Says who? all 3 have been named in various threads thoughout the site.
I think its just a mark of respect and few people know them first hand thay they are not mentioned.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 7 - Pride Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
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
- Thread starter Cyber_punk
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I think its just a mark of respect and few people know them first hand thay they are not mentioned.
Mr Lloyd Christmas
Premiership Player
- May 5, 2022
- 3,294
- 5,861
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Banned
- #9,477
Clarko I'm backing in 100%.
Not just now, but also at Hawthorn.
Not just now, but also at Hawthorn.
Yet to have lionel richie call asking if its me he looking for, had everyone else
ferball
desperately terminally-contrarian
North Melbourne - 2024 Hugh Greenwood Player Sponsor
Veteran
North Melbourne - 2023 Ailish Considine and Bella Eddy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2023 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
10k Posts
30k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
- Jul 24, 2015
- 46,697
- 97,958
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
hsquid
Person
North Melbourne - 2024 Hugh Greenwood Player Sponsor
Veteran
North Melbourne - 2023 Ailish Considine and Bella Eddy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - Bella Eddey and Vicki Wall Player Sponsor - Season 7
North Melbourne - 2023 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
Hi all,
Good news to have confirmation that Clarko is starting. I’m on holiday in Korea but I had a chance to go through the full Terms of Reference that someone posted and I thought I'd share my comments. A reminder that although I have some relevant background in vaguely similar things, Merlin007 is the one who is more directly an expert in this space.
These are my main takeaways:
1. There’s a distinction between racist and other inappropriate conduct
Others have observed that the definition of inappropriate conduct is very broad. This is no surprise because it needs to cover the full scope of what people have found so shocking in the report and article. More interesting for me is the way it has been broken down into: Racist behaviour, Racialized stereotyping (blurred with gendered stereotyping), Bullying, Inappropriate intrusion and “Conduct unbecoming” which seems to be a catch-all for very serious offences
I view this as positive because it explicitly recognises that racism needs evidence of racism, not just bullying. I also like that it divides classes of behaviours because that facilitates nuance and degrees of seriousness in the findings.
2. The ‘Matters for investigation’ focus on Hawthorn as a club and yet the only recommendation required is whether to subject individuals to disciplinary action.
There is a strange disconnect between section C “Matters of Investigation” and D “Recommendations”.
The investigation is very focused on Hawthorn rather than individuals. i.e. did HFC engage in inappropriate conduct, specifically [all the things we know about from the report], did they provide sufficient and appropriate support, was the Binmada report appropriate. There are only two items that indirectly look at individuals [3a&b] which look at what ‘senior management and board’ knew or should have known about the issues.
In contrast there is only one specific recommendation required: whether any individuals should be subject to disciplinary action by the AFL. It’s hard to know what to make of this. It could just be an anomaly. Or it could imply that the focus on individuals is only part of the whole report and there is an emphasis on the senior management / board and what they knew or should have known. Perhaps the area of "what senior management should have known" is the area where there is the most concrete evidence and the most scope to make a clear adverse finding: I would be nervous reading this if I were Andrew Newbold. The one shocking and undisputed fact from all of this is his dismissive and disdainful response to multiple distressed emails from a players partner.
3. There won’t be direct cross-examination but there will be some backwards and forwards of information
The process will be carried out in a number of steps:
1. The panel collects information from ‘victims’ and others of their experiences / allegations of wrong doing.
2. The info obtained is shared with other relevant people (i.e. “accused”)
3. The ‘accused’ respond with their own statements
4. The panel can reinterview people or ask for more info from anyone. “Participants’ can ask - but not demand - that other participants be interviewed.
5. The panel decides what they think and write an interim report
6. People who are adversely named can feedback on the relevant recommendations.
7. The panel write a final report.
This seems to be a hybrid/compromise approach that allows culturally sensitive story telling while also allowing the ‘other side’ to be heard and some undefined back and forth by the panel itself. The ToR annex explains that this unconventionally indirect "Culturally Appropriate" approach will “enhance the veracity of the Investigation for all Participants”. While this may be a noble intention, it risks being a "cake and eat it” middle ground. It is understandably more comfortable and less confrontational to not have evidence questioned adversarially, but it’s hard to see how reducing the opportunities to reconcile differences is expected to give a more accurate result, unless it is by the simple fact of encouragng participation from the alleged victims.
Presumably the intent is to give discretion to the Panel to examine whether there is enough certainty to substantiate allegations without getting distracted by potential inconsistencies in less relevant details.
4. The standard of proof is undefined but will be higher for more serious allegations
Even if the serious end is appropriately managed, the flip side is that the lower level allegations may need far less. This is fine if it is just that Hawthorn should improve its cultural sensitivity and support, but less so if there is a recommendation against Clarkson for ‘just’ bullying.
