Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Under-age training misconduct
Comments
-
-
So you agree that Kimmage shouldn't have wrote the article?
Kimmage is neither here nor there, the club had wrongly put the issue in the public domain already.
The one thing I am certain of is that the GAA were right to ban the club. The club needs to get its act together, apologise to the kids and their parents for the breach of confidentiality and ban the officials involved in the public meeting. Then, and only then, they need to have a confidential investigation into the claims.
Do you agree with that?0 -
Kimmage is neither here nor there, the club had wrongly put the issue in the public domain already.
The one thing I am certain of is that the GAA were right to ban the club. The club needs to get its act together, apologise to the kids and their parents for the breach of confidentiality and ban the officials involved in the public meeting. Then, and only then, they need to have a confidential investigation into the claims.
Do you agree with that?
I do indeed and have never suggested otherwise.0 -
Kimmage is neither here nor there, the club had wrongly put the issue in the public domain already.
The one thing I am certain of is that the GAA were right to ban the club. The club needs to get its act together, apologise to the kids and their parents for the breach of confidentiality and ban the officials involved in the public meeting. Then, and only then, they need to have a confidential investigation into the claims.
Do you agree with that?
This entire thread is a discussion of Kimmages article so to say its neither here nor there is putting your head in the sand in the same manner as the club officials.
You either look at whole incident or cherry pick the parts to suit your own narrative which Kimmage has done.
The club put the issue in the public domain - well truth be told it would have been in the public domain anyway, locally. The club then widened to reach of people.
But now instead of it being localised on a Co. Galway town and to a lesser extent Galway GAA people it been broadbast to a national audience of hundreds of thousands of readers of the paper.0 -
BrianBoru00 wrote:Another point - an U10 or U11 are not allowed to play U14 - as per GAA rule book. The secretary who remained in the dug out was I understand telling the children this - they were given the jersey on that occasion but they would not be allowed to again as per official rules (another rule brought in to improve child welfare). . . Now how he said it, what tone or what language used will be known by him and the two children. Perhaps the tone was aggressive -We don't know for sure.
A lot of inaccuracies in this part of your post. As high profile as the father is I'm not sure it changes the bones of the story.0 -
BrianBoru00 wrote: »This entire thread is a discussion of Kimmages article so to say its neither here nor there is putting your head in the sand in the same manner as the club officials.
You either look at whole incident or cherry pick the parts to suit your own narrative which Kimmage has done.
The club put the issue in the public domain - well truth be told it would have been in the public domain anyway, locally. The club then widened to reach of people.
But now instead of it being localised on a Co. Galway town and to a lesser extent Galway GAA people it been broadbast to a national audience of hundreds of thousands of readers of the paper.
So you want the blame the messenger? Typical. Kimmage would have no article if the club had kept quiet.
Anyone have an update on whether they are going to get unbanned?0 -
Happyilylost wrote: »A lot of inaccuracies in this part of your post. As high profile as the father is I'm not sure it changes the bones of the story.
Can you point out any inaccuracy?
Your obviously close to the family in question as your repeating a point made in the article that the person in the dressing room had no business being there - thats not accurate - he was/is the juvenile secretary so has a large responsiblity for team lists and eligibility - yet another flaw in the article. The fact that he is not a selector does not mean he has no business being ther.So you want the blame the messenger? Typical. Kimmage would have no article if the club had kept quiet.
Anyone have an update on whether they are going to get unbanned?
There you go again cherry picking points. I'm not "Blaming the messenger" for the incidents.
I'm "blaming the messenger" for writing a heavily biased piece implying this is the way things are "done" within the GAA .0 -
BrianBoru00 wrote: »Can you point out any inaccuracy?
Your obviously close to the family in question as your repeating a point made in the article that the person in the dressing room had no business being there - thats not accurate - he was/is the juvenile secretary so has a large responsiblity for team lists and eligibility - yet another flaw in the article. The fact that he is not a selector does not mean he has no business being ther.
There you go again cherry picking points. I'm not "Blaming the messenger" for the incidents.
I'm "blaming the messenger" for writing a heavily biased piece implying this is the way things are "done" within the GAA .
Its obviously the way things are done within Athenry GAA.0 -
BrianBoru00 wrote: »Again, Nowhere did I contradict this. And I stated in my first post on the matter that the club has handled it atrociously - in fact its a text book example of what not to do.
My problem is the tone and the sensationalism and lack of balance. "The story every GAA parent should read" implying this to be a widespread issue in GAA clubs.
It's not and there has been huge work put in to identify new roles for child protection officers and liaison officers etc. to eradicate and prevent problems.
Anyone who takes the time to read it all and understand what has happened would see Athenry as a rogue club in this context with National and county levels taking action when they were not happy with the clubs own handling of the situation.
I'm horrified at the actions of the club but I've also experience of situations with parents who are basically sh*t stirrers. In any case I've dealt with I would ascertained all the facts from each partys point of view -some of which will be explicitly off the record (there will be "well known" but "unproven" facts about people etc). There is never a 100% right or 100% wrong.
As a coach I would be particularly welcoming to children from families new to the area or who wouldn't have an experience with the GAA - Its important to take time with these people to involve them whereas I'd feel less of a need with children of former team mates for example as they're going to keep coming anyway.
