News Hawthorn Racism Review - No player name speculation - opposition posters tread very carefully

[Strapping Young Lad]

Wrong. Hawks did what they had to do by the rules of the AFL.

Correct. For reference below, once the HFC had the report outlining serious allegations they were duty bound by the AFL’s protocol to hand over the report to the AFL integrity unit.

I will pin this post, as it seems to be a constant query.

 

[Rocket72]

Is Damien Barrett an AFL puppet?


Who knows. The "guard rails" stuff is about as convincing as "the vibe".

Whateley will have been set straight today by Malcolm Speed. Any less and he's a click-bait journo.



As for the AFL's lap dog, Barrett just does his best to get a pat on the head and a pay rise for himself.

He is a paid AFL employee. Literally.

 

[hawkinoz]

My hope is that the club doesn't just sit back and take a penalty from the AFL for the "handling of the report", even if it's only a relatively minor financial penalty.

If the club believes it did the right thing and also that the club wasn't responsible for the leak then on principle we should push back on any potential penalty.

No doubt things could have been done better. Things can always be done better. What the AFL needs to do is demonstrate what specifically the club did wrong with the report and how/why the club should have known to do it differently beforehand. Did the AFL have a procedure for clubs to follow that it didn't? The only one I'm aware of is pinned to the top of the page and the club followed it. The only way someone could mistake that is if they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the report and the purpose of it.

If the AFL think the HFC are responsible for the leak... prove it. Have they even investigated internally to rule out that the leak wasn't from within the AFL? Is there even any proof of a leak at all? Russell Jackson could have easily started interviewing past players after seeing the original article where the Rioli's raised the issue. Maybe he was tipped off by the lawyers/representatives of the families once they'd been interviewed by Egan.

Classic AFL HQ. They don't really care about the issues. They care about the brand.

Same mentioned here in reference to Hodgey's chat

 

[Jet_black]

Just published not long ago by the Prez.

Letter to Members

Hawthorn President Andy Gowers has penned the following letter to members.

www.hawthornfc.com.au

Diplomatic. Doesn’t give a sense we will roll over.

Gee I am glad we don’t have JG Kennett to helm an offical reply.

 

[birch]

Hawthorn could be stripped of draft picks and fined over its handling of its racism investigation with the AFL weighing up whether to charge the club for bringing the game into disrepute.
As the AFL terminated the independent investigation without laying charges against Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan or Jason Burt the league also dropped a potential bomb on the Hawks.

AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan said the club’s failure to give Clarkson, Fagan and Burt a right of reply would form the basis of a potential charge.

“The process whereby allegations were aired without anybody having the ability to respond to them has provided an environment where there has been many parties – complainants and the defendants – put in a hugely vulnerable situation, and it’s had an impact across the industry for all First Nations people and others,” McLachlan said.

“I think that’s something that needs to be contemplated.”

The loss of draft picks would be disastrous for Hawthorn’s rebuild under coach Sam Mitchell, with the club’s first pick currently No.3.

Former Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett declared there was no basis for the Hawks to be punished by the AFL for undertaking its cultural review.

On Wednesday morning Kennett wrote to all AFL Commissioners. He has offered to make himself available to plead for Hawthorn’s innocence and has asked for a swift resolution.

“I am profoundly disappointed at the comments by the AFL CEO tonight that they are contemplating taking action against the Hawthorn Football Club,” Kennett told the Herald Sun on Tuesday night.

“What Hawthorn did in trying to establish whether racial discrimination was widespread in the club was absolutely the correct thing to do.”

Kennett said the club was not responsible for the devastating leak of the report to the ABC in Grand Final week last year.

“That was the trigger that caused the firestorm and the attack on the reputations of the three who stood accused,” he said.

McLachlan said the decision whether to charge Hawthorn would be made by the AFL’s “general counsel (Stephen Meade) and or the Commission”.

Under rule 1.6 the Hawks could be charged with engaging in conduct that is “unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the Australian Football League or to bring the game of football into disrepute”.

In 2013 the AFL kicked Essendon out of finals, fined the club $2 million and stripped the club of early draft picks in the next two drafts under that rule.

The Binmada review was commissioned by the Hawks board in April last year after favourite son Cyril Rioli and wife Shannyn made claims of racial incidents at the club.

“Gillon McLachlan can’t have his cake and eat it,” Kennett said.

