Coach Alastair Clarkson III - new NMFC senior coach until at least end 2027 - NMFC board approved AC to start 1/11 amid ongoing HFC racism investigation

[giantroo]

 

[Hardcore North]

Sonja hood you are a star. This lady is the figurehead we’ve been crying out for.

 

[Ligma]

I trust Sonja.

 

[Psicosis]

He’s 100% coaching next year after that. No doubt in my mind.

 

[benbanjo]

Ok lets get this investigation out of the way, we have a preseason to start and need Clarko on deck.

Seems like the call to back him in has been made so lets get on with it.

 

[hsquid]

Honestly mate, this is one of the most well considered and worthwhile pieces of writing I’ve seen by anyone about the whole saga anywhere.
Thanks for taking the time and effort for preparing that.

So what’s your instinct: will this take a systems approach, or a personal culpability approach?

Thanks for that.
It's a tough one, and I think it's what a lot of the discussion about the composition of the panel will be about. It might also lead to tensions within the team if there isn't clear direction about which way to go and some aim to come to conclusive individual findings without a really solid evidence-based approach. At the end of the day it may come down to the preferences of those three (four) families. Are they looking to hold people to account? Is that their priority and are they prepared to go through the stress that will bring? Or are they more about raising awareness, fixing systems and (yes) getting reparations. I imagine this is the discussion their AFL-appointed lawyer will be having with them.

 

[Rooniversity]

With Sonja's background and passion for social inclusion and diversity, I just can't imagine her backing Clarkson if she had any doubt whatsoever.

 

[giantroo]

 

[winalotroos]

I wrote the above a few hours after we got the news.
With a few more data points and a bit more time to absorb. I’ve adjusted my views. I’ll take some time to spell them out. As context, I have no ITK. I’ve got a background in human rights law and consulting and I’ve done all kinds of evaluations, studies, reviews etc in a lot of different contexts, although never anything exactly like this.
I spell out my thinking in three separate parts:

1. the facts
2. the investigation
3. the fallout

Sorry if it’s long, but, well, it’s complicated.

1. The facts
In my post above I said the accusations were so serious that there was no wriggle room. That even if some aspects were unproven or exaggerated, the magnitude of the accusation would be too much. I couldn’t see a way for an acceptable truth - for Clarkson - to turn into an article like that. I’ve changed my mind on this. I hate the idea of wriggling out of appalling behavior by hiding in lack-of-proof and benefit-of-the-doubt. I hope like hell the facts become clear, known and the conseqences are appropriate. But here I am.

There’s been five things that have influenced this change:

The nature of the report / article
As others have noted, this information has come to light in an unconventional fashion. The first hints of an issue at Hawthorn were via Cyril Rioli and were sparked directly by Jeff Kennett. We know what sort of person he is, so this is no surprise. As I understand it, Cyril has not had an issue with Clarkson, despite all his issues with the club. In response, Hawthorn commissioned a report to look at issues with racism against indigenous players. As I understand it, this report was designed to look at things from the players perspective, rather than the club perspective. It wasn’t looking at processes and boxes ticked and it wasn’t looking at where things were working. it was specifically looking for where things were going wrong. The purpose was to give people a voice, to identify systemic issues and to recommend steps to support past players/partners and how to improve the experience of others in the future. It was not designed as an investigation into a single incident or individual. It wasn’t looking to establish sufficient evidence to name and shame someone, instead it was aiming to bring issues into the open in a non-judgemental way.

The newspaper article took this approach even further. It was all about eliciting personal, potentially traumatic experiences. It did that well. It was not a fact-finding report nor was it designed to find and test evidence to demonstrate individual responsibility. Of course once it became public there were massive implications for people’s reputations in any case, but it was not the kind if investigation designed to deliver those kinds of consequences. This doesn't mean that anything is more true or false, just that the mere existence of the report’s stories is weaker evidence than might be presumed if it came through a different style of investigation.