There's one coach named and comes across badly.
True language like that should not be used liberally with young children. But that's one negative. There are an awful lot of positives to that coach as well - as quoted in the article "the kids are mad about.." the coach.
Another point - an U10 or U11 are not allowed to play U14 - as per GAA rule book. The secretary who remained in the dug out was I understand telling the children this - they were given the jersey on that occasion but they would not be allowed to again as per official rules (another rule brought in to improve child welfare). . . Now how he said it, what tone or what language used will be known by him and the two children. Perhaps the tone was aggressive -We don't know for sure.
There's quite a bit of history as I understand it but the fact is that sensationalist headlines catches the eye and in the advertisements for the paper - many times more people will have heard the headline "The GAA story every parent must read" than will read the article as written. And particularly if they are not a "GAA family" it might dissuade them from joining a club thinking that this carry on is typical - It's not
U-11 are allowed to play U-14. Boys can play 3 years above their own age. I.e. U-15 can play minor U-18.0 -
BrianBoru00 wrote: »Again, Nowhere did I contradict this. And I stated in my first post on the matter that the club has handled it atrociously - in fact its a text book example of what not to do.
My problem is the tone and the sensationalism and lack of balance. "The story every GAA parent should read" implying this to be a widespread issue in GAA clubs.
It's not and there has been huge work put in to identify new roles for child protection officers and liaison officers etc. to eradicate and prevent problems.
Anyone who takes the time to read it all and understand what has happened would see Athenry as a rogue club in this context with National and county levels taking action when they were not happy with the clubs own handling of the situation.
I'm horrified at the actions of the club but I've also experience of situations with parents who are basically sh*t stirrers. In any case I've dealt with I would ascertained all the facts from each partys point of view -some of which will be explicitly off the record (there will be "well known" but "unproven" facts about people etc). There is never a 100% right or 100% wrong.
As a coach I would be particularly welcoming to children from families new to the area or who wouldn't have an experience with the GAA - Its important to take time with these people to involve them whereas I'd feel less of a need with children of former team mates for example as they're going to keep coming anyway.
There's one coach named and comes across badly.
True language like that should not be used liberally with young children. But that's one negative. There are an awful lot of positives to that coach as well - as quoted in the article "the kids are mad about.." the coach.
Another point - an U10 or U11 are not allowed to play U14 - as per GAA rule book. The secretary who remained in the dug out was I understand telling the children this - they were given the jersey on that occasion but they would not be allowed to again as per official rules (another rule brought in to improve child welfare). . . Now how he said it, what tone or what language used will be known by him and the two children. Perhaps the tone was aggressive -We don't know for sure.
There's quite a bit of history as I understand it but the fact is that sensationalist headlines catches the eye and in the advertisements for the paper - many times more people will have heard the headline "The GAA story every parent must read" than will read the article as written. And particularly if they are not a "GAA family" it might dissuade them from joining a club thinking that this carry on is typical - It's not
U-11 are allowed to play U-14. Boys can play 3 years above their own age. I.e. U-15 can play minor U-18.0 -
Advertisement
-
BrianBoru00 wrote:Can you point out any inaccuracy?BrianBoru00 wrote:Your obviously close to the family in question as your repeating a point made in the article that the person in the dressing room had no business being there - thats not accurate - he was/is the juvenile secretary so has a large responsiblity for team lists and eligibility - yet another flaw in the article. The fact that he is not a selector does not mean he has no business being ther.
There was no issue with them playing U14. Only person upset by this was Paddy Kelly. He made his feelings known to John Cloonan. I still don't think John Cloonan should of spoken to them. Least he could of done was spoken to the U14 manager. But he knew he would get no change there so he spoke directly to the lads. It had nothing to do with player welfare or their age. He was supporting Paddy Kelly. Up to this point this is just adults being thick headed. Once John Cloonan spoke to these lads on his own in a dressing room (not a dugout) he basically gave the parent involved a winning lotto ticket and left it up to him if he decided if he wanted to cash it. When you dealing with a difficult parent you don't give him ammunition to attack you. The parent could of went to any number of organisations when his child was "detained" by a adult and gotten traction. Even at this stage it could easily of been dealt with. My issue starts from here and the way it was handled. No one can say it was handled well. So it ended up in the national media. Paddy Kelly, John Cloonan and the parents involved play for me a small role in this. On one small note again it's not in the article so I can't verify it. The U12 coach was asked by a number of people including those that supported him at the ill advised meeting to consider taking over an older age group as it was felt his "manner" was suited to an older group of kids. He knew a few of the kids involved so he stayed where he was. The issue with him began before these two kids.0 -
Happyilylost wrote: »There was no issue with them playing U14. Only person upset by this was Paddy Kelly. He made his feelings known to John Cloonan. I still don't think John Cloonan should of spoken to them. Least he could of done was spoken to the U14 manager. But he knew he would get no change there so he spoke directly to the lads. It had nothing to do with player welfare or their age. He was supporting Paddy Kelly. Up to this point this is just adults being thick headed. Once John Cloonan spoke to these lads on his own in a dressing room (not a dugout) he basically gave the parent involved a winning lotto ticket and left it up to him if he decided if he wanted to cash it. When you dealing with a difficult parent you don't give him ammunition to attack you. The parent could of went to any number of organisations when his child was "detained" by a adult and gotten traction. Even at this stage it could easily of been dealt with. My issue starts from here and the way it was handled. No one can say it was handled well. So it ended up in the national media. Paddy Kelly, John Cloonan and the parents involved play for me a small role in this. On one small note again it's not in the article so I can't verify it. The U12 coach was asked by a number of people including those that supported him at the ill advised meeting to consider taking over an older age group as it was felt his "manner" was suited to an older group of kids. He knew a few of the kids involved so he stayed where he was. The issue with him began before these two kids.
