Messages

Presuming it's the Kildare Newbridge you're going to?

I'd turn off the M4 at Maynooth and head for Kill via Straffan - good road nowadays due to the 2006 Ryder Cup. Quick spin down the N7 to Newbridge from there.

Alternatively turn off at Kilcock. Take the Clane road and then on to Sallins. The old Dublin road will take you straight into Newbridge from there.

Presumably there is some way through the midlands to avoid the motorway tolls.

Maith an fear DH - thanks for that. I'll give Maynooth-Straffan-Kill a spin and see how I get on. Cheers! 

Have to head from Galway city to Newbridge in a couple of weeks - am wondering if anyone on the board has made that journey since the new motorways opened, and if they could advise on the best route?

I don't mind driving more motorway miles if it means I save time on the overall journey... Any info appreciated... 

I don't think Canty would suit Clarke at all. Clarke will drift around and try to pull the strings. I think you need a dedicated man marker for him. I think Anthony Lynch would do a job on him if he were fit.

I think Canty likes to hold the middle.

+1 - I think this will be critical to the outcome on Sunday. Will be fascinating to see Counihan's solution to the Clarke problem. Assuming Clarke doesn't freeze on the day, of course.

[http://beo.tg4.ie/main.aspx?level=sport]

For you's lovely people who want to see the Armagh v Tyrone trilogy, found it on tg4
http://beo.tg4.ie/main.aspx?level=sport

No thanks. Maybe the 2005 semi-final, that was decent enough. But I'd rather have my remaining few teeth pulled out than sit through the 2003 final again.

Regarding Cork hang-ups about Down - well, I think Down beat Cork on the way to winning the '94 AI. Long time ago now but it's another psychological pawn in the chess game.

AZ, what do you reckon about the Canty factor? Would you reckon that it's risky putting a not-100% Canty on Marty Clarke?

If Cork win on Sunday i believe it will be a travesty for football. I don't think I have ever been so underwhelmed by a team that has made it to an All Ireland final.
The Mexican pundits where very quick to pick faults with Tyrone and Armagh disgracefully labelling what they played as puke football, well give me the so called puke of football Tyrone & Armagh played anyday of the week over the boring, pathetic shite to watch type of football that this current Cork team play.

Hopefully Down do everybody in the country a favour and beat this mind numbingly boring team on Sunday.

Well said. Cork are a fine team but my God, they're hard to watch. That semi-final with Dublin was hard work for the neutral - thank God Bernard Brogan put a bit of class into it. Cork could get over the line on Sunday and if they do, if would be hard to begrudge it to them given the terrible beatings they've got from Kerry in Croker in the last 10 years.

But here's what annoys me - no-one makes a deal over Cork's awful record in All-Ireland Finals, and yet they've lost the last four in succession, and only won 6 out of 22. The only team who can top that kind of failure rate is Mayo, and we all know what we'd be hearing if Mayo were squaring up to the Mournemen on Sunday. Every preview I read at the moment says 'Cork to win'.

Maybe I'm raving but - Cork lose almost three finals of every four; Down have never lost one. At some stage on Sunday that has to come into Cork minds.

57 pages! Mother of God! What'll it go to when a manager is picked? 

Anyway, it's looking like Maughan III alright. To be honest maybe that's not a bad thing. His pride in Mayo is not in question and his desire to win the All-Ireland was never better documented than in his interview in 'House of Pain', where he said straight-out that the failure in 1996 still haunts him.

There weren't too many complaints about his second stint until the 2004 final - not just the awful capitulation of the team on the day but Maughan's pig-headedness over not selecting Brady from the start. Brady wouldn't have won Mayo that game but he might have helped make the defeat far less damaging. Mayo haven't been seen as a serious team since. Kerry burned Mayo off in the third quarter of the 2005 quarter-final, despite Mayo chipping it back to three points at the end. That at least represented a more dignified exit for JM than the 2004 final would have been.

Despite the shorts, the tan, the confidence-bordering-on-arrogance, the lack of tactical nous etc., nobody wants an AI for Mayo more than John Maughan, and nobody has got us closer. He'll run the sh1t out of them for the winter, beef them up (please God) and hopefully, to steal a phrase, put the balls back into Mayo football. That would represent significant progress, and Lord knows it's badly needed.

Very sad news, can't help but think it's related to RTÉ imposing a co-commentator on him this year, shame on RTÉ if so.

