Olympic Council fella Pat Hickey Arrested in Rio

stimpson

They are wheeling out Sonia now to play the "nothing to see here" card. She says that the story is being sensationalised and says there is no proof or evidence. Someone should show her the emails.

She has dropped a lot in my estimation, but then she is an OCI board member.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rio-2016-olympics/sonia-osullivan-claims-alleged-oci-ticket-touting-story-has-been-sensationalised-34994388.html

Thoie

ahlookit wrote: »

The contract not going out to tender is a different matter though. Surprised that's not the headline story.

It's dodgy as f***, but generally not illegal. Public services are legally obliged to put pretty much everything out to tender. Private companies are not legally obliged to do so. If I run a private company and want a new "thing", I'll probably ring around a few places and ask how much they charge. But I don't have to - there's nothing to stop me ringing my cousin and just accepting whatever he charges, no matter how much it costs. I probably won't last very long in business, but I could do it. It only becomes illegal if myself and my cousin come up with some kind of complicated scheme to dodge tax (or maybe if the "thing" I want is for him to murder someone).

If there are shareholders/other directors involved, they could kick me out for not managing the business properly, but I won't go to jail for it. Big companies generally use a tendering process to show that they're managing the company properly, not because it would be illegal not to. In those cases you don't necessarily accept the lowest quote - the tender process is designed to determine what's best for the business rather than what's cheapest (though cost obviously plays a big part).

If I'm looking for IT support, and companyA says they'll charge a fiver a month, and for that some bloke will turn up whenever he feels like it once or twice a year and glance at the office, I'll probably go with companyB who charge €1,000 a month, but provide a 24/7 help desk, free call outs, and will send someone to your office within 3 hours of being called. Or I might decide that companyC would suit me instead - they charge €500 a month, the phones are only manned 9-5 Monday to Friday, and they have a "next business day" call out service at €30 a pop.

Muff Richardson

stimpson wrote: »

They are wheeling out Sonia now to play the "nothing to see here" card. She says that the story is being sensationalised and says there is no proof or evidence. Someone should show her the emails.

She has dropped a lot in my estimation, but then she is an OCI board member.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rio-2016-olympics/sonia-osullivan-claims-alleged-oci-ticket-touting-story-has-been-sensationalised-34994388.html

indeed...and another

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/sonia-o-sullivan-full-rio-ticketing-tale-will-only-be-told-in-time-1.2767070?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fsport%2Fother-sports%2Fsonia-o-sullivan-full-rio-ticketing-tale-will-only-be-told-in-time-1.2767070

ahlookit

Joe_ Public wrote: »

They will no doubt be having a look back at 2012 as well. Hickey is on record as saying they conducted a thorough "global search" for a ticket partner in 2010 before conveniently settling on THG which already had a relationship with the FAI as regards corporate packages in Lansdowne. Let's wait and see just how thorough and how global that search actually was.

Article from Emmet Malone the other day about THG/Pro 10 and John Delaney.

As he (and you) states, it would be strange if Delaney wasnt involved in selecting THG given he already dealt with them in the FAI. Also, given the 3 guys running Pro10 were football men, it would be strange if Delaney didnt know them.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/fai-links-with-thg-and-pro10-of-natural-interest-1.2765047

He also says THG wanted access to FAI tickets for high profile matches:

THG is believed to have paid a significant sum to the association for the entitlement and the company also appears to have hoped to also gain access to some of the association’s allocation of tickets for major football games abroad, primarily European Championships or World Cups and Champions League finals.

CMOTDibbler

stimpson wrote: »

They are wheeling out Sonia now to play the "nothing to see here" card. She says that the story is being sensationalised and says there is no proof or evidence. Someone should show her the emails.

She has dropped a lot in my estimation, but then she is an OCI board member.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rio-2016-olympics/sonia-osullivan-claims-alleged-oci-ticket-touting-story-has-been-sensationalised-34994388.html

She said there's no proof or evidence to tell the full story.

The emails we've seen make no mention of money. The only thing that's suspicious is the involvement of Marcus Evans and his statement that "we could put them on the portal" which he should not have the ability to do, not being an official ATR.