Re: Playing up : FAIR ENOUGH - MY MISTAKE . (It has been the practice in my own club where they don't play up unless struggling for numbers and in that case then only three years of 'eligibility' and assumed it was practice in Athenry - Apologies)
Re the bolded parts - EVERYONE on this thread agrees it was handled badly by the club.
I also heard re suitability for older age groups.
Issues like this occur regularly enough considering there are two and a half thousand clubs with say an average of 100 kids . . .
In the most part it is dealt with informally where the approach is informal , Where complaints are made - the procedures are followed within the club. And on the rare occassions where this is not satisfactory its escalated to county, provincial or national level.
The procedures in place in the GAA ensured that because Athenry handled it so poorly they were reprimanded. Now unfortunately that has impacted on the children in Athenry most of all BUT that is the most drastic of actions and shows how seriously the GAA has taken this issue.
Athenry now have no choice but to take serious action to rebuild the trust in the community.
My point still stands - as a journalistic piece it sets out to discredit the GAA based on the sensationalist headline with no acknowledgement that the parents may have an axe to grind on a personal level. Theres a claim that they refused to engage in mediation by the club so again we don't know what level of truth is in that.0 -
Did the parents decide their kids were not playing u12 but playing u14 instead?0
-
-
So you want the blame the messenger? Typical. Kimmage would have no article if the club had kept quiet.
Anyone have an update on whether they are going to get unbanned?
In fairness he isn't shooting the messenger, he is pointing out that his message is in fact not a fair reflection of the facts of the story.
I would agree with him on that front. I feel kimmage is using the thing to his own ends. I get the impression he has the gaa in his crosshairs and he selected details in this case that suited this agenda. If that is the case then he is hardly doing the kids in question any favours either is he?0 -
-
MayoAreMagic wrote: »In fairness he isn't shooting the messenger, he is pointing out that his message is in fact not a fair reflection of the facts of the story.
I would agree with him on that front. I feel kimmage is using the thing to his own ends. I get the impression he has the gaa in his crosshairs and he selected details in this case that suited this agenda. If that is the case then he is hardly doing the kids in question any favours either is he?
Is there a suggestion in the article that the GAA (national body) acted incorrectly! If anything they came off quite well as they followed child protection procedure.0 -
evolving_doors wrote: »Is there a suggestion in the article that the GAA (national body) acted incorrectly! If anything they came off quite well as they followed child protection procedure.
No I mean the gaa in general, as in those everyday people who are involved in the game itself. His take on jim gavin's comments on mayo last year - I felt he made a lot of it for what it actually was. He was a bit clumsy in his words maybe but not a whole lot else. It's not an easy thing to speak in font of reporters willing you to word something poorly and trying to catch you out. As for him not having a quip to reply, maybe the guy just isn't that witty, it isn't a crime.
In this instance I feel he has crafted a kind of gaa caricature for the nation to take aim at.Yet many with genuine knowledge of the thing are saying that this is in fact not as straightforward as it appears and his reporting is not in fact a fair reflection.
I cant help but feel his approach to reporting on gaa stories might have one eye on the actual game itself. The only time Ive heard him speak positively about gaa people, was about the mayo team, but that was part of his stick for beating gavin with. I'm curious if he has ever had a good word to say about the sport without it being part of some other point where he was looking to knock someone else...0 -
MayoAreMagic wrote: »No I mean the gaa in general, as in those everyday people who are involved in the game itself. His take on jim gavin's comments on mayo last year - I felt he made a lot of it for what it actually was. He was a bit clumsy in his words maybe but not a whole lot else. It's not an easy thing to speak in font of reporters willing you to word something poorly and trying to catch you out. As for him not having a quip to reply, maybe the guy just isn't that witty, it isn't a crime.
In this instance I feel he has crafted a kind of gaa caricature for the nation to take aim at.Yet many with genuine knowledge of the thing are saying that this is in fact not as straightforward as it appears and his reporting is not in fact a fair reflection.
I cant help but feel his approach to reporting on gaa stories might have one eye on the actual game itself. The only time Ive heard him speak positively about gaa people, was about the mayo team, but that was part of his stick for beating gavin with. I'm curious if he has ever had a good word to say about the sport without it being part of some other point where he was looking to knock someone else...
Ya I get ya, I haven't read much of kimmage so I'm just taking the transgressions of 2 people at face value. People speculating on the supposed motives of parents are just doing that...speculating. what happened wasnt speculation (swearing at kids and detention in dressing room, subsequent circling of wagons). I still think the national organisation as a whole came out of it ok in the article. So if he has an agenda his article didn't really help it.0 -
Advertisement
-
evolving_doors wrote: »Ya I get ya, I haven't read much of kimmage so I'm just taking the transgressions of 2 people at face value. People speculating on the supposed motives of parents are just doing that...speculating. what happened wasnt speculation (swearing at kids and detention in dressing room, subsequent circling of wagons). I still think the national organisation as a whole came out of it ok in the article. So if he has an agenda his article didn't really help it.