A closer look at the accusations
So what about the actual accusations?
The overall tone and flavour of the accusations remains appalling. Cutting off young indigenous players from their families? Forcing an abortion? Bullying people to move house? There are three things to be clear about:

• There was no forced abortion. The heartbreaking story in which Ian telephones his partner to tell her they need to terminate the pregnancy resulted in a baby. There was a regretted abortion later which was allegedly motivated by the pressure experienced during the first pregnancy, but - as I understand it - there is no suggestion there was direct pressure in that case.
  
  
• There is (as I see it) no evidence of direct racism linked to Clarkson. ‘Racism’ is the name of the scandal. This is natural because the initial report was directly targeting the experiences of indigenous players and their partners and the racism they experienced. However there is no accusation that the pressures and ‘bullying’ was couched in racist terms. Yes, the cultural differences make things harder. Yes, there are horrible echos of the stolen generation and paternalism in the alleged patterns of behaviour. Yes, indigenous players may find themselves more frequently in a particular pattern of complex situations - so these things can be indirectly racist in their impacts. But there’s no evidence (so far) that non-indigenous players in similar situations didn’t experience similar pressures. These cases wouldn’t have been discovered in a study of the experiences of indigenous players. Regarding Clarkson, the accusations should be labelled as bullying (and worse), not necessarily racist.
  
  
• A lot of the accusations are subjective in their interpretation. ‘Bullying’, “Demands’, ‘Insisted’. Clearly these words can represent seriously reprehensible behaviour. But equally there is room for interpretation. What is ‘advice’, ‘strong advice’, ‘manipulation’, ‘a demand’, ‘a threat’? A massive difference, but there is inherent interpretation of any specific event. The strongest accusation is that Clarkson ‘demanded’ that he ‘get rid of [his] unborn child and [his] partner’. Clarkson was ‘intimidating’. And yet there was no reported ‘punishment’ when this demand was not complied with. Again, this doesn’t prove Clarkson didn’t do horrible things, it just demonstrates the inherent ambiguity in the language involved.

The response from former players
Former players, indigenous and non-indigenous, have come out far more strongly than they might have in support of Clarkson. Of course nobody can say it didn’t happen, but they’ve virtually uniformly said it comes as a total surprise and does not match their experiences with Clarkson. The easiest way out would have been no comment and that they’re really looking forward to getting everything clear. There were many indigenous players at Hawthorn over this period. If it was widespread and directly racist in its nature, it’s hard to imagine it would be confined to just a few individuals. You would expect a lot more smoke and noise. Equally, if there was a broad bullying culture you would expect it to have gone on for years while the leadership stays the same, and that more people would be aware.

What we already know about Clarkson
Clarkson is known to be a tough bugger. Focused, angry, intense. You can certainly imagine him being forceful in his communication. But he’s someone who has been at the centre of the industry for a long time and has been consistently known for his integrity, something virtually impossible to maintain as an illusion for so long. His public statements have been particularly progressive and effusive in terms of highlighting multiculturalism, the huddle, culture and even the ‘fatherly’ need to care for the people under his care. You can imagine excesses - behaviour seen as intimidating or overly controlling - but it’s very hard to reconcile what we know with him being systematically nasty or racist or crossing the line so gratuitously as accused.

The opportunity for cultural misunderstanding
Mainstream anglo-aussie-footy culture is renowned for being brutal and direct. Macho. Things are stated strongly. You can absolutely imagine a young kid, coming from a context where communication is more indirect, more respectful - and respectful to hierarchy - more hinted and more relationship-oriented having a different understanding from a footy boss of what is ‘advice’ / ‘strong advice’ / ‘manipulation’ / ‘demand’ / ‘threat’. Crossing the line is still crossing the line, but you can imagine how the views of the parties could easily be one or two categories apart.

Of course none of this is conclusive. Nothing tells us much directly about what did or did not happen. Terrible things may well have taken place, with Clarkson potentially in the centre. But it makes me feel like there is more ambiguity and ‘wiggle room’ than I’d seen before.


