The public lynching of Paul Galvin

IT has been some week for Paul Galvin. More media coverage has been devoted to him then those appearing before the Tribunals.

His six-month ‘suspension’ has been debated in every pub, club, hair saloon and shopping centre around the country. But hold it there now. Paul Galvin hadn’t been suspended at all at this stage. The CCCC merely made a “proposal” based on the evidence before it — video evidence (one presumes) and the referee’s report.

I have the highest regard for both the competence and integrity of referee Paddy Russell, a very dedicated and fair-minded man. Neither have I any problem with the CCCC or the Hearings Committee. Their respective chairmen, Jimmy Dunne and John O’Reilly are decent, honourable officials and above reproach in terms of integrity and dedication. Dunne even had the wisdom to marry a Kerry woman! So no anti-Kerry bias there.

No, the CCCC has acted according to its remit. But the breadth of that remit is far too wide and too onerous, in my opinion. It is very wise that in clear-cut cases that the CCCC can propose a penalty — say a player ordered off on a straight red for which the minimum suspension is a month. It saves an awful lot of hassle and administration that the player can accept it, without having, to take a day off work to go to Dublin to defend himself — all to no avail.

In clear-cut cases this is a sensible, player-friendly approach. But in cases such as Paul Gavin’s, the CCCC according to it’s remit, proposes a penalty without being given the opportunity to question the player or the player having the opportunity to put his side of the story. This is unfair to both sides as the CCCC then have to go to a Hearings Committee and “justify” their position.

Is it somewhat akin to a judge in a court of law on receiving a report from the DPP or the Gardaí saying “based on the evidence to hand it is proposed that you get six months in jail. Now come for trial and prove why you shouldn’t get six months”.

In Galvin’s case his “six months” sentence was discussed nationwide as factual even though no “hearing” had taken place and he wasn’t suspended at all. Even the news sections of the Sunday newspapers spoke of his ‘suspension’. Totally incorrect but reflecting the general impression.

So concerned were the Rule-Book Task Force with this growing misapprehension that they reported as follows to Annual Congress last April: “A tendency exists to treat the ‘proposed penalty’ as constituting more than a mere proposal, which is all it is intended to be.”

Leading to “a notion that a hearings committee cannot impose a penalty other than the proposed penalty”. And then it added the following: “To attempt to remedy the position, it is now considered inappropriate for the “proposed penalty” to be disclosed to the hearings committee, either in the disciplinary notice or orally at the hearing, so that that committee cannot be influenced by it.”

In Gavin’s case that aspiration has failed miserably as his “suspension” has been treated as fact all over the country and the member of the Hearings Committee would want to have been exploring the ice under the surface in Mars not to be influenced by the week’s events to some degree.

Indeed, in such circumstances, if Paul Galvin was to go the route to litigation, which I hope he wouldn’t, he would have a very good chance of being successful. After all, a few years ago it was decided that Charlie Haughey couldn’t get a fair trial because Mary Harney said that he deserved jail for his crimes. In Paul Galvin’s case the whole country had him suspended for six months even though he wasn’t suspended at all. He had been tried, found guilty and suspended even though no hearing had taken place. I wonder what the DRA makes of it all.

As GAA president, I wanted two separate committees, one to deal exclusively with fixtures and the other with discipline. In recent weeks I am beginning to think I may have been right as with the best will in the world a “proposed sentence” is going to be taken as a “gimme” and as for keeping it a secret from the Hearings Committee so that they cannot be influenced by it, well, there aren’t many secrets in the GAA.

Some commentators have been downright harsh on him. While making the point that he was an amateur player, they then went on to deal with Galvin as if he was a professional. Some even suggested his apology was an exercise in cynicism. This is a kind of “dammed if you apologise and dammed if you don’t” scenario. I think its refreshing and a good example to young people to see their heroes apologise for their mistakes. I thought it was fantastic last year, in the wake of Semplegate, when Sean Óg, Donal Óg and Diarmuid all apologised for their actions. There is a tendency in society today to deny everything and that young people are picking up on that. Players like Galvin and the three Cork lads coming out and putting their hands up and apologising has to be welcomed.

Some also said that the number of games he’d miss as a result of being suspended in high season shouldn’t be a consideration either. Well, if that is the case why did the GAA move to take December and January out of time suspensions a few years ago?

Simply because suspensions at that time of the year were almost irrelevant as players missed little or no games through suspension. But at this time of the year, a month is equivalent to about three months at another time of the year. If he were to serve a six months suspension Paul would miss between club, division and county in football and hurling anything up to 30 championship games. Would that constitute a world record?

Also it was stated that the great work that Galvin has done, on a voluntary basis, coaching teams in Coláiste Críost Rí and St Brendan’s College — whom he helped to the Hogan Cup final this year — was also irrelevant. Well, wouldn’t we have a mighty Association altogether if everyone else was as generous with their time.