagree. You can kiss GAA goodbye for a few years at this rate, never mind the 2020 season.

Don't think any show can give you what you seem to be looking for.

Higgins5473 · 08-08-2020 10:00pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Don't think any show can give you what you seem to be looking for.

You are equally as miserable, moany and argumentative as that fella. Maybe we should get a threesome going? That said, I am in complete agreement with you on that post.

Jayesdiem · 08-08-2020 10:50pm

Higgins5473 wrote: »

Jaysus lad. You’re worse than me with the aul anger issues. The worlds a f*ckef up place at the moment and it’s a lot of guess work...I don’t trust any of it but I certainly have no control over it so in terms of action getting on this sh*t site and writing that muck is fairly pointless, no?

Always pointless but somewhat cathartic

Jayesdiem · 08-08-2020 10:51pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Don't think any show can give you what you seem to be looking for.

What I’m looking for is not what you think. A balanced argument wouldn’t have gone amiss.

generalgerry · 08-08-2020 11:03pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Don't think any show can give you what you seem to be looking for.

Bahaaaa :pac: You could have been talking about me tbh. I find that there are few radio personalities that I can stomach these days.

I think Kilbane going to Canada has been a major boon for the show all the same. Damien Delaney just talks about the football and we have none of the emotional rollercoaster that comes with being Kevin Kilbane. And I can always listen to Dan McDonnell without being p1ssed off with him, which is something that few human beings have achieved.

cmac2009 · 16-08-2020 2:29pm

Woeful paper review contributors on today. Disappointing. Used the enjoy this segment and tuned in frequently, but the quality has been in decline for quite a while now.

redbuck · 16-08-2020 3:52pm

cmac2009 wrote: »

Woeful paper review contributors on today. Disappointing. Used the enjoy this segment and tuned in frequently, but the quality has been in decline for quite a while now.

Only heard it briefly in the car, was that Hector Ó hEochagáin on?

cmac2009 · 16-08-2020 4:22pm

redbuck wrote: »

Only heard it briefly in the car, was that Hector Ó hEochagáin on?

Unfortunately it was.

redbuck · 16-08-2020 4:42pm

cmac2009 wrote: »

Unfortunately it was.

Did they give a reason for having him on?

I'm not sure what his sports credentials are.

Tell me how · 16-08-2020 5:03pm

redbuck wrote: »

Did they give a reason for having him on?

I'm not sure what his sports credentials are.

He's a big horse racing fan and is well able to review stories and have an opinion and is a good communicator.

More than enough to be on the show.

Chalk McHugh · 16-08-2020 5:08pm

Hector was on it before and lets just say he hasn't got any better. Absolute drivel.

cmac2009 · 16-08-2020 5:20pm

Chalk McHugh wrote: »

Hector was on it before and lets just say he hasn't got any better. Absolute drivel.

I had assumed the last time was a once off, that they couldn't find anyone at short notice and he was the only one available. Worrying that he may become a regular.

Higgins5473 · 16-08-2020 5:30pm

was that Gary Murphy on about the golf? the sound quality of some the contributors on Off The Ball are shocking. Even their own presenters with whatever dodgy broadband skype connection they are using, to save a few quid? But this was at a whole new level. Sounded like he was on a Nokia 2310 with a sock over it while sitting at the bottom of the deep end of a swimming pool.

I like Joe Molloy as a presenter and think hes a cut above the rest, very good at what he does but jesus, he should curb his enthusiasm when talking about golf. Makes him look less capable or less interested in other areas of sport, which is good at.

Jayesdiem · 16-08-2020 5:59pm

The problem with having golf heads and horse heads on is the narrow number of topics they can talk about. I suspect Hector is different but for the most part, a golf head knows only golf and a horse head speaks only “horse”. If all you’ve got is a driver, everything looks like a tee’d up ball or something to that effect......

generalgerry · 17-08-2020 9:55pm

Had to turn off the show yesterday. The first story they focused on - The Champions League? United in Europa League? No, A girl who was a referee in the UK, in spite of being about a million minorities. Now, she sounds like a great girl, and I wish her only the best. But why is this story the head of the whole show? I guess the highlight was when Joe pointed out "She doesn't mention it in the story, but I'd say she had to deal with a lot of racist abuse". I mean what sort of journalism is this? They are ASSUMING that she has been racially abused so that they can get twenty minutes of virtue signalling out of it. Reminds me of the time when they had John Barnes on and they did their best to try to convince him that the racist chants that he received affected him, in spite of his protests to the contrary.