Well what is most discussion on the internet, if not largely speculation? I don't think people can really be blamed for that. Indeed, many articles in papers are speculation also, or at the very least, one persons take on an event. I think some people seem to think that kimmage's take is gospel and the guy has just been before the courts.
Id agree on the details you outlined above, but I'd also feel that it is important to try to deliver a full view of what exactly is the story, and the more information people have to make a decision the better I believe.
I think kimmage wasn't really looking to do that, and his article reflected as much. To what end, I am speculating, but I would say he is pushing the stereotype of the over-aggressive, bad tempered gaa coach, who smokes in the dressing room, only cares about a win and horses young lads out of it at every opportunity, something like the d'unbelievables manager skit from years ago.0 -
MayoAreMagic wrote: »Well what is most discussion on the internet, if not largely speculation? I don't think people can really be blamed for that. Indeed, many articles in papers are speculation also, or at the very least, one persons take on an event. I think some people seem to think that kimmage's take is gospel and the guy has just been before the courts.
Id agree on the details you outlined above, but I'd also feel that it is important to try to deliver a full view of what exactly is the story, and the more information people have to make a decision the better I believe.
I think kimmage wasn't really looking to do that, and his article reflected as much. To what end, I am speculating, but I would say he is pushing the stereotype of the over-aggressive, bad tempered gaa coach, who smokes in the dressing room, only cares about a win and horses young lads out of it at every opportunity, something like the d'unbelievables manager skit from years ago.
No, it isn't important to try to deliver a full view of what exactly is the story. The only part of the story that is relevant is the handling of the complaint by the club. Who was right or wrong in relation to the various incidents complained of is completely immaterial.
I believe that the GAA has come out of this really really well. There was a dreadful breach of procedure by a club and they have been sanctioned very very heavily. The club has come out very very badly, and I would not send a child to that club as a result.0 -
No, it isn't important to try to deliver a full view of what exactly is the story. The only part of the story that is relevant is the handling of the complaint by the club. Who was right or wrong in relation to the various incidents complained of is completely immaterial.
I believe that the GAA has come out of this really really well. There was a dreadful breach of procedure by a club and they have been sanctioned very very heavily. The club has come out very very badly, and I would not send a child to that club as a result.
Sweet Jesus0 -
MayoAreMagic wrote: »Well what is most discussion on the internet, if not largely speculation? I don't think people can really be blamed for that. Indeed, many articles in papers are speculation also, or at the very least, one persons take on an event. I think some people seem to think that kimmage's take is gospel and the guy has just been before the courts.
Id agree on the details you outlined above, but I'd also feel that it is important to try to deliver a full view of what exactly is the story, and the more information people have to make a decision the better I believe.
I think kimmage wasn't really looking to do that, and his article reflected as much. To what end, I am speculating, but I would say he is pushing the stereotype of the over-aggressive, bad tempered gaa coach, who smokes in the dressing room, only cares about a win and horses young lads out of it at every opportunity, something like the d'unbelievables manager skit from years ago.
No more information has been forthcoming in this thread or any other news source (open to correction) to attempt to deliver a 'full view'. Only thing i see is speculation on the supposed ulterior motives of the journalist and parents, arguing to the absurd and people bemoaning the loss of a season for kids, who are apparently 'the real victims'.0 -
evolving_doors wrote:No more information has been forthcoming in this thread or any other news source (open to correction) to attempt to deliver a 'full view'. Only thing i see is speculation on the supposed ulterior motives of the journalist and parents, arguing to the absurd and people bemoaning the loss of a season for kids, who are apparently 'the real victims'.
Just to add the kids are back hurling.0 -
Happyilylost wrote: »Just to add the kids are back hurling.
The two boys must be playing minor by now are they
0 -
Advertisement
-
Happyilylost wrote: »Just to add the kids are back hurling.
How do you mean 'the kids'. All the kids in the club?0 -
BrianBoru00 wrote: »Sweet Jesus
That is the exact type of reaction to this incident that is giving the GAA a bad name.
You don't deserve to know whether the kids or their parents were right or wrong, had good motives or bad. All you deserve to know is that the club handle child complaint issues in a confidential and fair manner.
They don't.0 -
MayoAreMagic wrote: »No I mean the gaa in general, as in those everyday people who are involved in the game itself. His take on jim gavin's comments on mayo last year - I felt he made a lot of it for what it actually was. He was a bit clumsy in his words maybe but not a whole lot else. It's not an easy thing to speak in font of reporters willing you to word something poorly and trying to catch you out. As for him not having a quip to reply, maybe the guy just isn't that witty, it isn't a crime.
In this instance I feel he has crafted a kind of gaa caricature for the nation to take aim at.Yet many with genuine knowledge of the thing are saying that this is in fact not as straightforward as it appears and his reporting is not in fact a fair reflection.
I cant help but feel his approach to reporting on gaa stories might have one eye on the actual game itself. The only time Ive heard him speak positively about gaa people, was about the mayo team, but that was part of his stick for beating gavin with. I'm curious if he has ever had a good word to say about the sport without it being part of some other point where he was looking to knock someone else...