If they were giving away the tickets, there's nothing wrong with that or even selling them at face value. Without an indication of price, there's no evidence in those emails of ticket gouging.

I'm just talking about the emails. There is clearly some sort of evidence that Mallon was gouging.

Muff Richardson

Thoie wrote: »

It's dodgy as f***, but generally not illegal. Public services are legally obliged to put pretty much everything out to tender. Private companies are not legally obliged to do so. If I run a private company and want a new "thing", I'll probably ring around a few places and ask how much they charge.

But are the OCI not the ones who awarded the contract and are they not in receipt of state funding paid for by the tax payer which would not entitle them to private held company status?

Joe_ Public

In fairness there's nothing to suggest Sonia has been "wheeled out" to say anything. I doubt she's the type who would be railroaded into saying anything. For my money, she's merely showing how toothless the athletes position is on the OCI board. As she says herself, she's there for the athletes, she's totally out of the loop on everything else in my opinion. Apart from doling out a bit of advice to any athlete who needs it, seems to me her OCI position is pretty much a token one.

stimpson

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

She said there's no proof or evidence to tell the full story.

The emails we've seen make no mention of money. The only thing that's suspicious is the involvement of Marcus Evans and his statement that "we could put them on the portal" which he should not have the ability to do, not being an official ATR.

If they were giving away the tickets, there's nothing wrong with that or even selling them at face value. Without an indication of price, there's no evidence in those emails of ticket gouging.

I'm just talking about the emails. There is clearly some sort of evidence that Mallon was gouging.

There is something wrong with that. If they weren't being sold by Pro10 when they should have been returned to Rio2016. Hickey had no right to offer them to THG, money trail notwithstanding.

Edit: Just for clarity...

From https://www.rio2016.com/sites/default/files/users/rio2016_files/guia_legal_de_ingressos_ingles.pdf

Do not forget that, since 2003,
the Supporter Statute has been
in force. The law establishes
that is illegal to divert or
facilitate the distribution of
tickets for sale at a price higher
than their face value

The emails show Hickey facilitating the diversion of tickets. THG have been shown to be reselling over face value. Ergo Hickey appears to have broken the law.

Joe_ Public

ahlookit wrote: »

Article from Emmet Malone the other day about THG/Pro 10 and John Delaney.

As he (and you) states, it would be strange if Delaney wasnt involved in selecting THG given he already dealt with them in the FAI. Also, given the 3 guys running Pro10 were football men, it would be strange if Delaney didnt know them.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/fai-links-with-thg-and-pro10-of-natural-interest-1.2765047

He also says THG wanted access to FAI tickets for high profile matches:

Yes and there appears to be clear professional links between at least one of those Pro 10 directors and Marcus Evans outside of tickets so there's a fairly complex web of associations to be examined here. Delaney may be entirely innocent of any wrong-doing, but can't see any way he's going to get out of this without facing serious questions which is why I cautiously welcome the announcement of the inquiry.

Joe_ Public

Muff Richardson wrote: »

But are the OCI not the ones who awarded the contract and are they not in receipt of state funding paid for by the tax payer which would not entitle them to private held company status?

I think you are right. I'm no expert in company law, but I'd be surprised if significant gov funding (open to correction but I think the OCI is somewhere in the region of 70% state funded) didn't bring with it certain responsibilities. I'm certain the OCI was required to put that process out to tender or Hickey would never have made such a big play of it back in 2010.

CMOTDibbler

stimpson wrote: »

There is something wrong with that. If they weren't being sold by Pro10 when they should have been returned to Rio2016. Hickey had no right to offer them to THG, money trail notwithstanding.

Nothing in those emails defines the class of tickets that they were discussing as being public sale ones. Hickey would have had NOC tickets which are a selection of event tickets for every Olympic event including opening and closing ceremonies. These are usually held for sponsors etc. afaik, they can be given away freely. He actually mentions the NOC allocation in the last email. I don't know how many of these they get, but at Beijing it was close to a thousand.

