Seán Moran On Gaelic Games:The Irish are not in a conspiracy to cheat the world by false representations of the merits of their countrymen. No, Sir; the Irish are a fair people; they never speak well of one another. - Dr Samuel Johnson per Boswell

It is ironic that for someone who was better disposed than the going 18th century rate towards Ireland, Johnson's opinion of us is best remembered by the above quotation. The good doctor would be interested to note that by now his observation has become groundless within the counsels of the GAA.

On the disciplinary front this year not alone do they never speak ill of one another, they won't even countenance thinking ill of anyone.

County allegiance covers everything and generally trumps reason and better instinct. When a county's interest is threatened by fair punishment, no matter how scrupulously administered, there will almost always be a titanic struggle to escape the consequences of the original misdeed.

When people give out about the GAA and its pursuit of ever more labyrinthine detail in disciplinary structures, the scale of the association's difficulties and its cause gets overlooked.

How many campaigns to liberate suspended players are based on actual innocence, such as mistaken identity? Hardly any, and what occupies units, members and committees is far more likely to be attempts to pick holes in administrative procedures and fair process. As a result, the GAA has been obliged to introduce systems intended to stand up to the most detailed scrutiny because any loopholes in committee work will be exploited to the full, regardless of culpability.

This has become frustrating and disheartening. The rules of the GAA are meant to prescribe standards of behaviour to which every member of a voluntary organisation consents.

On Monday, the GAA issued a statement justifying Central Council's actions in pursuing the Peadar Carton suspension all the way to the Disputes Resolution Authority. The association, according to the media release, had received legal opinion that the basis on which the Central Appeals Committee had lifted Carton's suspension was incorrect. It did not say whether or not the CAC was aware of this situation - although given that this was a legal issue, what was the committee thinking in not taking advice on the matter? - but the thrust of the release was that the appeals body had erred.

There's no real need at this stage to dwell any further on the details of the Carton case. Suffice it to say that no one's any wiser after Sunday's under-21 final why Dublin considered it such a matter of self-interest that the county's hurling community, apart from its least penetrable partisans, should be embarrassed and that much of the goodwill that exists throughout the broader hurling community for what has been remarkable development work in the capital should be so compromised.

Anyway the tactics worked in that Carton has, since breaking Paul Curran's jaw, lined out in one Leinster final, one All-Ireland semi-final and, finally, last Sunday's under-21 showpiece.

If we accept that Dublin are no more amoral in this context than most other counties in their efforts to evade stipulated punishment for important players in big matches, the conclusion to be drawn is that the GAA's structures are inadequate or incompetently administered.

Viewed objectively, it looks like an astonishingly bad decision on the part of the CAC. Not alone that, but it comes hard on the heels of another astonishingly bad decision from the same body in the same case.

First of all, the Carton suspension was remitted for rehearing on the questionable grounds that the Central Competitions Control Committee, which proposed the punishment that the CHC accepted, had conducted a tele-meeting rather than gathering under one roof and a member of the CCCC had been emailed video evidence - even though the member in question had had no part in the deliberation and had simply been on a group address list.

In response, the CCCC reconsidered the case, proposed the same recommendation and once more argued it successfully before the CHC.

On appeal, the suspension was lifted because the same committee, the CHC, had heard the matter for a second time. This conclusion was reached despite the specific provision of Rule 152 (n) (ii) - under which the original appeal was upheld - which states the CAC may "remit the matter for re-hearing or re-processing".

Who did the CAC think was going to rehear the matter but the body established by rule to hear and rehear such cases, namely the CHC? In the circumstances and given that the appeal appears to have been allowed on the basis of some half-baked notion of natural justice, the GAA took legal advice, which took issue with the CAC decision.

The GAA has always been reluctant to pursue players when they escape censure, but this was a special case. There was a strong feeling that the suspension was a clear and straightforward one and also a considerable amount of anger when it was lifted for what appeared to be at best flimsy reasons.

Even that mightn't have been enough to push the matter to the DRA, but for the fact the association plainly can't allow the interpretation of the CAC to go unchallenged. In the event, the DRA decided it hadn't the jurisdiction to hear the matter, which it judged was in effect a dispute between Central Council and one of its own committees.

That was a reasonable finding and would appear to leave open the possibility of Central Council overruling the CAC and reimposing the suspension or at least ordering it reheard. At this stage, such a move would be largely meaningless for the player, but an important rectifying of the situation by the GAA's governing body. It would also surely lead to the current CAC having to consider its position.