2. The investigation
The AFL investigation has already hit hurdles in being established. This is no surprise. There are at least three different types of investigation that could be carried out in this situation. There are tensions and contradictions between them and it is impossible to get the ‘best’ of each approach.

As mentioned, the first two ‘investigations’ - the Hawthorn report and the newspaper article - were targeted at (primarily) listening, hearing the stories and (secondarily) recommending systemic improvements to the supports and management of indigenous players at an AFL club. They were not constituted as hard-nosed fact-finding investigations into single incidents or accusations, much less quasi-judicial bodies set up to judge individuals. These are very very different purposes and need to be constituted very differently.

There are two distinct approaches for the AFL investigation: It could focus on systems or it could focus on people.

A systems approach would be similar to the original Hawthorn report. What systems and practices were in place? What should be better? If the investigation goes in this direction it will come up with recommendations for change. It will make broad statements about the environment that existed. It may repeat stories from the perspectives of individual ‘victims’. It will look to talk to more people to get alternative views to paint a more complete and balance picture rather than just focusing on the negative. It will recommend support and possible reparations for people affected. It won’t go hard at determining details of specific incidents. It won’t be looking to prove specifics ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. This approach would be gentler on the accusers and would almost certainly result in important improvements, but it wouldn’t tell us much definitive about the role of Clarkson. Instead, it would leave his name tarnished with an ambiguous finding of his role in the bigger picture.

A ‘people’ or ‘incidents’ approach would be quite different. If we want a clear finding on Clarkson, this is the approach that would need to be taken. It wouldn’t be able to pin blame on Clarkson for “a culture of bullying’ because it’s too vague and it’s been too hidden to be likely. It would deep dive intensely on specific accusations, going through them rigorously one at a time. It would require hard evidence. It wouldn’t be able to focus much on the consequences for the ‘victims’, rather looking at the actions of the accused. It would be stressful for the people making accusations, who would feel they were not being supported or believed. It would get mired in discussion of exactly what words were said, what consequences were threatened. It would struggle to place weight on the second-hand accounts of partners about what took place and who was instigating it - especially those who are actually claiming to have been cut off from the players involved. It would likely get stalled on ‘insufficient evidence’ against individuals to hold them ‘guilty’ of anything, leaving complainants feeling ignored and the stench of a whitewash In the air.

So these seem the likely outcomes of an investigation: either an ambiguous support for the victims and sticky but unproven reputational damage for Clarkson, or an explicit finding that there was pressure and a harsh environment, but not sufficient proof of Clarkson himself crossing the line to justify a formal finding against him. Of course other (worse) outcomes are possible depending on what the facts actually show.

3. The fallout
So if that is right, we’re headed for some ambiguity.
If the investigation takes a ‘systems’ approach, it will not provide enough to justify sacking Clarkson. Even if it takes a ‘person’ approach looking to judge the individuals, all the fuzzing factors listed above seem unlikely to bring the hard level of evidence required - but equally unlikely to result in a clear vindication. A likely outcome is that Clarkson continues, scarred, tarnished but unconvicted.

Of course, if the facts are really that damning there won’t - and shouldn't - be any escape.

Thank you, well worth the read.

 

[Billy Not Really]

If he's backed in, he starts on his initial date or thereabouts you reckon. If you have nothing to hide, you walk out head held high and carry about your business as usual and let the process and hysteria run its course. His vindication must come through in the work that has to be done because in this age and climate you're always guilty until proven innocent, and if the club is behind it and him, then I don't see why this needs to be skirted around when and where he can come to the place he is contracted to work at.

 

[justroyal]

Technically she put her head/credentials on the line, right? That’s pretty powerful stuff

 

[Nylex]

Thank goodness Sonja has plenty of shinboner.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

I trust Sonja.

I trust her too. I‘m pretty surprised by the message here, to be honest, but don’t know anything and will just wait to see what happens from here.