I'm just going on what's in those emails. As I said, there is other evidence that we haven't seen, but has been outlined, of ticket gouging through ridiculously set up 'packages'.

ohnonotgmail

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Nothing in those emails defines the class of tickets that they were discussing as being public sale ones. Hickey would have had NOC tickets which are a selection of event tickets for every Olympic event including opening and closing ceremonies. These are usually held for sponsors etc. afaik, they can be given away freely. He actually mentions the NOC allocation in the last email. I don't know how many of these they get, but at Beijing it was close to a thousand.

I'm just going on what's in those emails. As I said, there is other evidence that we haven't seen, but has been outlined, of ticket gouging through ridiculously set up 'packages'.

Do you think he gave them to Pro10/THG with the intention that they would give them away for free?

The Bishop Basher

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Delaney may be entirely innocent of any wrong-doing, but can't see any way he's going to get out of this without facing serious questions which is why I cautiously welcome the announcement of the inquiry.

Delaney has nothing to fear once he doesn't leave Ireland. He can just ignore this "enquiry"
and as we've already established, we don't bother too much with justice when it comes to the bigger people here. He has nothing to fear at all which is what makes the whole affair so interesting.

Pat is only in the doo doo because he's happens to be in a country that gives a ****.

I'll bet Delaney's giving serious thought to his next holiday destination though..

CMOTDibbler

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Do you think he gave them to Pro10/THG with the intention that they would give them away for free?

I don't think anything.

I'm just saying that what people are calling evidence of ticket gouging, on the face of it (based on those emails) isn't evidence of any such thing.

There's an implied link between THG and Pro10 from the juxtaposition of their name and "we can put them on the portal".

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but that in itself could be explained by Pro10 saying that they engaged THG in a consultancy capacity.

stimpson

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

. These are usually held for sponsors etc. afaik, they can be given away freely.

No they can't. They are specifically for sponsors and families of athletes. The regulations are clear and backed by Brazilian law. Unused tickets must be returned to Rio2016 for redisbursement unless permission is given by Rio2016 to resell them. Rio2016 have already said that no such permission has been sought or given to OCI.

Joe_ Public

Swanner wrote: »

Delaney has nothing to fear once he doesn't leave Ireland. He can just ignore this "enquiry"
and as we've already established, we don't bother too much with justice when it comes to the bigger people here. He has nothing to fear at all which is what makes the whole affair so interesting.

Pat is only in the doo doo because he's happens to be in a country that gives a ****.

I'll bet Delaney's giving serious thought to his next holiday destination though..

Perhaps. But I'd be a bit concerned if I was in his shoes that there's an associate in a jail cell in Brazil who could easily turn into a loose canon depending on how things turn out for him. Complacency seems to have been a major factor in getting them into this mess in the first place. He definitley has no cause for it now at the minimum in my opinion.

stimpson

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but that in itself could be explained by Pro10 saying that they engaged THG in a consultancy capacity.

This is also illegal. The only company who can sell tickets are the ATR. THG have no right to be involved in any capacity.

Thoie

Muff Richardson wrote: »

But are the OCI not the ones who awarded the contract and are they not in receipt of state funding paid for by the tax payer which would not entitle them to private held company status?

Unfortunately receipt of state funding doesn't mean that you have to follow public service tendering rules - hence all the messes we're seeing with charities etc. Ideally there'd be some law any body receiving state funding would have to do x,y and z (tendering, detailed accounts including breakdown of expenses, guidelines to allowable expenses), but there isn't.

Birdie Num Num

Swanner wrote: »

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Delaney may be entirely innocent of any wrong-doing, but can't see any way he's going to get out of this without facing serious questions which is why I cautiously welcome the announcement of the inquiry.

Delaney has nothing to fear once he doesn't leave Ireland. He can just ignore this "enquiry"
and as we've already established, we don't bother too much with justice when it comes to the bigger people here. He has nothing to fear at all which is what makes the whole affair so interesting.

Pat is only in the doo doo because he's happens to be in a country that gives a ****.

I'll bet Delaney's giving serious thought to his next holiday destination though..

As soon as this story broke and Pro10 were mentioned it had soccer contacts written all over it. I'd say he has plenty to fear and he has plenty of questions to answer. There'll also be plenty of others who are most likely innocent dragged into this.