“He can’t on the one hand say it was wrong to find out whether the allegations of the Riolis were widespread or not - and then on finding that there was no substance against any of the three Hawthorn officials - he can’t then say that the club has done anything but the right thing in the interests of a safe workplace.

“We did what any employer would do when something is brought to their attention. We tried to find out whether it was widespread or just isolated. We got the stories, a number of startling, disappointing responses - they have now been investigated and (it was) found that those stories had no substance.”

Kennett said he “trusted” that the current Hawthorn board would have “the courage to actually defend the actions it has taken” and will “argue the case very strongly”.

Did they strip Essendon of early draft picks? How did they get the crab ?

 

[Rocket72]

Whateley has been hanging onto his 'guard rails' theory for a few weeks now. I still have no idea what he means by guard rails, can anyone here enlighten me?

I agree that he's been using the terminology and I don't think he really knows what he means. I think he picked it up from others and thought it sounded good. I could come up with a decent explanation of what it could mean, but that's not really what you asked.

 

[DogDaySonny]

He is a paid AFL employee. Literally.

 

[brad sue well]

Just published not long ago by the Prez.

Letter to Members

Hawthorn President Andy Gowers has penned the following letter to members.

www.hawthornfc.com.au

Diplomatic. Doesn’t give a sense we will roll over.

Gee I am glad we don’t have JG Kennett to helm an offical reply.

If anyone knows who, please say...

"Recently we have appointed a number of new roles, including General Manger – Diversity & Inclusion...".

 

[MJA33]

If anyone knows who, please say...

"Recently we have appointed a number of new roles, including General Manger – Diversity & Inclusion...".

Jamie Bennell I remember reading.

Played for West Coast and Melbourne.

 

[brad sue well]

Jamie Bennell I remember reading.

Played for West Coast and Melbourne.

I should have been clearer, this is a different role to Jamie. Thank you though.

 

[brad sue well]

On first read, seems quite good. And leverage they want in the CBA.

Statement: AFLPA Position on Hawthorn Issue

The AFL Players' Association has released the following statement regarding its commitment to a joint CBA.

www.aflplayers.com.au

 

[Argy]

This is worth a read:

The effects of perceived racism on psychological distress mediated by venting and disengagement coping in Native Hawaiians - BMC Psychology

Background Studies have linked perceived racism to psychological distress via certain coping strategies in several different racial and ethnic groups, but few of these studies included indigenous populations. Elucidating modifiable factors for intervention to reduce the adverse effects of racism...

bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com

It found, as other studies have, perceived racist comments can cause harm. The unique thing about it was that they found that using coping strategies to deal with the perceived racism can cause MORE harm.

I read of a report into a psychological experiment where people were asked to apply for a job. They were told the experiment was about how people with physical disabilities found it harder to get jobs.

Prior to their interview the subjects had facial make up applied to make them look badly scarred. They were shown their new face in a mirror. However, just prior to starting the interview the experimenter told them they wanted to touch it up. In actual fact they removed the make up completely - without the subjects knowing - leaving them with a very normal looking face.

After the interview the subjects reported that the interviewer made them feel uncomfortable and had asked inappropriate questions that were motivated by bias against their facial deformities.

At the very least this shows that the self perception and past experiences of a person can affect how they react in social situations. I'm not saying it happened here, but without anything else to go on it certainly seems like a possible explanation for why the parties are so far apart.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

The question is not whether the AFL will impose sanctions but how quickly Gowers will roll over and accept them. But tip is he already rolled. Well done hawks4change and all those other Labor sycophants!!

You know that Gowers is a blue ribbon private school old boy and Liberal party member, right??

 

[Brishawk]

I read of a report into a psychological experiment where people were asked to apply for a job. They were told the experiment was about how people with physical disabilities found it harder to get jobs.

Prior to their interview the subjects had facial make up applied to make them look badly scarred. They were shown their new face in a mirror. However, just prior to starting the interview the experimenter told them they wanted to touch it up. In actual fact they removed the make up completely - without the subjects knowing - leaving them with a very normal looking face.

After the interview the subjects reported that the interviewer made them feel uncomfortable and had asked inappropriate questions that were motivated by bias against their facial deformities.

At the very least this shows that the self perception and past experiences of a person can affect how they react in social situations. I'm not saying it happened here, but without anything else to go on it certainly seems like a possible explanation for why the parties are so far apart.