 

[Caracas]

I wrote the above a few hours after we got the news.
With a few more data points and a bit more time to absorb. I’ve adjusted my views. I’ll take some time to spell them out. As context, I have no ITK. I’ve got a background in human rights law and consulting and I’ve done all kinds of evaluations, studies, reviews etc in a lot of different contexts, although never anything exactly like this.
I spell out my thinking in three separate parts:

1. the facts
2. the investigation
3. the fallout

Sorry if it’s long, but, well, it’s complicated.

1. The facts
In my post above I said the accusations were so serious that there was no wriggle room. That even if some aspects were unproven or exaggerated, the magnitude of the accusation would be too much. I couldn’t see a way for an acceptable truth - for Clarkson - to turn into an article like that. I’ve changed my mind on this. I hate the idea of wriggling out of appalling behavior by hiding in lack-of-proof and benefit-of-the-doubt. I hope like hell the facts become clear, known and the conseqences are appropriate. But here I am.

There’s been five things that have influenced this change:

The nature of the report / article
As others have noted, this information has come to light in an unconventional fashion. The first hints of an issue at Hawthorn were via Cyril Rioli and were sparked directly by Jeff Kennett. We know what sort of person he is, so this is no surprise. As I understand it, Cyril has not had an issue with Clarkson, despite all his issues with the club. In response, Hawthorn commissioned a report to look at issues with racism against indigenous players. As I understand it, this report was designed to look at things from the players perspective, rather than the club perspective. It wasn’t looking at processes and boxes ticked and it wasn’t looking at where things were working. it was specifically looking for where things were going wrong. The purpose was to give people a voice, to identify systemic issues and to recommend steps to support past players/partners and how to improve the experience of others in the future. It was not designed as an investigation into a single incident or individual. It wasn’t looking to establish sufficient evidence to name and shame someone, instead it was aiming to bring issues into the open in a non-judgemental way.

The newspaper article took this approach even further. It was all about eliciting personal, potentially traumatic experiences. It did that well. It was not a fact-finding report nor was it designed to find and test evidence to demonstrate individual responsibility. Of course once it became public there were massive implications for people’s reputations in any case, but it was not the kind if investigation designed to deliver those kinds of consequences. This doesn't mean that anything is more true or false, just that the mere existence of the report’s stories is weaker evidence than might be presumed if it came through a different style of investigation.

A closer look at the accusations
So what about the actual accusations?
The overall tone and flavour of the accusations remains appalling. Cutting off young indigenous players from their families? Forcing an abortion? Bullying people to move house? There are three things to be clear about:

• There was no forced abortion. The heartbreaking story in which Ian telephones his partner to tell her they need to terminate the pregnancy resulted in a baby. There was a regretted abortion later which was allegedly motivated by the pressure experienced during the first pregnancy, but - as I understand it - there is no suggestion there was direct pressure in that case.
  
  
• There is (as I see it) no evidence of direct racism linked to Clarkson. ‘Racism’ is the name of the scandal. This is natural because the initial report was directly targeting the experiences of indigenous players and their partners and the racism they experienced. However there is no accusation that the pressures and ‘bullying’ was couched in racist terms. Yes, the cultural differences make things harder. Yes, there are horrible echos of the stolen generation and paternalism in the alleged patterns of behaviour. Yes, indigenous players may find themselves more frequently in a particular pattern of complex situations - so these things can be indirectly racist in their impacts. But there’s no evidence (so far) that non-indigenous players in similar situations didn’t experience similar pressures. These cases wouldn’t have been discovered in a study of the experiences of indigenous players. Regarding Clarkson, the accusations should be labelled as bullying (and worse), not necessarily racist.
  
  
• A lot of the accusations are subjective in their interpretation. ‘Bullying’, “Demands’, ‘Insisted’. Clearly these words can represent seriously reprehensible behaviour. But equally there is room for interpretation. What is ‘advice’, ‘strong advice’, ‘manipulation’, ‘a demand’, ‘a threat’? A massive difference, but there is inherent interpretation of any specific event. The strongest accusation is that Clarkson ‘demanded’ that Ian ‘get rid of [his] unborn child and [his] partner’. Clarkson was ‘intimidating’. And yet there was no reported ‘punishment’ when this demand was not complied with. Again, this doesn’t prove Clarkson didn’t do horrible things, it just demonstrates the inherent ambiguity in the language involved.