5. Formal rules of evidence do not apply but relative deficiencies will be taken into account when assessing whether the weight of evidence compares with the standard of proof required
It’s not clear what this is referring to. Possibly it is allowing space for hearsay, opinion and not requiring evidence to be sworn. This makes some sense if you want to understand the impact on ex-partners who are reporting what the ex-players told them and the effect it had on them, but it needs to have less weight when considered against the most serious allegations (forced abortion / family separation) which seem to have been mostly described my the partners point of view. Hopefully that is what is intended.
Summary
Overall I feel the ToRs create a lot of discretion and wriggle-room for the panel. Things could have been intrusive but not racist, or bullying but not intrusive. People could have engaged in inappropriate conduct, they could have known about it, or they maybe just ‘should have known’. The good news is there is plenty of space to find a diplomatic, face-saving middle ground focusing on systemic issues at Hawthorn, insufficient support, poor communication, lack of cultural sensitivity etc.
On the other hand there are potential issues at both the serious and the low end of offences. At the high end, the required standard of proof is high and the weight of hearsay and weakly-tested evidence is diminished. This may increase the chances of them remaining ‘unproven’ rather that dismissed.
At the low end the problem is reversed. There is a lower standard of proof and hearsay and weakly tested evidence would be given more weight. Does this make a 'low level' finding more likely? Even though the implications of any guilty finding would have very serious implications for the accused?
In the end there is enormous dependence on the professionalism and approach of the individual panelists and how they respond to he-said-she-said situations. I would prefer the results to be more dependent on the facts themselves than the people hearing them. The investigation format places great confidence on their assertion that a non-confrontational process will lead to more accurate fact-finding. I hope that confidence is well placed.
Good news to have confirmation that Clarko is starting. I’m on holiday in Korea but I had a chance to go through the full Terms of Reference that someone posted and I thought I'd share my comments. A reminder that although I have some relevant background in vaguely similar things, Merlin007 is the one who is more directly an expert in this space.
These are my main takeaways:
1. There’s a distinction between racist and other inappropriate conduct
Others have observed that the definition of inappropriate conduct is very broad. This is no surprise because it needs to cover the full scope of what people have found so shocking in the report and article. More interesting for me is the way it has been broken down into: Racist behaviour, Racialized stereotyping (blurred with gendered stereotyping), Bullying, Inappropriate intrusion and “Conduct unbecoming” which seems to be a catch-all for very serious offences
I view this as positive because it explicitly recognises that racism needs evidence of racism, not just bullying. I also like that it divides classes of behaviours because that facilitates nuance and degrees of seriousness in the findings.
2. The ‘Matters for investigation’ focus on Hawthorn as a club and yet the only recommendation required is whether to subject individuals to disciplinary action.
There is a strange disconnect between section C “Matters of Investigation” and D “Recommendations”.
The Investigation will investigate, consider and report on and in relation to the following
matters:
1. Whether during the Relevant Period (or any part thereof) HFC engaged in any conduct which involved or included Inappropriate Conduct directed towards players, their families and/or their intimate partners.
2. Specifically with regard to First Nations players, whether during the Relevant Period (or any part thereof) HFC engaged in Inappropriate Conduct directed towards any First Nations players, their families and/or their intimate partners which involved or included demands, duress or pressure in relation to, or interference with:
a) the living arrangements of First Nations players (including where and with whom they lived and whether they were counselled or encouraged to alter existing living arrangements);
b) the intimate relationships of First Nations players (including whether the First Nations players were counselled or encouraged to end intimate relationships);
c) the reproductive choices or health of intimate partners of First Nations players (including whether they were counselled or encouraged to terminate pregnancies or which impacted on or affected pregnancies);
d) the freedom of movement of First Nations players (including whether they were counselled or encouraged not to visit family and friends interstate, or to limit the frequency or duration of such visits); or
e) the freedom of communication of the First Nations players (including whether they were counselled or encouraged not to communicate with their families, their intimate partners and/or their friends, or to limit such communication).
3. If Inappropriate Conduct is found to have occurred during the Relevant Period (or any part thereof) in respect of the Matters for Investigation:
a) whether any Inappropriate Conduct identified was known and countenanced (and if so to what extent) by any and who of the senior management and/or Board of HFC;
b) whether any Inappropriate Conduct identified ought to have been known (and if so to what extent) by any and who of the senior management and/or Board of HFC;
c) whether and to what extent HFC provided appropriate support for players, their families and/or intimate partners with respect to trauma, harm or distress arising from any identified Inappropriate Conduct;
d) whether and to what extent HFC provided mechanisms for the performance review of persons involved in any identified Inappropriate Conduct or reprimands, warnings, counselling or education to those persons; and e) whether HFC provided appropriate and culturally safe support for the First Nations players, their families and/or intimate partners including with respect to trauma, harm or distress arising from any identified Inappropriate Conduct.