I don’t get any criticism of “de gah” in the article.
What information in the article has been disproved, in your opinion?
Paper doesn’t refuse ink, so the writer wrote a story about specific events that did take place. He did not make it up, and does not seem to have exaggerated.
It is of interest to parents, because the club tried to ignore the issue and then conspired against two boys and their parents.
Finally, the journalist didn’t suspend the club, GAA HQ did.
The story was written as a result of the suspension0 -
-
evolving_doors wrote: »No more information has been forthcoming in this thread or any other news source (open to correction) to attempt to deliver a 'full view'. Only thing i see is speculation on the supposed ulterior motives of the journalist and parents, arguing to the absurd and people bemoaning the loss of a season for kids, who are apparently 'the real victims'.
Well i dont know about that. There are people on this thread that have knowledge of the case and have offered other details. For example, we have been told that there is more to the case. That it wasnt as one sided as kimmage has described etc.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, it isn't important to try to deliver a full view of what exactly is the story. The only part of the story that is relevant is the handling of the complaint by the club. Who was right or wrong in relation to the various incidents complained of is completely immaterial.
I believe that the GAA has come out of this really really well. There was a dreadful breach of procedure by a club and they have been sanctioned very very heavily. The club has come out very very badly, and I would not send a child to that club as a result.
I dont see how that is the only part that is relevant to discussion. Maybe it is in your opinion for whatever reason, but for most other people many facets of the story warrant discussion. You dont have to discuss them yourself if you dont feel like it, but dictating to others what they can discuss isnt going to fly.
As for the gaa image, well how about the image of gaa club members? He hasnt portrayed any of them in a very good light - kids parents included. They all seem to play up to bad stereotypes to tell a particular story. Id just be conscious of what kimmage might have in mind longterm. Now I accept that could prove to be wrong, but I think it is worth keeping an eye on - he makes money off a crusade and he doesnt really care who he upsets along the way. I find it interesting that so many old team mates etc dislike him to the level they do. Is that because they were all on drugs like he suggests (without actually saying so), or is it because he has painted that stereotype onto all of them to portray a particular story that will further his own career, and it isnt in fact the reality.. Id say a bit of both. I suppose im trying to say that it is worth keeping in mind that kimmage looks out for kimmage.0 -
MayoAreMagic wrote: »Well i dont know about that. There are people on this thread that have knowledge of the case and have offered other details. For example, we have been told that there is more to the case. That it wasnt as one sided as kimmage has described etc.
The people on this thread who are offering more information that is not in the public domain are as guilty of breaching child protection guidelines as the club is. The fact that they are generally trying to damn the children and their parents shows that the mentality in the club doesn't appear to have changed.
The "Valley of the Squinting Windows" approach of those who encourage the extra details is pretty disgusting as well.MayoAreMagic wrote: »I dont see how that is the only part that is relevant to discussion. Maybe it is in your opinion for whatever reason, but for most other people many facets of the story warrant discussion. You dont have to discuss them yourself if you dont feel like it, but dictating to others what they can discuss isnt going to fly.
As for the gaa image, well how about the image of gaa club members? He hasnt portrayed any of them in a very good light - kids parents included. They all seem to play up to bad stereotypes to tell a particular story. Id just be conscious of what kimmage might have in mind longterm. Now I accept that could prove to be wrong, but I think it is worth keeping an eye on - he makes money off a crusade and he doesnt really care who he upsets along the way. I find it interesting that so many old team mates etc dislike him to the level they do. Is that because they were all on drugs like he suggests (without actually saying so), or is it because he has painted that stereotype onto all of them to portray a particular story that will further his own career, and it isnt in fact the reality.. Id say a bit of both. I suppose im trying to say that it is worth keeping in mind that kimmage looks out for kimmage.
You are just shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the issue.0 -
The people on this thread who are offering more information that is not in the public domain are as guilty of breaching child protection guidelines as the club is. The fact that they are generally trying to damn the children and their parents shows that the mentality in the club doesn't appear to have changed.
The "Valley of the Squinting Windows" approach of those who encourage the extra details is pretty disgusting as well.
You are just shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the issue.
1. They are no more guilty of such a breach than paul kimmage is..
2. Who said they were involved with the club?
3. Again, that isnt what shooting the messenger is. Maybe google shooting the messenger before you make the the comment a third time0 -
MayoAreMagic wrote: »1. They are no more guilty of such a breach than paul kimmage is..
2. Who said they were involved with the club?
3. Again, that isnt what shooting the messenger is. Maybe google shooting the messenger before you make the the comment a third time
You don't like hearing bad news about a GAA club and you are blaming the journalist - Paul Kimmage - for having an agenda. As clear an example of shooting the messenger as there is.0 -
None of us like hearing bad news about a GAA club, or any other amateur sports club for that matter.
Theres nobody here offering more information than is in the public domain.
Perhaps "public domain" is something else you should google.
The identities of all people involved are well known around Athenry & Galway. Hence they are in the public domain.0 -
MayoAreMagic wrote: »I dont see how that is the only part that is relevant to discussion. Maybe it is in your opinion for whatever reason, but for most other people many facets of the story warrant discussion. You dont have to discuss them yourself if you dont feel like it, but dictating to others what they can discuss isnt going to fly.
