Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome both delegations. Having listened to the debate and exchange of views, I, too, have had serious difficulties with the use of the word "bombshell" in respect of the resignation of Mr. Billy Walsh. I was surprised to hear Mr. Kirwan talking about including legally binding sections that will not be invoked. It is rather strange to interpret employment law by including sections in the belief they will not be invoked anyway. That did not seem to be an approach with which Mr. Walsh agreed. Does Mr. Christle resent the high performance unit within the organisation? Does he resent its success? Is there some culture within the IABA that has drawn the wagons around and which has resulted in the expressed view that many more coaches can be recruited? It has been asked what Billy Walsh means anyway. Despite this, all the evidence suggests Mr. Walsh was not only a successful coach, as Mr. Mulvey stated last week, but the best boxing coach in the world. Mr. Christle is saying he wanted Mr. Walsh to stay but the evidence suggests otherwise.

I hope the Chairman will allow me to make a quotation in order to put my question together. Mr. Walsh is quoted in a newspaper article as having said, "I could not work for someone who clearly did not want me". He stated the association has implied he left because of money. This has arisen repeatedly here. The delegation has gone into a lot of detail about money. Most people in the public arena who support boxing and acknowledge its success would not understand the dancing on the head of a needle over whether there would be a problem for the other employees. They regard Mr. Walsh in the same way as they regard Mr. Joe Schmidt and Mr. Martin O'Neill, namely, as the man leading the success of his sport. Does Mr. Christle resent the success of the high performance unit? Is there something in the organisation that resents success?

Mr. Keith Duggan stated in The Irish Timeslast week, "The future of Irish boxing is what is at stake here but this sorry mess, this usual disgrace, is an unhappy reminder that Ireland is the undisputed world champion when it comes to mugging itself". How could the association let Mr. Walsh go? For eight months, this went on. Mr. Christle said in his submission that, on the receipt of the offer from the United States, there were attempts to come to a new arrangement. He said there was an initial urgency to the process at Mr. Walsh's insistence but that the urgency subsequently subsided due to overseas commitments. Why did the urgency subside? If the association was so keen to keep Mr. Walsh, why did this drag on for eight months? Towards the latter end, it was dragged on again. Without going into specific details, Mr. Walsh referred to timelines. Contracts were sent back. Up to 60 amendments were required for the contract to be fair and acceptable to Mr. Walsh. Throughout his statement, Mr. Walsh makes it clear the money was not an issue.

I am aware other Members wish to contribute. There is much more I would like to say. The association has acted disgracefully and not in the best national interest. This is the closest thing in sporting terms to national sabotage. Our having such limited expertise in a wide variety of sports is such that the letting go of Mr. Walsh in the manner in which he was let go does not reflect well on either the chief executive or Mr. Christle, the chairman of the IABA. In fact, people outside the Houses have asked that Mr. Christle might even consider his position.