4. Whether the HFC appropriately supported the First Nations players, their families and/or their intimate partners in the period immediately following the cessation of their employment by the HFC during the Relevant Period, including by the provision of assistance in the relocation back to their home communities.
5. Whether the ‘Cultural Safety Review’ commissioned by HFC and undertaken by Mr Philip Egan of Binmada Pty Ltd (Binmada Report) was an appropriate mechanism and/or adopted appropriate procedures for the matters Mr Egan was engaged to review and/or ultimately investigated.
matters:
1. Whether during the Relevant Period (or any part thereof) HFC engaged in any conduct which involved or included Inappropriate Conduct directed towards players, their families and/or their intimate partners.
2. Specifically with regard to First Nations players, whether during the Relevant Period (or any part thereof) HFC engaged in Inappropriate Conduct directed towards any First Nations players, their families and/or their intimate partners which involved or included demands, duress or pressure in relation to, or interference with:
a) the living arrangements of First Nations players (including where and with whom they lived and whether they were counselled or encouraged to alter existing living arrangements);
b) the intimate relationships of First Nations players (including whether the First Nations players were counselled or encouraged to end intimate relationships);
c) the reproductive choices or health of intimate partners of First Nations players (including whether they were counselled or encouraged to terminate pregnancies or which impacted on or affected pregnancies);
d) the freedom of movement of First Nations players (including whether they were counselled or encouraged not to visit family and friends interstate, or to limit the frequency or duration of such visits); or
e) the freedom of communication of the First Nations players (including whether they were counselled or encouraged not to communicate with their families, their intimate partners and/or their friends, or to limit such communication).
3. If Inappropriate Conduct is found to have occurred during the Relevant Period (or any part thereof) in respect of the Matters for Investigation:
a) whether any Inappropriate Conduct identified was known and countenanced (and if so to what extent) by any and who of the senior management and/or Board of HFC;
b) whether any Inappropriate Conduct identified ought to have been known (and if so to what extent) by any and who of the senior management and/or Board of HFC;
c) whether and to what extent HFC provided appropriate support for players, their families and/or intimate partners with respect to trauma, harm or distress arising from any identified Inappropriate Conduct;
d) whether and to what extent HFC provided mechanisms for the performance review of persons involved in any identified Inappropriate Conduct or reprimands, warnings, counselling or education to those persons; and e) whether HFC provided appropriate and culturally safe support for the First Nations players, their families and/or intimate partners including with respect to trauma, harm or distress arising from any identified Inappropriate Conduct.
4. Whether the HFC appropriately supported the First Nations players, their families and/or their intimate partners in the period immediately following the cessation of their employment by the HFC during the Relevant Period, including by the provision of assistance in the relocation back to their home communities.
5. Whether the ‘Cultural Safety Review’ commissioned by HFC and undertaken by Mr Philip Egan of Binmada Pty Ltd (Binmada Report) was an appropriate mechanism and/or adopted appropriate procedures for the matters Mr Egan was engaged to review and/or ultimately investigated.
The investigation is very focused on Hawthorn rather than individuals. i.e. did HFC engage in inappropriate conduct, specifically [all the things we know about from the report], did they provide sufficient and appropriate support, was the Binmada report appropriate. There are only two items that indirectly look at individuals [3a&b] which look at what ‘senior management and board’ knew or should have known about the issues.
The final report addressing the Matters for Investigation above, will set out:
a) Recommendations as to whether any persons who engaged in, were involved in and/or were aware of any Inappropriate Conduct should, in the view of the Investigation Panel, be subject to disciplinary action pursuant to AFL Rules and commenced by persons so authorised under AFL Rules.
b) Any other recommendations connected to the Matters for Investigation that may be considered by the Investigation Panel to be appropriate.
a) Recommendations as to whether any persons who engaged in, were involved in and/or were aware of any Inappropriate Conduct should, in the view of the Investigation Panel, be subject to disciplinary action pursuant to AFL Rules and commenced by persons so authorised under AFL Rules.
b) Any other recommendations connected to the Matters for Investigation that may be considered by the Investigation Panel to be appropriate.
In contrast there is only one specific recommendation required: whether any individuals should be subject to disciplinary action by the AFL. It’s hard to know what to make of this. It could just be an anomaly. Or it could imply that the focus on individuals is only part of the whole report and there is an emphasis on the senior management / board and what they knew or should have known. Perhaps the area of "what senior management should have known" is the area where there is the most concrete evidence and the most scope to make a clear adverse finding: I would be nervous reading this if I were Andrew Newbold. The one shocking and undisputed fact from all of this is his dismissive and disdainful response to multiple distressed emails from a players partner.