The response from former players
Former players, indigenous and non-indigenous, have come out far more strongly than they might have in support of Clarkson. Of course nobody can say it didn’t happen, but they’ve virtually uniformly said it comes as a total surprise and does not match their experiences with Clarkson. The easiest way out would have been no comment and that they’re really looking forward to getting everything clear. There were many indigenous players at Hawthorn over this period. If it was widespread and directly racist in its nature, it’s hard to imagine it would be confined to just a few individuals. You would expect a lot more smoke and noise. Equally, if there was a broad bullying culture you would expect it to have gone on for years while the leadership stays the same, and that more people would be aware.

What we already know about Clarkson
Clarkson is known to be a tough bugger. Focused, angry, intense. You can certainly imagine him being forceful in his communication. But he’s someone who has been at the centre of the industry for a long time and has been consistently known for his integrity, something virtually impossible to maintain as an illusion for so long. His public statements have been particularly progressive and effusive in terms of highlighting multiculturalism, the huddle, culture and even the ‘fatherly’ need to care for the people under his care. You can imagine excesses - behaviour seen as intimidating or overly controlling - but it’s very hard to reconcile what we know with him being systematically nasty or racist or crossing the line as gratuitously as accused.

The opportunity for cultural misunderstanding
Mainstream anglo-aussie-footy culture is renowned for being brutal and direct. Macho. Things are stated strongly. You can absolutely imagine a young kid, coming from a context where communication is more indirect, more respectful - and respectful to hierarchy - more hinted and more relationship-oriented having a different understanding from a footy boss of what is ‘advice’ / ‘strong advice’ / ‘manipulation’ / ‘demand’ / ‘threat’. Crossing the line is still crossing the line, but you can imagine how the views of the parties could easily be one or two categories apart.

Of course none of this is conclusive. Nothing tells us much directly about what did or did not happen. Terrible things may well have taken place, with Clarkson potentially in the centre. But it makes me feel like there is more ambiguity and ‘wiggle room’ than I’d seen before.

2. The investigation
The AFL investigation has already hit hurdles in being established. This is no surprise. There are at least three different types of investigation that could be carried out in this situation. There are tensions and contradictions between them and it is impossible to get the ‘best’ of each approach.

As mentioned, the first two ‘investigations’ - the Hawthorn report and the newspaper article - were targeted at (primarily) listening, hearing the stories and (secondarily) recommending systemic improvements to the supports and management of indigenous players at an AFL club. They were not constituted as hard-nosed fact-finding investigations into single incidents or accusations, much less quasi-judicial bodies set up to judge individuals. These are very very different purposes and need to be constituted very differently.

There are two distinct approaches for the AFL investigation: It could focus on systems or it could focus on people.

A systems approach would be similar to the original Hawthorn report. What systems and practices were in place? What should be better? If the investigation goes in this direction it will come up with recommendations for change. It will make broad statements about the environment that existed. It may repeat stories from the perspectives of individual ‘victims’. It will look to talk to more people to get alternative views to paint a more complete and balanced picture rather than just focusing on the negative. It will recommend support and possible reparations for people affected. It won’t go hard at determining details of specific incidents. It won’t be looking to prove specifics ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. This approach would be gentler on the accusers and would almost certainly result in important improvements, but it wouldn’t tell us much definitive about the role of Clarkson. Instead, it would leave his name tarnished with an ambiguous finding of his role in the bigger picture.