I think this has been in place for a few years, hasn't it? I distinctly remember John Maughan co-commentating with M O'M on the 2005 football final for example...

Somehow Federer's haul of 16 grand slams looks distinctly achievable.

It does right now, but it'll be easier said than done. I reckon Fed isn't done winning majors yet either - before Nadal's comback in Paris, Fed had won three of the previous four and lost to Del Potro in the final of the '09 US Open.

Reckon Fed will get to 17 or 18 at the finish-up. But I think if Nadal's knees hold up, he could be the first man to reach 20. Especially as there doesn't seem to be anyone in the younger ranks that looks like they have the potential to 'succeed' him as the best in the world in the same way he succeeded Federer.

  - from The Onion... (http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance-armstrong-wants-to-tell-nation-something-but,17973/)

Lance Armstrong Wants To Tell Nation Something But Nation Has To Promise Not To Get Mad

August 27, 2010 | ISSUE 46•34

01.29.09 DALLAS—Saying that it would probably be best if everyone sat down for this, seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong informed the U.S. populace Thursday that he wanted to tell it something, but that the nation first had to promise it wouldn't get angry once he did.
"Look, I'm not going to sugarcoat this. It's bad," Armstrong said during the nationally televised press conference. "But you have to swear to God that you won't get mad when I tell you, because if you get upset and yell about how you're really disappointed I'm just going to walk out of here."
"Okay?" Armstrong continued. "You guys promise?"
Armstrong then took a deep breath, massaged his forehead, murmured "Oh boy, here we go," and appeared for several moments to be on the verge of telling the nation his news. He seemed to lose his focus, however, commenting that it wasn't as if anything he was about to say would diminish the fact that he beat cancer or that his foundation has donated more than $250 million to cancer research.
In addition, Armstrong said the American people had to promise that, following his announcement, they would resist the urge to remove their Livestrong bracelets and throw them away or burn them.
"Okay, there's no easy way to put this, but, well, you guys know how I won a record seven consecutive Tours de France between 1999 and 2005?" said Armstrong, who took a sip of water as his hand visibly shook. "Well, this has to do with that. It also has to do with this impending federal investigation of my cycling team. What it absolutely does not have anything to do with is the fact that I am an inspiration to cancer sufferers worldwide—cancer sufferers who could potentially experience serious physical and emotional setbacks if you break your promise and get mad at me."
Throughout the preamble to his announcement, onlookers reported getting the impression that Armstrong felt some need to defend what he was about to tell the country. The world's most successful cyclist spent almost 25 minutes telling the nation that, as a top-level international athlete, one has to do certain things to remain competitive; that he has no regrets; and that, given the chance to live his life again, he would do everything again the same way.
Armstrong also repeatedly mentioned that he had beaten cancer.
"You have to understand—in the high-pressure world of competitive cycling, it's all about getting any advantage you can," Armstrong said. "And if we were being realistic, we'd have to admit that everyone in cycling was trying to get an advantage. So, in a way, if we were all trying to get the same advantage, then the playing field was still completely equal. So I was still the best. It makes sense when you look at it that way. And nothing I am about to tell you changes that. So, when I'm finished saying what I have to say, you all have to promise to still adore me."
"In fact, if you don't still adore me, and you suddenly get all huffy and say that I wasn't really a hero all these years, you are in the wrong here, not me," Armstrong added. "You. Not me."
Armstrong then stood, paced back and forth for a moment, shook his head, and returned to the microphone.
"You guys are not making this easy for me, that's for damn sure," he said. "This really shouldn't be hard. Because it's actually not even really that big of a deal. At all. Frankly, I don't even know why I'm here right now."
Armstrong reiterated for a fifth and sixth time that he had beaten cancer.
"Okay, here goes," Armstrong said. "Um, in the late '90s and early 2000s, I took, um... You see, in order to give myself a better chance of winning, I... Yes, there were instances during the Tour when..."
"You know what? I forgot what I was going to say," Armstrong added. "Sorry. I feel like an idiot. Have a nice afternoon."

Is there actually any Mayo supporter on this site that would take Micko?

If there was a serious alternative who was interested, then no. But the other three on the list (I'm not including Maughan because he's not including himself) have done nothing management-wise at inter-county level. If this is the list to pick from, then I'd pick Micko.

Whatever you think of the man's motives, he puts fire, pride and belief into his teams. Time and again Mayo posters on this board, myself included, bemoan the lack of those three things. I think for one year anyway, it has to be worth a shot.

