Thrawneen always wanted to believe there was an innocent explanation.
He was a bit of a Walter Mitty type mind you.
Yes it is.
It is a legal responsibility for all coaches in ALL sports and rugby
To be fair to Walsh, I think itâs quite possible that the story he heard from TH differed to what we heard in court last week. And given the mental health issues that TH faced, for Walsh he might have bought into what TH said even more. He wouldnât have had a book of evidence or anything to verify what he was being told.
That said, he was at the very least naive. Going to bat so publically is career suicide and extremely insensitive. Obviously the context is different 5 years later, but what I found so remarkable about Walshâs words in that 2012 interview was that he seemed to value THâs journalist pedigree so highly that it was almost on the same level as his friendship with him as to why he was defending him.
Anyone got a link to the Cooper interview earlier on?
I think the âtruth will come outâ line is much worse than the character reference.
Well the âtruthâ is what TH told Walsh. We donât know what was said, to be fair.
Thanks for that Tim. Walsh really is a vile cunt.
Donât we have courts to enable the "truth coming out " ??
The only way I can view that in any kind of decent light is a line that was in RTEâs court report last week. Is it possible itâs what he was referring to?
"Mr Hartnett said it was possible to see from the reports that Mr Humphries may have suffered from impaired judgment at the time due to neurological issues outlined by medical reports.
He said while the medical evidence would not be enough to prove a defence of insanity or lack of intent, it may have been a factor in his judgment and he asked the judge to take it into account."
If TH was telling him it was a pack of lies or whatever, DW still shouldnât be saying something like that in public, even if he did believe him.
I agree with you. I just think that when we look at his comments now or even the reference, you have to account for him being spun a yarn. Ridiculously stupid and insensitive thing to do. I can understand defending a friend but my biggest issue with his 2012 comments were that he seemed to take into account THâs journalistic pedigree as one reason why he should be defended before we heard the evidence.
But he still delivered the character reference after Humphries pleaded guilty. He had ample chance to seek clarification.
100%
Ots ok to change your mind based on new evidence
I seem to remember David Norris writing a lengthy and very well written character reference for a former partner of his who was up for the rape of a minor in Israel. He got a bit of stick for it but I think it was before Twitter so there wasnât quite the amount of pitchforks and torches you get these days and the media let it go.
The media will get a few more days out of this one I expect. The other referee will be outed tomorrow or the day after and thereâll be follow-on hysteria over that with the GAA dragged in as a third party.
Didnât it cause Norris to lose whatever chance he had in the presidential election? His numbers collapsed after the reporting of that issue I think.
It did. It wasnât exactly before Twitter. The very same election was won following a simple tweet some would suggest.