A ‘people’ or ‘incidents’ approach would be quite different. If we want a clear finding on Clarkson, this is the approach that would need to be taken. It wouldn’t be able to pin blame on Clarkson for “a culture of bullying’ because it’s too vague and it’s been too hidden to be likely. It would deep dive intensely on specific accusations, going through them rigorously one at a time. It would require hard evidence. It wouldn’t be able to focus much on the consequences for the ‘victims’, rather looking at the actions of the accused. It would be stressful for the people making accusations, who would feel they were not being supported or believed. It would get mired in discussion of exactly what words were said, what consequences were threatened. It would struggle to place weight on the second-hand accounts of partners about what took place and who was instigating it - especially those who are actually claiming to have been cut off from the players involved. It would likely get stalled on ‘insufficient evidence’ against individuals to hold them ‘guilty’ of anything, leaving complainants feeling ignored and the stench of a whitewash In the air.

So these seem the likely outcomes of an investigation: either an ambiguous support for the victims and sticky but unproven reputational damage for Clarkson, or an explicit finding that there was pressure and a harsh environment, but not sufficient proof of Clarkson himself crossing the line to justify a formal finding against him. Of course other (worse) outcomes are possible depending on what the facts actually show.

3. The fallout
So if that is right, we’re headed for some ambiguity.
If the investigation takes a ‘systems’ approach, it will not provide enough to justify sacking Clarkson. Even if it takes a ‘person’ approach looking to judge the individuals, all the fuzzing factors listed above seem unlikely to bring the hard level of evidence required - but equally unlikely to result in a clear vindication. A likely outcome is that Clarkson continues, scarred, tarnished but unconvicted.

Of course, if the facts are really that damning there won’t - and shouldn't - be any escape.

Great assessment. Unfortunately, to paraphrase Sonja - “It’s horrific” - no matter which way you look at it.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[for3sh0ck]

View attachment 1517148

Fragile? Those sons of bitches. All he's done is try to help people to get the most out of themselves and this is the thanks he gets. It's hard to imagine what he's going through right now. He's a better man than me, I'd be angry!

 

[El Triggso]

What I like about Sonja is that, from afar, she’s not just buttering up the CV or taking her turn on the boys network lazy susan.

She is giving it her whole heart and doing so with benefit of club as her sole motivation. That’s of great comfort on its own. The fact that she seems to be exceptionally sharp is all the better.

 

[The Filth Wizard]

I would expect this hasn’t been taken lightly and with the support of our own indigenous people.

 

[1975]

Is there anything else you could have to endure in a life time of being president never mind our first few months.

Talk about a crash course!

Regardless of how this goes she will have my admiration forever.

 

[sutcliffe's hotel]

I trust her too. I‘m pretty surprised by the message here, to be honest, but don’t know anything and will just wait to see what happens from here.

Same here. On reflection the message is more nuanced than Ch 7 presented. Sonja is saying Clarko is now one of us. We support our people. Sonja has heard Clarko’s version & supports the process that will allow it to be heard. We also acknowledge the allegations are horrific.

Should it turn out that the version Sonja was told is not verifiable through this process then Sonja is likely to reconsider her support based on the new information/findings.

 

[koshari]

Not the craw, the craw...

Not to mention harry hoo

 

[Ry009]

True Shinboner Sonja. Hard as nails.

She would equally back her players in too, so this will wouldn't be a flippant decision.

Seems pretty telling that not only backing the coach but welcoming the process too.

 

[Passmore]

Great to know we’re not falling into the social justice warrior narrative.

 

[1975]

Same here. On reflection the message is more nuanced than Ch 7 presented. Sonja is saying Clarko is now one of us. We support our people. Sonja has heard Clarko’s version & supports the process that will allow it to be heard. We also acknowledge the allegations are horrific.

Should it turn out that the version Sonja was told is not verifiable through this process then Sonja is likely to reconsider her support based on the new information/findings.

Correct, this is why she is so impressive.

I would have been very disappointed in I backed this horse so I’m blindly sticking with it approach.

 

[Devington]

Great to know we’re not falling into the social justice warrior narrative.

Snake probably having an aneurism right now.

 

[gokangas]

Gilligan mentioned the process will take several months. Thats looking like late November, early December before any clarity and I'm not sure the report will resolve the allegations in a clear cut way.