It's not like we have a team of outstanding players just requiring a tweak to win Sam anyway. And yes, I know that's the real problem - but whoever is appointed the new manager won't be able to solve that anyway. That would, I'd hope ( ) be the purpose of the 'review', if and when it ever happens...

[provincial winners]

"None of the provincial winners got that chance. Anyone knows that you get that momentum through the back door it can be awfully hard to stop and we have seen that this year. Louth hammered Kildare, Tyrone hammered Down and yet Kildare and Down are the ones in the All-Ireland semi-final this weekend."

I take it Frank heard the result of the Leinster Final? 

*ducks head*

[But the NYT's coup de grace against the Vatican comes with the theocon chief witness, Father Brundage. Brundage had claimed he had been misquoted in the NYT, and that the trial was indeed ongoing at the time of Murphy's death. Brundage, now seeing documents he had not seen before, reverses himself:]

Something tells me this will be of interest to Ulick and Muppet...

(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/father-brundage-is-wrong.html#more)

The Vatican Spins; The NYT Wins

01 Apr 2010 09:53 am

The Vatican came out swinging yesterday against the New York Times. And whiffed bad. The Vatican accused the Times of reporting "deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness," and insisting that then-Cardinal Ratzinger had nothing to do with the decision by his deputy to suspend a canonical trial against Father Lawrence Murphy, an unrepentant multiple rapist of deaf children, because he was nearing death.

The only way this can be the case is, again, if control-queen Ratzinger knew nothing of the final decisions of his number two in a meeting in Rome on a case where hundreds of defenseless deaf children had been raped and molested by an unrepentant priest for decades. That's the agit-prop being pushed out by some Vatican-sympathizers. They argue that because Ratzinger's CDF only got responsibility for child abuse cases in 2001, he cannot have been responsible for the 1998 decision. But Ratzinger was in charge of the case in 1996 to 1998 because

"Father Murphy was suspected of using the confessional to commit his crimes — a crime that is considered particularly serious under the church's canon law because confession is a sacrament. "

This is why Ratzinger is so connected to the Murphy case. And he was handling it for two years. What are the odds he knew nothing about it? Or that he had no sign-off on the final decision not to proceed with a trial?

But the NYT's coup de grace against the Vatican comes with the theocon chief witness, Father Brundage. Brundage had claimed he had been misquoted in the NYT, and that the trial was indeed ongoing at the time of Murphy's death. Brundage, now seeing documents he had not seen before, reverses himself:

"    Father Brundage, who is now working in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, posted an essay this week saying he was never informed that the trial of Father Murphy had been halted.

    He also said that he had been misquoted in both The New York Times and The Associated Press. In an interview on Wednesday, Father Brundage acknowledged that he had never been quoted in any Times articles about the Murphy case — and the paper did not misquote him. He said he was misquoted in an Associated Press article that was posted temporarily on the Times Web site, and he mistakenly attributed that to The Times.

    He said the documents show that the Vatican had encouraged the Milwaukee Archdiocese to halt the trial, but they did not use strong language and actually order a halt. He said that he never saw the letter from Archbishop Weakland abating the trial until it appeared on the Times Web site last week."

So it seems perfectly clear that the Vatican did indeed make the final decision - against Weakland's wishes - not to proceed with a canonical trial, and Murphy was buried in full vestments, and his victims never got justice and the church had more sympathy with an elderly and dying priest than with the raped souls and bodies of countless children. The indefatigable Carolyn Disco, a commenter at America, and NCR and a Dish-reader, notes the critical meeting when the decision was made:

"     Snip: The May 30, 1998 meeting with Weakland, Fliss, Sklba, Bertone, his deputy Girotti, and staff is critical. The translated minutes from Italian specify Weakland pleaded for a canonical trial to proceed. He specified six points, including Murphy has no remorse, many victims, fear of scandal, etc. Some of the translation wording can be awkward but the meaning is clear.

    Then Bertone lists the problems of continuing a trial: difficulty in furnishing proofs, testimonies without increasing scandal, need for secrecy, long period of time, no other accusations from Superior diocese; that "there are not enough elements to instruct a canonical trial."

    Bertone lists what should be done by way of "penal remedies"  like restricting where Murphy can celebrate Eucharist (only Superior, not Milwaukee), and requiring permission in writing. Also that Murphy must give clear signs of repentance, "OTHERWISE he must be applied to a trial." Clear signs of repentance mean NO TRIAL.
     