Joe_ Public

Thoie wrote: »

Unfortunately receipt of state funding doesn't mean that you have to follow public service tendering rules - hence all the messes we're seeing with charities etc. Ideally there'd be some law any body receiving state funding would have to do x,y and z (tendering, detailed accounts including breakdown of expenses, guidelines to allowable expenses), but there isn't.

Thanks for this clarification. I was and remain under the impression the ATR process had to be put out to tender, perhaps an IOC rule, but perhaps it's not the case. This bit was in the Times last week:


One executive with an ATR involved in the Rio Olympics, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the process typically takes two-three years to complete. An interested company must submit a formal application that proves its capacity to carry out the role.
This application goes to a review committee, described as reporting to both the IOC and the local organising committee.
This committee decides which companies will be approved as ATRs.
Crucially, each ATR applicant must be put forward by a national Olympic committee, according to the executive interviewed.
Some committees tender for companies to apply. Others do not.

CMOTDibbler

stimpson wrote: »

No they can't. They are specifically for sponsors and families of athletes. The regulations are clear and backed by Brazilian law. Unused tickets must be returned to Rio2016 for redisbursement unless permission is given by Rio2016 to resell them. Rio2016 have already said that no such permission has been sought or given to OCI.

You may be right because it's very hard to find definitive information on the different classes of ticket. For example, as I understand it family and friends tickets are a class apart from NOC and public tickets. Each athlete is entitled to two of these since London and before that it was one.

The NOC ticket allocation is for a much broader range of events and the rules relating to them seem to be vague. For example at London there was a bit of a furore about Libya getting a few hundred of these and the possbility of Qadaffi turning up. These tickets are specifically marked 'NOC Ireland' or 'NOC Germany' as opposed to the public ones which are marked 'Ireland EU/EEA'.

According to ticket rules, Official ATRs are not allowed sell their tickets outside their designated territory. But clearly this rule hasn't been adhered to since we have athlete's family members saying they got tickets from the Norwegian ATR.

CMOTDibbler

stimpson wrote: »

This is also illegal. The only company who can sell tickets are the ATR. THG have no right to be involved in any capacity.

I agree, but I'm taking a very narrow view based on those emails. In particular the meaning of the word 'we' in that context.

I don't think there's anything in the rules for an ATR to engage a consultant to assist in setting up and maintaining their distribution channel. For example, a web hosting or design company to create and host their portal.

ahlookit

Swanner wrote: »

I'll bet Delaney's giving serious thought to his next holiday destination though..

Any experts on Brazilian law here, especially with respect to extradition agreements?

These are countries John *should* be visiting in the next two years:

Wales
Austria
Serbia
Republic of Ireland
Moldova
Georgia

and then hopefully Russia.

It would be a terrible embarrassment if the head of the FAI couldnt attend matches. Who'd lead the singsongs and get the rounds in?

Thoie

ahlookit wrote: »

It would be a terrible embarrassment if the head of the FAI couldnt attend matches. Who'd lead the singsongs and get the rounds in?

I volunteer as tribute! (I can claim the rounds back on expenses which I can log from my first class airplane suite, right?)

ahlookit

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I agree, but I'm taking a very narrow view based on those emails. In particular the meaning of the word 'we' in that context.

I don't think there's anything in the rules for an ATR to engage a consultant to assist in setting up and maintaining their distribution channel. For example, a web hosting or design company to create and host their portal.

Yep, the emails confirm contact between OCI and THG when there should be none, and confirm that Pat, despite earlier indications, did handle tickets. The emails released thus far don't mention money.

Without the evidence of financial transactions you can't prove touting or gouging took place. The authorities over there may evidence and chosen not to release it yet, or they may be working to get it as we speak.

CMOTDibbler

ahlookit wrote: »

Yep, the emails confirm contact between OCI and THG when there should be none, and confirm that Pat, despite earlier indications, did handle tickets. The emails released thus far don't mention money.

Without the evidence of financial transactions you can't prove touting or gouging took place. The authorities over there may evidence and chosen not to release it yet, or they may be working to get it as we speak.

+1

They clearly have evidence from witnesses to the gouging. Presumably if they have something to tie Hickey directly to that, they'd be keeping their powder dry until they get to the point of charging him in court.

stimpson

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I agree, but I'm taking a very narrow view based on those emails. In particular the meaning of the word 'we' in that context.

