DON’T MISS: THE WIT, WISDOM AND WITHERING EDGE OF MICHEÁL CLIFFORD’S COLUMN
... is no excuse for loose talk when it compromises the integrity of others as we’ve seen with the Mayo saga
IT IS a measure of our low selfesteem that we walked a little taller this week after that press conference at Flushing Meadows. We got our laughs from Serena Williams’ passionate claim that her abuse of a match official demanded to be seen as part of her campaign for ‘women’s rights and stuff like that’, rather than an act of petulance. Naturally.
That tickled the funny bone but our feel-good factor was sourced from a question at the start of a press conference where journalists were still coming to terms with the sight of the winner Naomi Osaka left sobbing as the bile stirred by Williams’ outrageous behaviour spilled down from the stands.
‘Serena,’ asked one fawning female journalist, ‘how much do you think the experience of motherhood helped you at the end when you had to console Naomi.’
Never again will we feel quite so deficient, the next time we are confronted by a losing manager and we greet him with the standard, hardnosed opener.
‘Disappointed with that,’ we will ask in our best hushed funeral-home voice. Sad as it may seem, there is nothing quite like the inadequacies of others to make us feel better about ourselves.
All the more reason, then, to give heaven-sent thanks to the women from Dublin and Cork who will step out on the Croke Park pitch today as they are the very antithesis of what is represented by Williams who, apart from a muddled sense of sexism, also has a history of not always being available when the drug testers come calling.
Despite all that, though, her association came out this week and gave its full-backing to its greatest ever player and, in the process, stripped away the authority of those it charges to police its game.
It is times like this you give thanks to the GAA’s value system but before we wrap it too tightly around us as a comfort blanket, we should acknowledge the chilled wind that blew through the ladies game all summer.
This week the Mayo ladies manager Peter Leahy broke his silence in a compelling interview with Colm Parkinson on Joe.ie. and there were times when it made for uncomfortable listening.
The decision by 12 players, with Cora Staunton – the greatest player the women’s game has known – among eight from the Carnacon club, to withdraw from the Mayo panel hung over the summer. Those who withdrew had cited ‘player welfare issues that are personal and sensitive to the players involved’ in a statement issued through the offices of the Ladies Gaelic Players Association. The decision by the Mayo board to throw defending AllIreland champions Carnacon out of the Mayo Championship, subsequently overturned by the Connacht Council, elicited much comment, almost all sympathetic in tone to the club.
It did seem somewhat heavyhanded by the board, but it would also be fair to suggest that the accusation levelled at Leahy, and his management team, came loaded with menace and innuendo.
He claimed in his interview with Parkinson he was unaware that ‘hurt feelings’ constituted an abuse of player welfare, however what one person might construe as hurt feelings, someone else could easily frame as something more sinister.
And he also claimed that the disaffection was sourced in team selection and his one-to-one discussions which he had facilitated when it became evident in the aftermath of the Connacht final that there was an issue in his camp.
Much like breaking eggs to make an omelette, hurt feelings are par for the course when you are in the business of picking teams and defining players’ roles.
And if that is the case, confusing that for a player welfare issue is pretty much like confusing Serena Williams for Emmeline Pankhurst.
But it was Staunton who took it to a darker place when, in an interview earlier this month, she claimed: ‘The environment for us wasn’t right within the county set-up, we didn’t feel it was a safe environment to be in so we decided to leave.’
Little wonder that Leahy was prompted to suggest that what was being alleged was ‘close to slanderous’ before outlining the impressive medical supports which were in place for every training session.
But then silence is always innuendo’s friend and what really is needed now is for the other side to clear their throat and stop hiding behind vague language.
It is the very least they should do, and when they get around to it they should address a number of issues.
Were their feelings hurt or is there evidence that it went deeper than that? If there were player welfare issues and an unsafe environment, why did the 26 remaining players pledge their absolute support in Leahy and his management team?
What exactly was unsafe about the environment?
Why did the players fail to contact the county board to highlight these issues in the first place, especially when there was a liaison officer in place?
Was it possible that the feelings of some of those who remained, and were allegedly still being pressurised into leaving prior to a qualifier game against Cavan, hurt by the actions of their former teammates?
Was player welfare simply a banner of convenience to camouflage a player coup against management?
How did the LGPA (uncontactable this week) justify issuing a statement on behalf of a minority of players? And have they conducted a robust canvas of the remaining 26 players for evidence of systematic player welfare abuse issues within the group?
That is a lot of questions that need answers, but there was something which Leahy said this week which resonated with reason.
‘What someone picks up as harsh is because they probably don’t feel that they deserve to be treated as equally as everyone else,’ he suggested.
That certainly applies to Serena, but it may not stop there.