    Bertone even "restates the two central points TO BE FOLLOWED" and lists them: (no discretion allowed) "1) the territorial restriction of the celebration (of the) Eucharist and 2) the needed remorse and reform of the priest." That's it, period.
     
    The meeting concludes with Weakland's pained "difficulty he will have explaining this to the community of the deaf." Weakland would have no difficulty at all explaining the continuation of a trial but great difficulty in explaining the cancellation of one."

Notice that one factor in Bertone's decision - my italics - was avoiding more scandal for the church and needing more secrecy. Moreover, Disco notes how the Vatican bureaucracy, like most bureaucracies, finds a way to avoid full responsibility by anyone :

"    There is no separate written order by Bertone to stop a canonical trial (with or without his superior's  agreement or understanding, ie Ratzinger) but there are minutes that specify what measures are "to be followed."

    There is no written order to Brundage to stop a trial, instead there are those same minutes he read, and a report of a status conference on the Murphy case with no mention of a trial in progress – just administrative measures related to "precepts.""

For clarifying details of what went on at those meetings at the Vatican and compelling case that Weakland was pushing strongly at the end for a trial and the Vatican was pushing against can be read in Disco's responses (7,8 and 9) here.

[Munich archdiocese defends pope]

The cover-up continues (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0326/breaking64.html);

Munich archdiocese defends pope

Pope Benedict's former archdiocese of Munich today insisted he had no knowledge of a 1980 decision to reassign a priest undergoing therapy there for suspected paedophilia to a post with access to children.

Archdiocesan spokesman Bernhard Kellner dismissed as speculation a New York Times  article that the fact the-then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was copied in on a memo of the transfer meant he was informed of what went on.

"We stand by our account that Cardinal Ratzinger didn't know about this decision," Mr Kellner said. "I cannot confirm he knew about this, and we don't have any evidence to that effect."

The priest, Rev Peter Hullermann, was identified earlier this month after a newspaper reported that he had been moved from northern Germany to Munich in 1980 for therapy for suspected paedophilia, but was soon put to work with youths. Six years later he was convicted of molesting a boy at another parish.

Pope Benedict, archbishop of Munich in 1980, oversaw the decision to transfer the priest at that time to Munich for therapy, Mr Kellner said. However, the Vatican has denied the pope knew of the priest's reassignment to youth work in Bavaria.

The pope's then vicar general, Father Gerhard Gruber, took full responsibility earlier this month for the decision to reinstate Hullermann, who has since been suspended from his priestly duties.

"It was the decision of Gerhard Gruber, and he admitted his mistake," Mr Kellner told Reuters. "(Pope Benedict) did not decide to make this man a spiritual counsellor." Mr Kellner said the New York Times account was accurate but "there is not one single piece of new information in the article." Copying the memo detailing the decision to the office of the archbishop was routine procedure, he said.

"An archbishop doesn't read all the administrative acts. He just can't. That's why he has a vicar general," he added. "Gruber had 100 percent administrative control."

The Munich archdiocese said on Wednesday that new sexual abuse allegations had been made against Hullermann, whose case had been forwarded to the prosecutor's office.

In a statement, the Church said it met with possible victims and that Hullermann was alleged to have abused a minor in 1998 when he worked in Garching, near Munich. The archdiocese also said that Garching and Bad Toelz, the two towns where Hullermann had worked, had appointed independent lay ombudsmen to examine any new allegations of abuse.

The latest Times  report followed an article yesterday that revealed the Vatican did not defrock a US priest accused of sexually abusing up to 200 deaf boys in Milwaukee from the 1950s to the 1970s.

A Vatican spokesman explained that church laws did not require automatic punishment and that civil authorities dropped their investigation into allegations of his abuse in 1974.

Reuters


Further comment is almost superfluous at this stage.

It's difficult to see how the Church will regain anyone's trust under the leadership of this man.

Although I hope it doesn't turn out that way, this is nicely set up for a Monaghan win.

History has taught us that Mayo are never as vulnerable as when they're coming off a big victory - see Galway '09, Dublin '06, Tyrone '04 etc.

Monaghan might be in difficulty but they're no mugs and they'll rightly fancy it on Sunday.

Mayo badly need these two points if they're serious about reaching the league final - Cork are formidable in Pairc Ui Rinn at the moment and I wouldn't want to be going there looking for a result.