As for the gaa image, well how about the image of gaa club members? He hasnt portrayed any of them in a very good light - kids parents included. They all seem to play up to bad stereotypes to tell a particular story. Id just be conscious of what kimmage might have in mind longterm. Now I accept that could prove to be wrong, but I think it is worth keeping an eye on - he makes money off a crusade and he doesnt really care who he upsets along the way. I find it interesting that so many old team mates etc dislike him to the level they do. Is that because they were all on drugs like he suggests (without actually saying so), or is it because he has painted that stereotype onto all of them to portray a particular story that will further his own career, and it isnt in fact the reality.. Id say a bit of both. I suppose im trying to say that it is worth keeping in mind that kimmage looks out for kimmage.
Are you really posting that?
Seriously , about cycling, you believe that maybe teammates don't like Kimmage because he made up storys about drug taking rather than thinking that they don't like him because they were drugged up to the eyeballs and kimmage told the truth about it.
on the subject at hand the gaa club concerned had their entire juvenile section banned by the gaa.
That is an utterly extraordinary development.
Waffle about whether this whole thing is a row between two big familys in Athenry vying for control of the club requires us to believe that the parents have managed to hoodwink the entire structure of the gaa that their internal political row is in fact a child care issue when it isn't.
I prefer to believe that the entire Gaa structure from the Galway Child welfare officer all the way up to the Gaa central council are not a bunch of absolute morons0 -
-
Twiceasnice97 wrote: »Are you really posting that?
Seriously , about cycling, you believe that maybe teammates don't like Kimmage because he made up storys about drug taking rather than thinking that they don't like him because they were drugged up to the eyeballs and kimmage told the truth about it.
I believe, after reading his book, interviews with his team mates and indeed actions of team mates, interviews with other cyclists, subsequent articles that Kimmage has written across a wide range of topics as well as discussions he has had on radio etc, that Kimmage is looking out for Kimmage first and foremost, rather than the paragon of virtue looking to deliver the truth to the people that he might like people to think. And while I don't doubt that there was plenty of drug taking, neither do I doubt that Kimmage was above throwing a few innocents to the lions if it meant portraying his story how he wanted to for maximum effect. That isn't to say he named innocent people, but Id suggest he maybe didn't go out of his way to name them as innocent in the knowledge that his conspiracy theory would benefit, regardless of what that might do to their reputation.
That isn't to say that in this case the club official got it right and nobody is saying he wasn't wrong. What I am saying is to take Kimmage's narrative as gospel, I would consider to be quite naïve. I think he chose the details he wanted and chose the ones he didn't want to mention. I think he had an idea of 'this is the story I want to tell', rather than going in and just telling the story.0 -
MayoAreMagic wrote:That isn't to say that in this case the club official got it right and nobody is saying he wasn't wrong. What I am saying is to take Kimmage's narrative as gospel, I would consider to be quite naïve. I think he chose the details he wanted and chose the ones he didn't want to mention. I think he had an idea of 'this is the story I want to tell', rather than going in and just telling the story.
This is a rare moments on board.ie
I auctually completely agree with MAM here.
It's almost like the time Hulk Hogan and Randy Macho Man Savage shook hands.
They were doped too.0 -
MayoAreMagic wrote: »I believe, after reading his book, interviews with his team mates and indeed actions of team mates, interviews with other cyclists, subsequent articles that Kimmage has written across a wide range of topics as well as discussions he has had on radio etc, that Kimmage is looking out for Kimmage first and foremost, rather than the paragon of virtue looking to deliver the truth to the people that he might like people to think. And while I don't doubt that there was plenty of drug taking, neither do I doubt that Kimmage was above throwing a few innocents to the lions if it meant portraying his story how he wanted to for maximum effect. That isn't to say he named innocent people, but Id suggest he maybe didn't go out of his way to name them as innocent in the knowledge that his conspiracy theory would benefit, regardless of what that might do to their reputation.
That isn't to say that in this case the club official got it right and nobody is saying he wasn't wrong. What I am saying is to take Kimmage's narrative as gospel, I would consider to be quite naïve. I think he chose the details he wanted and chose the ones he didn't want to mention. I think he had an idea of 'this is the story I want to tell', rather than going in and just telling the story.
What didn't he want to mention?0 -
Advertisement
-
evolving_doors wrote: »[/b]
What didn't he want to mention?
Well, it is strange to me that he doesn't attempt to speak with the actual u-14 coach in the entire thing. They are kind of a key figure in that their approval can normalise the kids actions, and isolate the club official. While their disapproval turns some of the focus onto the kids parents... They are sort of a neutral third party here, who had access to both sides.
Did he encourage the players to go to the u14 training or did he just go along with it on the night when they arrived? Did he say to come along to the match to view it after their doing the training, or did he tell them to tog out as full blown team members? Could he even have maybe had a word with the club official about them togging out with the team above their grade and asked what was that about? Those details are kinda brushed over.
We are led to believe that he didn't bat an eyelid, by virtue of the fact that he is completely ignored in the article. I have my doubts about that.0 -
I heard a 10 yr old tell his manager to F**k off during a blitz in past few weeks. The parents didnt act , i wonder can the club go to Croke Park to get the player removed from tthe club?0
-
I heard a 10 yr old tell his manager to F**k off during a blitz in past few weeks. The parents didnt act , i wonder can the club go to Croke Park to get the player removed from tthe club?