I don't think there's anything in the rules for an ATR to engage a consultant to assist in setting up and maintaining their distribution channel. For example, a web hosting or design company to create and host their portal.

There are rules about who can actually distribute them though.

From https://ingressos.rio2016.com/terms#tla

Authorized Ticket Sources’ means all official sources authorized by Rio 2016 to sell or otherwise distribute Tickets, including the Rio 2016 Ticketing Website, Ticket box offices or ticket centres, Authorised Ticket Reseller websites or offices, official Rio 2016 partners, or any other organisation or entity expressly authorised by Rio 2016 to sell or otherwise distribute Tickets for the Games. The complete list of Rio 2016 Authorized Ticket Sources can be found at rio2016.com.

9.1 Tickets may not be purchased or obtained from or through any source other than directly from an Authorized Ticket Source. Tickets purchased or obtained from or through sources other than directly from Authorized Ticket Sources, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, may be declared void, and may be seized or cancelled. In such a case, the Ticket Holder will be denied entry to the Session and the Purchaser will not be eligible for a refund.

THG were not an authorised ticket source and as such had no business distributing tickets of any sort. This includes NOC tickets.

ahlookit

Thoie wrote: »

I volunteer as tribute! (I can claim the rounds back on expenses which I can log from my first class airplane suite, right?)

As an aside, I got my FAI season ticket yesterday. Thinking of framing the accompanying letter from John. It may be the last one I get from him.

CUCINA

When are we going to get a look at Hickey's new hairstyle?

CMOTDibbler

stimpson wrote: »

There are rules about who can actually distribute them though.

THG were not an authorised ticket source and as such had no business distributing tickets of any sort. This includes NOC tickets.

I know that. I've already said that there's evidence that THG (or an employee of theirs, or both) were selling tickets.

I'm just looking at the emails that were published and looking at them in isolation.

There are references to Pro10, 'The Portal' and 'we'.

The only mention of sale, refers to sale on or through 'the portal'. If that's a reference to Pro10's portal, and unless I've missed something, there should be nothing wrong with that. But I'm open to correction.

The use of the word 'we' is the closest thing to tying THG to the unauthorised sale of tickets. If Marcus Evans is quizzed about this (I doubt he'll go next or near Brazil btw), he could say that he was providing assistance to Pro10 as an experienced ATR, charging them for the advice and used the word 'we' in that context.

The other stuff is what could put the lie to that, but we haven't seen enough of it yet to be 100% certain. The police may well be 100% certain and a court case should make that clear.

irishgeo

This ATR certification process Pro10 went through seems to very lazy. You think it would contain the question.

Does the company have the capacity to distribute tickets on the ground in rio.

Pro10 didn't as the had to get the mallon guy in from thg. Although that probably just a excuse rolled in the first week in the hope of getting him off.

stimpson

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I know that. I've already said that there's evidence that THG (or an employee of theirs, or both) were selling tickets.

I'm just looking at the emails that were published and looking at them in isolation.

There are references to Pro10, 'The Portal' and 'we'.

The only mention of sale, refers to sale on or through 'the portal'. If that's a reference to Pro10's portal, and unless I've missed something, there should be nothing wrong with that. But I'm open to correction.

The use of the word 'we' is the closest thing to tying THG to the unauthorised sale of tickets. If Marcus Evans is quizzed about this (I doubt he'll go next or near Brazil btw), he could say that he was providing assistance to Pro10 as an experienced ATR, charging them for the advice and used the word 'we' in that context.

The other stuff is what could put the lie to that, but we haven't seen enough of it yet to be 100% certain. The police may well be 100% certain and a court case should make that clear.

You are hanging your argument on ticket sales. The rules don't talk about sale - they talk about distribution.

The only people that should be involved in distributing the tickets are OCI and Pro10. Hickey has no right to distribute any tickets whatsoever to THG.

I'm sure there is a money trail, but there doesn't need to be to prove that Hickey has broken the law.

ahlookit

stimpson wrote: »

You are hanging your argument on ticket sales. The rules don't talk about sale - they talk about distribution.

