GAELIC GAMES:The GAA will not make an immediate response to criticisms of the disciplinary process made by Cork manager Gerald McCarthy in the aftermath of Sunday's Munster hurling championship defeat by Waterford.

Among the charges levelled by McCarthy was that GAA president Nickey Brennan had hung up on him after he had rung to protest at the treatment of his players, whose appeal hearing last week had been called off at short notice and after they had taken time off work to attend.

"I won't be making any statements about this just yet," said the president yesterday. "There will be a brief press release tomorrow [ Tuesday] but nothing more detailed. I'm saying nothing until after the coming weekend but I will have plenty to say when I do."

The delay in addressing the issues raised by the hearings into the pre-match fracas before the Cork-Clare match in Thurles on May 27th relates to the fact that the four suspended Clare players have yet to present their case to the Central Appeals Committee, a hearing that is believed to be taking place this Thursday.

Cork have already been through the entire process, from Hearings Committee to CAC to the Disputes Resolution Authority, which last Saturday night finally closed the door on attempts to lift the four-week suspensions imposed on Dónal Cusack, Diarmuid O'Sullivan and Seán Ó hAilpín in time for the weekend's match with Waterford.

McCarthy's comments on Sunday related to last week's CAC meeting to hear the Cork players' appeals. "We had an appeals hearing organised for last Wednesday night," he told media in Thurles at the weekend. "The players took a day off work, they were on their way to the hearing in Portlaoise and then we got a phone call to say that the hearing was off, end of story, full stop. That's a disgrace.

"It was off because one member of the CCCC [ it was actually the Hearings Committee], two of them were supposed to be going to the meeting, could not attend. The meeting was postponed until Friday night and as it happened, that same member did not attend. That is an absolute disgrace. I was in such a rage that I rang the president of the association to protest at the way our players were treated. I got a short response followed by a hang up. The players deserve better than that. It's scandalous treatment of them," he added."

It is believed, however, that the Hearings Committee was only notified at 1.20pm on Wednesday that there was to be an appeals hearing that evening in Portlaoise at six o'clock. This was scarcely enough time for members to travel let alone prepare their case.

There was no explanation offered as to why the CAC had informed players that a meeting was taking place without confirming that all parties would be in a position to attend.

Meanwhile, the DRA decision to reject Cork's representations taken at a lengthy meeting on Saturday night was yesterday published in full. It emerged that distinguished former Kilkenny hurler Eddie Keher was on the DRC (the committee that heard the application) together with two lawyers, Andy Smith and Rory Mulcahy.

The cases taken were those of the three players, as the Cork County Board had accepted the fines upheld by the CAC. County secretary Frank Murphy represented the players and claimed that the decision of the CAC was illegal on the basis that no reasonable committee could have arrived at it.

It was also argued on behalf of Seán Ó hAilpín that the video evidence considered by the CAC in upholding his suspension should not have been admitted since it was not "reliable and unedited" within the meaning of Rule 144 (z) (iii) (b) of the GAA's Official Guide.

Although the DRC would not normally view video evidence because that would in effect be to exercise an appellate function, which the DRA doesn't have, but in this case it was accepted that to judge the Cork case properly the video would have to be watched.

Murphy asked the DRC to issue a definition of the offence "contributing to a melee", under which the players had been suspended for four weeks each but the tribunal decided it wasn't appropriate to offer such a definition or to consider its meaning beyond the extent necessary to determine these claims, as the hearing was under time pressure with the Waterford match due to be played the following day and none of the parties had made submissions on the meaning of the words.

So it was decided that the words must be given their ordinary meaning, the tribunal noting: "Clearly therefore the offence can cover a multitude and that seems to have been the intention of the association in enacting the new rule."

It was also decided that to come under the meaning of Rule 144 an edited video must be so edited as to misrepresent what had happened. On that basis the Ó hAilpín claim was refused.

The tribunal decision concluded: "The CAC are required to ask whether the CHC were manifestly incorrect in so deciding, and they formed that view that they were not manifestly incorrect, and therefore upheld the suspensions.

"While fully acknowledging the genuineness and sincerity of the three players, it seems to us that the CAC acted within jurisdiction in upholding the decision of the CHC."