The club should have a disiplinary proceedure to deal with offending behaviour irrespective of the source. The guidelines go both ways but have to take account of the disparity between adults and childern. As such the consequences of an action may impact the adult more, but the use of bad language,if one on one, should be disciplined equally across all ages.
In your example the adult is not giving time and effort to be verbally abused and the 10 year old should be made aware of that. If there is a clear process that would result in the player being removed then yes the player should be removed.
eg the manger rebukes the player and issues a waring which is also conveyed to the parent that such behavior is not acceptable and that the consequence of continued misbehaviour would range from a time out to club exclusion. The behaviour continued and upon fair investigation the action was confirmed as a breach of the members obligation to be civil to others and that the appropriate sanction is removal from the club, then the child should be removed.
In this clubs situation the sanction was not for the two complaints, nor for not having a disiplinary process, but for actively interfering with the disiplinary process.0 -
MayoAreMagic wrote: »Well, it is strange to me that he doesn't attempt to speak with the actual u-14 coach in the entire thing. They are kind of a key figure in that their approval can normalise the kids actions, and isolate the club official. While their disapproval turns some of the focus onto the kids parents... They are sort of a neutral third party here, who had access to both sides.
Did he encourage the players to go to the u14 training or did he just go along with it on the night when they arrived? Did he say to come along to the match to view it after their doing the training, or did he tell them to tog out as full blown team members? Could he even have maybe had a word with the club official about them togging out with the team above their grade and asked what was that about? Those details are kinda brushed over.
We are led to believe that he didn't bat an eyelid, by virtue of the fact that he is completely ignored in the article. I have my doubts about that.
How many times do you need to be told that the rights and wrongs of the issue involving the U-14 coach have absolutely nothing to do with the club being suspended.
The club is quite rightly suspended because they couldn't manage to keep a confidential child protection issue confidential. Simple as that. Nothing else is relevant.0 -
How many times do you need to be told that the rights and wrongs of the issue involving the U-14 coach have absolutely nothing to do with the club being suspended.
The club is quite rightly suspended because they couldn't manage to keep a confidential child protection issue confidential. Simple as that. Nothing else is relevant.
Totally agree. Involved with GAA at underage.
The mentor was badly let down by club and the GAA here by having his name mentioned anywhere outside the clubs 4 walls. All the meetings were beyond unnecessary.
Seen many bad incidents. Seen horror stories of how kids AND parents mis-interpreted things. Gards nearly being called over things that never even happened. Soon as I read the story about mentor said "youll never put a jersey on", youre saying to yourself, that didnt happen like that. Really shouldnt have been alone with kids though, a golden rule. But youre relying on every mentor in the country to use the exact words that every child will interpret the exact right way, every time the mentor talks to them. You can have every welfare course under the sun done. Never gonna get that right. Who works with people where that happens, and we're adults.
Why didnt Kimmage write about the mentor not putting his own kids to bed as he had to stay behind after a game to take down nets and put them away and that was even after he'd asked parents of the team he coaches to help him? Nothing sexy in that is there. Kimmage is no doubt a fine writer but theres an agenda behind this story.
If Kimmage understood mentoring kids he wouldnt have wrote it the way he did. The club shouldnt have spoke to him without asking what his agenda was, and the club should have said you know what damage this will do individual volunteers, volunteers across the sport, across any sport?0 -
How many times do you need to be told that the rights and wrongs of the issue involving the U-14 coach have absolutely nothing to do with the club being suspended.
The club is quite rightly suspended because they couldn't manage to keep a confidential child protection issue confidential. Simple as that. Nothing else is relevant.
Im not discussing the club being suspended though, and have never said they shouldnt have been suspended. Im discussing kimmage's article. The club werent suspended on the back of the article, so I dont know why you keep bringing up the suspension in response to a post about an article in the paper.
Also, surely the club would be hindered keeping the thing confidential, when the parent of the child involved goes to the national media about the story. Short of kidnapping kimmage, what could they have done in that scenario?0 -
MayoAreMagic wrote: »Im not discussing the club being suspended though, and have never said they shouldnt have been suspended. Im discussing kimmage's article. The club werent suspended on the back of the article, so I dont know why you keep bringing up the suspension in response to a post about an article in the paper.
Also, surely the club would be hindered keeping the thing confidential, when the parent of the child involved goes to the national media about the story. Short of kidnapping kimmage, what could they have done in that scenario?
Oh my God, the club had already called a number of public meetings about a child protection issue, long before Kimmage wrote his article, he couldn't have written it until the club put the allegations into the public arena. If you cannot see how wrong the club was, and how right Kimmage was to expose the murky dealings of the club, well, I don't know what to say.
Kimmage was lambasted by the cycling elite for exposing the cheats. Seems the defences are up from the GAA elites.0 -
clint_silver wrote: »Totally agree. Involved with GAA at underage.
The mentor was badly let down by club and the GAA here by having his name mentioned anywhere outside the clubs 4 walls. All the meetings were beyond unnecessary.