It is a sickness in the modern media, almost a competition with every presenter trying to be more virtuous than the next.

Piehead · 17-08-2020 10:09pm

generalgerry wrote: »

Had to turn off the show yesterday. The first story they focused on - The Champions League? United in Europa League? No, A girl who was a referee in the UK, in spite of being about a million minorities. Now, she sounds like a great girl, and I wish her only the best. But why is this story the head of the whole show? I guess the highlight was when Joe pointed out "She doesn't mention it in the story, but I'd say she had to deal with a lot of racist abuse". I mean what sort of journalism is this? They are ASSUMING that she has been racially abused so that they can get twenty minutes of virtue signalling out of it. Reminds me of the time when they had John Barnes on and they did their best to try to convince him that the racist chants that he received affected him, in spite of his protests to the contrary.

It is a sickness in the modern media, almost a competition with every presenter trying to be more virtuous than the next.

It’s a bad case of woke-itis I’m afraid !

18-08-2020 7:29am

generalgerry wrote: »

Had to turn off the show yesterday. The first story they focused on - The Champions League? United in Europa League? No, A girl who was a referee in the UK, in spite of being about a million minorities. Now, she sounds like a great girl, and I wish her only the best. But why is this story the head of the whole show? I guess the highlight was when Joe pointed out "She doesn't mention it in the story, but I'd say she had to deal with a lot of racist abuse". I mean what sort of journalism is this? They are ASSUMING that she has been racially abused so that they can get twenty minutes of virtue signalling out of it. Reminds me of the time when they had John Barnes on and they did their best to try to convince him that the racist chants that he received affected him, in spite of his protests to the contrary.

It is a sickness in the modern media, almost a competition with every presenter trying to be more virtuous than the next.

It's a newspaper review not the news so the most important or biggest story will not lead the broadcast like it normally would. The most interesting one will. Joe clearly thought this was the most interesting human interest story in the papers. A 26 year old female muslim wearing a headdress while refereeing men's football is a pretty unusual story.

BPKS · 18-08-2020 7:00pm

Will OTB have the balls to call out NPHET for behind closed doors sporting events from now on.

Piehead · 18-08-2020 7:12pm

BPKS wrote: »

Will OTB have the balls to call out NPHET for behind closed doors sporting events from now on.

They’ve been deballed long ago ! Cora Staunton is minding them in her purse

Jayesdiem · 18-08-2020 8:12pm

BPKS wrote: »

Will OTB have the balls to call out NPHET for behind closed doors sporting events from now on.

Aren’t OTB and their guests amongst the most zealous of lockdown advocates in the Irish media? They love all the virtue-signalling representations of this grim time such as masks, gloves, Zoom, working from home, deserted pubs and, most of all, empty stadiums. Why would they call NPHET out for something that they are fully in support of?

Aidric · 18-08-2020 8:24pm

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Aren’t OTB and their guests amongst the most zealous of lockdown advocates in the Irish media? They love all the virtue-signalling representations of this grim time such as masks, gloves, Zoom, working from home, deserted pubs and, most of all, empty stadiums. Why would they call NPHET out for something that they are fully in support of?

As far as I remember they weren't so zealous when it came to calling out the Cheltenham festival going ahead. After that they lost all credibility.

18-08-2020 8:34pm

BPKS wrote: »

Will OTB have the balls to call out NPHET for behind closed doors sporting events from now on.

Both Richie and Joe were very critical of the new sanctions in the newsround this evening and called out many of the hypocrisies in it.

Tell me how · 18-08-2020 8:35pm

Aidric wrote: »

As far as I remember they weren't so zealous when it came to calling out the Cheltenham festival going ahead. After that they lost all credibility.

What do you think they should have done, given that the had a contract in place to promote it?

18-08-2020 8:41pm

Tell me how wrote: »

What do you think they should have done, given that the had a contract in place to promote it?

I'm not sure that's the right question.

I think the Cheltenham episode proved that the show has lost most of its journalistic integrity and credibility and is now just an entertainment show, which is also fine.

generalgerry · 18-08-2020 8:52pm

Tell me how wrote: »

What do you think they should have done, given that the had a contract in place to promote it?

Ah come on. You think that it was acceptable that they suspended their moralising while the money was rolling in, and then almost as soon as it was over they had Ciara Kelly in to tell us how bad an idea it was that it went ahead.

It's a bit like the fox eating all the occupants of the henhouse and then giving out to the farmer for having not better protected it. :pac:

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

Comments