You mean past experiences of racism and being part of a group subjected to having a generation of children stolen from parents? Yes I think that would influence a persons response to comments by club presidents, a great deal.

 

[Rocket72]

I read of a report into a psychological experiment where people were asked to apply for a job. They were told the experiment was about how people with physical disabilities found it harder to get jobs.

Prior to their interview the subjects had facial make up applied to make them look badly scarred. They were shown their new face in a mirror. However, just prior to starting the interview the experimenter told them they wanted to touch it up. In actual fact they removed the make up completely - without the subjects knowing - leaving them with a very normal looking face.

After the interview the subjects reported that the interviewer made them feel uncomfortable and had asked inappropriate questions that were motivated by bias against their facial deformities.

At the very least this shows that the self perception and past experiences of a person can affect how they react in social situations. I'm not saying it happened here, but without anything else to go on it certainly seems like a possible explanation for why the parties are so far apart.

If you remember details of that study could you please PM me? TIA

 

[Rocket72]

I suggest they strip us of all our 2023 points

Ban us from 2023 finals. I'm glad that we can joke about this.

 

[HawthornHawk]

I agree that he's been using the terminology and I don't think he really knows what he means. I think he picked it up from others and thought it sounded good. I could come up with a decent explanation of what it could mean, but that's not really what you asked.

Please do..

 

[Mojo]

So many dots I'm struggling to connect atm. I don't know where to start.

On another note, isn't Barrett just the floggist flog that ever flogged?

 

[Argy]

If you remember details of that study could you please PM me? TIA

This looks like the one. But I can't see all the pages...

The effects of having a facial scar on state self-esteem and face-to-face social interactions​

The effects of having a facial scar on state self-esteem and face-to-face social interactions - ProQuest

Explore millions of resources from scholarly journals, books, newspapers, videos and more, on the ProQuest Platform.

www.proquest.com

 

[Brishawk]

So many dots I'm struggling to connect atm. I don't know where to start.

On another note, isn't Barrett just the floggist flog that ever flogged?

Certainly knows how to flog!

 

[The hands of stone]

Sonja Hoods done a good job at North.

Might be time to pull in the referencing to us in her statements though, its a few times now in a couple of weeks . Pretty unprofessional actually .

Given some of their recent off field stuff might be a good time to shut up shop for a while .

 

[Rocket72]

Please do..

Alright, keeping in mind I think it's an imprecise term and I'm only saying what it could mean, not that I agree with it.

When commissioning a report you usually provide scope and set up limitations. The basic limitation here could have been, if there is disclosure of anything serious the data collection should pause and the board be notified. This is normal in the commission of reports, some examples are: disclosure of criminal behaviour, allegations of a serious nature, disclosure of self harm. These sort of things might be described as ‘guard rails’ and they are fairly common. They are so common btw that I think Egan and colleauges could have done this even without express instruction from us.

 

[Rocket72]

This looks like the one. But I can't see all the pages...

The effects of having a facial scar on state self-esteem and face-to-face social interactions​

The effects of having a facial scar on state self-esteem and face-to-face social interactions - ProQuest

Explore millions of resources from scholarly journals, books, newspapers, videos and more, on the ProQuest Platform.

www.proquest.com

Awesome, thanks. Looks to be a dissertation, so not peer reviewed as such, but I'll read it fully and share with colleagues.

 

[phreeze77]

So the three men accused by accusers have nothing to answer for yet Hawthorn needs to be penalized for what exactly ? If there was nothing that sticks to the accused yet the party that uncovered something beholden to them to report sees them widely being encouraged to be sanctioned by draft picks?? How the **** can that happen when Collingwood had similar skeletons and all they lost was their president (ceo possibly )?

 

[HawthornHawk]

Alright, keeping in mind I think it's an imprecise term and I'm only saying what it could mean, not that I agree with it.

When commissioning a report you usually provide scope and set up limitations. The basic limitation here could have been, if there is disclosure of anything serious the data collection should pause and the board be notified. This is normal in the commission of reports, some examples are: disclosure of criminal behaviour, allegations of a serious nature, disclosure of self harm. These sort of things might be described as ‘guard rails’ and they are fairly common. They are so common btw that I think Egan and colleauges could have done this even without express instruction from us.

Do we know with any certainty that these limitations didn't exist? And if they did, how would the result of this exercise have been any different?

 

[Yardie]

Why gobsmacked? That she said it or that it may be truthful?

That she said it. She basically said she "did her own research".