Seen many bad incidents. Seen horror stories of how kids AND parents mis-interpreted things. Gards nearly being called over things that never even happened. Soon as I read the story about mentor said "youll never put a jersey on", youre saying to yourself, that didnt happen like that. Really shouldnt have been alone with kids though, a golden rule. But youre relying on every mentor in the country to use the exact words that every child will interpret the exact right way, every time the mentor talks to them. You can have every welfare course under the sun done. Never gonna get that right. Who works with people where that happens, and we're adults.
Why didnt Kimmage write about the mentor not putting his own kids to bed as he had to stay behind after a game to take down nets and put them away and that was even after he'd asked parents of the team he coaches to help him? Nothing sexy in that is there. Kimmage is no doubt a fine writer but theres an agenda behind this story.
The story isn't about the kind hearted nature of the wonderful volunteers in the GAA! It's about a child protection issue and how members of a club attempted to circle the wagons and single out a family and kids.clint_silver wrote: »If Kimmage understood mentoring kids he wouldnt have wrote it the way he did. The club shouldnt have spoke to him without asking what his agenda was, and the club should have said you know what damage this will do individual volunteers, volunteers across the sport, across any sport?
So protect the volunteers at what cost?
Anyhow has the club all turned to lava? Someone said a few posts ago that the kids are back in action now, the world didn't end. They'll think twice about swearing at kids and being alone with them in a room, and turning a community against parents. That's a good thing.0 -
Oh my God, the club had already called a number of public meetings about a child protection issue, long before Kimmage wrote his article, he couldn't have written it until the club put the allegations into the public arena. If you cannot see how wrong the club was, and how right Kimmage was to expose the murky dealings of the club, well, I don't know what to say.
Kimmage was lambasted by the cycling elite for exposing the cheats. Seems the defences are up from the GAA elites.
murky dealings of the club is a bit extreme. theyre volunteers.
Theres methods from bottom to the top for dealing with things.
If its a child welfare issue, the mentor on the team is first port of call or another mentor if thats where the issue is. Then, for a club of that size they should have one, the child welfare officer for that code..
Then theres an executive club board with a club welfare officer.
An executive county board with a child officer if needs be.
A gaa exec council with a welfare officer (gearoid in this case).
If theres conflict with any point you go one higher, if you go straight to the top like what happened here, they will refer you back down the chain and rightly so.
As for a coach swearing at kids, do me a favor, was it an isolated incident, was he constantly swearing at them?
did the kids have a problem with it or just the parents?
did the coach go on severall courses paid for out of his own money, apply proper RAMP warmup principles to the team, use latest games model for coaching, maximize the kids potential whilst navigating the minefield of "child welfare" where an isolated use of a swear word is thrown into nearly the same bracket as a potential grooming case?
but theres another coach in another club, he watched a couple of gaa games when he was growing up, he throws his name in the ring, he's now a coach too. not interested in doing a course, doesnt have time, kids are going backwards under him, but oh yeah, he's good, he doesnt use swear words. Kids give up when theyre 14-15, cos theyre losing every week. they know theyre not getting better. But that doesnt matter because the coach doesnt use swear words.
The point is, you pick and choose what you want to highlight. what is and isnt an actual problem. The first fella needs a word in the ear, and/or the welfare course if he hasnt done it. the second fella needs a lot more.
The story shouldnt have left the 4 walls of the club, county or GAA. Whats printing in a national newspaper going to do? rectify it? make anyone do anything different?0 -
Advertisement
-
clint_silver wrote: »murky dealings of the club is a bit extreme. theyre volunteers.
Theres methods from bottom to the top for dealing with things.
If its a child welfare issue, the mentor on the team is first port of call or another mentor if thats where the issue is. Then, for a club of that size they should have one, the child welfare officer for that code..
Then theres an executive club board with a club welfare officer.
An executive county board with a child officer if needs be.
A gaa exec council with a welfare officer (gearoid in this case).
If theres conflict with any point you go one higher, if you go straight to the top like what happened here, they will refer you back down the chain and rightly so.
As for a coach swearing at kids, do me a favor, was it an isolated incident, was he constantly swearing at them?
did the kids have a problem with it or just the parents?
did the coach go on severall courses paid for out of his own money, apply proper RAMP warmup principles to the team, use latest games model for coaching, maximize the kids potential whilst navigating the minefield of "child welfare" where an isolated use of a swear word is thrown into nearly the same bracket as a potential grooming case?
but theres another coach in another club, he watched a couple of gaa games when he was growing up, he throws his name in the ring, he's now a coach too. not interested in doing a course, doesnt have time, kids are going backwards under him, but oh yeah, he's good, he doesnt use swear words. Kids give up when theyre 14-15, cos theyre losing every week. they know theyre not getting better. But that doesnt matter because the coach doesnt use swear words.
The point is, you pick and choose what you want to highlight. what is and isnt an actual problem. The first fella needs a word in the ear, and/or the welfare course if he hasnt done it. the second fella needs a lot more.
The story shouldnt have left the 4 walls of the club, county or GAA. Whats printing in a national newspaper going to do? rectify it? make anyone do anything different?
A fundamental point of disagreement with you is that the main issue isn't any of the above - you even make some reasonable points - but that the main issue is confidentiality of child protection. The club broke this, the club should suffer.0
Advertisement