The only people that should be involved in distributing the tickets are OCI and Pro10. Hickey has no right to distribute any tickets whatsoever to THG.

I'm sure there is a money trail, but there doesn't need to be to prove that Hickey has broken the law.

How likely are they to prosecute handing over tickets for free? Because that will presumably be the defence if the authorities can't establish a money trail.

Is there likely to be another press conference tonight after the two remaining OCI members talk to the police today? They may release some more information if one takes place. Ewan McKenna & Sinead O'Carroll seem to have gone a bit quiet on twitter....probably taking a breather after the last few weeks.

stimpson

ahlookit wrote: »

How likely are they to prosecute handing over tickets for free? Because that will presumably be the defence if the authorities can't establish a money trail.

My point is that it doesn't matter. Assuming the laws that Brazil passed (ironically at the behest of the IOC )mirror the ticket sales rules, it doesn't matter if it was done for payment or not. Hence the use of "distribute" over "sell"

FrancieBrady

Joe Duffy about to play an interview with Brazilian police chief on Liveline. 'So to speak'.

CMOTDibbler

stimpson wrote: »

You are hanging your argument on ticket sales. The rules don't talk about sale - they talk about distribution.

They refer to 'sale and distribution'. Perhaps I should have been more specific, but they are interchangeable in the rules.

stimpson wrote: »

The only people that should be involved in distributing the tickets are OCI and Pro10. Hickey has no right to distribute any tickets whatsoever to THG.

Do you actually mean OCI there? If so, I'm not sure how you're somehow distinguishing between Hickey and the OCI.

From what I understand about NOC tickets, they can be distributed or sold by the NOC to sponsors, supporters or athlete's families.

anothernight

I feel like this thread is awakening some sort of veeery specific dyslexia.

ahlookit

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Joe Duffy about to play an interview with Brazilian police chief on Liveline. 'So to speak'.

Duffy is a pain in the a$$. Some inane questions. Also language barrier and bad phone line didnt help.

Example #1:

Duffy - "Touting isnt a crime in Ireland"
Falcao - "It is in Brazil"


Falcao said the investigation could take between 1-3 months. He's spoken to Interpol looking for help. Also wants to talk to Shane Ross to trade information.
Duffy also asked about house arrest. Falcao said he'd have no objections, but he's not the judge, so its not his decision.

One interesting point is that Falcao said he has been working on THG since the world cup. They expected them to show up again, but had no suspicion of OCI until they found 1000 tickets belonging to OCI

foggy_lad

According to Joe Duffy on Liveline Pat Hickey had 2 valid Irish Passports when arrested! the police took one when they arrested him and later were given a different one.

Duffy almost crying like a mother at the gallows steps to the Brazilian policeman, real comedy gold in favour of the poor 71year old man with a bad heart. Ah here lads would ye not let him come home to Ireland if he promises to go back for the court case and for any sentencing hearing?

FrancieBrady

ahlookit wrote: »

Duffy is a pain in the a$$. Some inane questions. Also language barrier and bad phone line didnt help.

Example #1:

Duffy - "Touting isnt a crime in Ireland"
Falcao - "It is in Brazil"


Falcao said the investigation could take between 1-3 months. He's spoken to Interpol looking for help. Also wants to talk to Shane Ross to trade information.
Duffy also asked about house arrest. Falcao said he'd have no objections, but he's not the judge, so its not his decision.

One interesting point is that Falcao said he has been working on THG since the world cup. They expected them to show up again, but had no suspicion of OCI until they found 1000 tickets belonging to OCI

I don't think I have ever heard anything quite like that interview before.
Duffy thought he could put a foreign police chief on trial. He hectored and tried to bully him into giving the answer he wanted to hear and wouldn't let somebody who seemed to have good enough english, speak.
Quite amazing to be honest, not the better of it yet.

realdanbreen

The brazilians have done more in one month to throw a light on what goes on here than our own shower of politicians/guards have done in 30 years.

ahlookit

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think I have ever heard anything quite like that interview before.
Duffy thought he could put a foreign police chief on trial. He hectored and tried to bully him into giving the answer he wanted to hear and wouldn't let somebody who seemed to have good enough english, speak.
Quite amazing to be honest, not the better of it yet.

"But the fillum....THE FILLUM.... Why?"

It was clearly the policeman's fault that Pat answered the door in the nip :rolleyes:


What was the line of questioning about a second passport about? Joe seemed to be suggesting it was strange, but Falcao wasn't bothered in the slightest by it. Joe obviously hasn't been reading this thread, where this was all covered the other day...

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think I have ever heard anything quite like that interview before.
Duffy thought he could put a foreign police chief on trial. He hectored and tried to bully him into giving the answer he wanted to hear and wouldn't let somebody who seemed to have good enough english, speak.
Quite amazing to be honest, not the better of it yet.

Joe Duffy was like the typical English tourist (archetype) when talking to a 'foreigner'. Say it slowly and as loud as you can. Keep talking even when the 'victim' is replying to you. In your own language.

Joe_ Public

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think I have ever heard anything quite like that interview before.
Duffy thought he could put a foreign police chief on trial. He hectored and tried to bully him into giving the answer he wanted to hear and wouldn't let somebody who seemed to have good enough english, speak.
Quite amazing to be honest, not the better of it yet.

Missed that interview. Couldn't stomach any more of Duffy after that nauseating love in with his pal Brendan. What was RTE thinking of giving such an important interview to the resident station buffoon?

ohnonotgmail

foggy_lad wrote: »

According to Joe Duffy on Liveline Pat Hickey had 2 valid Irish Passports when arrested! the police took one when they arrested him and later were given a different one.

Duffy almost crying like a mother at the gallows steps to the Brazilian policeman, real comedy gold in favour of the poor 71year old man with a bad heart. Ah here lads would ye not let him come home to Ireland if he promises to go back for the court case and for any sentencing hearing?

Nothing particularly odd about that for somebody who does a lot of travelling.

CMOTDibbler

stimpson wrote: »

My point is that it doesn't matter. Assuming the laws that Brazil passed (ironically at the behest of the IOC )mirror the ticket sales rules, it doesn't matter if it was done for payment or not. Hence the use of "distribute" over "sell"

What do you think NOC tickets are given to the NOCs for then?

CMOTDibbler

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Missed that interview. Couldn't stomach any more of Duffy after that nauseating love in with his pal Brendan. What was RTE thinking of giving such an important interview to the resident station buffoon?

Falcao apparently wanted to get in contact with the Irish Government and Shane Ross. He thought that talking to the meeja would help. First thing on the RTE website he saw was "Talk to Joe"

Joe, quite reasonably I thought, asked him had he been in touch with the embassy. Falcao said he hadn't. That was a bit strange tbh.

FrancieBrady

ahlookit wrote: »

"But the fillum....THE FILLUM.... Why?"

It was clearly the policeman's fault that Pat answered the door in the nip :rolleyes:


What was the line of questioning about a second passport about? Joe seemed to be suggesting it was strange, but Falcao wasn't bothered in the slightest by it. Joe obviously hasn't been reading this thread, where this was all covered the other day...

When he started to tell him what he should have done to get rid of the pesky media (wave his gun about) I have to say I lost it.
Imagine if a head shop owner had 'waved a gun' at Joe Deh Media when he came calling and told him to mind his own business? That's how it's done in Ireland isn't it Joe?

ohnonotgmail

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

What do you think NOC tickets are given to the NOCs for then?

well not presumably to be given to a non-authorised seller to be sold above face value.

daisybelle2008

ahlookit wrote: »

How likely are they to prosecute handing over tickets for free? Because that will presumably be the defence if the authorities can't establish a money trail.

Is there likely to be another press conference tonight after the two remaining OCI members talk to the police today? They may release some more information if one takes place.

Hickey has few options that don't make him look shady and ridiculous. Giving tickets for free for 'personal use' (as opposed to distribution) maybe?

OCI press conference will just trot out the line nothing proven etc. Can't speak about specifics etc.

stimpson wrote: »

My point is that it doesn't matter. Assuming the laws that Brazil passed (ironically at the behest of the IOC )mirror the ticket sales rules, it doesn't matter if it was done for payment or not. Hence the use of "distribute" over "sell"

I hope so.