3. There won’t be direct cross-examination but there will be some backwards and forwards of information
The process will be carried out in a number of steps:
1. The panel collects information from ‘victims’ and others of their experiences / allegations of wrong doing.
2. The info obtained is shared with other relevant people (i.e. “accused”)
3. The ‘accused’ respond with their own statements
4. The panel can reinterview people or ask for more info from anyone. “Participants’ can ask - but not demand - that other participants be interviewed.
5. The panel decides what they think and write an interim report
6. People who are adversely named can feedback on the relevant recommendations.
7. The panel write a final report.
This seems to be a hybrid/compromise approach that allows culturally sensitive story telling while also allowing the ‘other side’ to be heard and some undefined back and forth by the panel itself. The ToR annex explains that this unconventionally indirect "Culturally Appropriate" approach will “enhance the veracity of the Investigation for all Participants”. While this may be a noble intention, it risks being a "cake and eat it” middle ground. It is understandably more comfortable and less confrontational to not have evidence questioned adversarially, but it’s hard to see how reducing the opportunities to reconcile differences is expected to give a more accurate result, unless it is by the simple fact of encouragng participation from the alleged victims.
Presumably the intent is to give discretion to the Panel to examine whether there is enough certainty to substantiate allegations without getting distracted by potential inconsistencies in less relevant details.
5. Culturally Appropriate Investigation practice: The Investigation process should proceed with the understanding that western evidentiary procedures, methods of interview will not produce the same outcomes when applied to First Nations Participants as they might to non-First Nations Participants.
Similarly, the invocation of these procedures may be both harmful for First Nations Participants and elicit inaccurate or unreliable responses from them.
Ensuring the veracity of the evidence and findings means granting the Investigation Panel the ability to identify and ameliorate established cultural and communication barriers relevant to First Nations people during investigation processes. This does not subjugate the interests of certain Participants over others. It merely recognises that there may be communication and cultural differences in how some First Nations people provide evidence. Affording the Investigation Panel the authority to navigate these issues will enhance the veracity of the Investigation for all Participants.
Similarly, the invocation of these procedures may be both harmful for First Nations Participants and elicit inaccurate or unreliable responses from them.
Ensuring the veracity of the evidence and findings means granting the Investigation Panel the ability to identify and ameliorate established cultural and communication barriers relevant to First Nations people during investigation processes. This does not subjugate the interests of certain Participants over others. It merely recognises that there may be communication and cultural differences in how some First Nations people provide evidence. Affording the Investigation Panel the authority to navigate these issues will enhance the veracity of the Investigation for all Participants.
4. The standard of proof is undefined but will be higher for more serious allegations
This is the single strangest part for me. No standard of proof has been defined. It reads like a giant “Trust Us”, with the implication that the most serious allegations will require commensurate levels of evidence but no actual level setting.Terms of Reference said:
Even if the serious end is appropriately managed, the flip side is that the lower level allegations may need far less. This is fine if it is just that Hawthorn should improve its cultural sensitivity and support, but less so if there is a recommendation against Clarkson for ‘just’ bullying.
5. Formal rules of evidence do not apply but relative deficiencies will be taken into account when assessing whether the weight of evidence compares with the standard of proof required
Terms of Reference said:
It’s not clear what this is referring to. Possibly it is allowing space for hearsay, opinion and not requiring evidence to be sworn. This makes some sense if you want to understand the impact on ex-partners who are reporting what the ex-players told them and the effect it had on them, but it needs to have less weight when considered against the most serious allegations (forced abortion / family separation) which seem to have been mostly described my the partners point of view. Hopefully that is what is intended.
Summary
Overall I feel the ToRs create a lot of discretion and wriggle-room for the panel. Things could have been intrusive but not racist, or bullying but not intrusive. People could have engaged in inappropriate conduct, they could have known about it, or they maybe just ‘should have known’. The good news is there is plenty of space to find a diplomatic, face-saving middle ground focusing on systemic issues at Hawthorn, insufficient support, poor communication, lack of cultural sensitivity etc.
On the other hand there are potential issues at both the serious and the low end of offences. At the high end, the required standard of proof is high and the weight of hearsay and weakly-tested evidence is diminished. This may increase the chances of them remaining ‘unproven’ rather that dismissed.
At the low end the problem is reversed. There is a lower standard of proof and hearsay and weakly tested evidence would be given more weight. Does this make a 'low level' finding more likely? Even though the implications of any guilty finding would have very serious implications for the accused?
In the end there is enormous dependence on the professionalism and approach of the individual panelists and how they respond to he-said-she-said situations. I would prefer the results to be more dependent on the facts themselves than the people hearing them. The investigation format places great confidence on their assertion that a non-confrontational process will lead to more accurate fact-finding. I hope that confidence is well placed.
Last edited:
cachepotpro
Debutant
tfw I'm not a 60 year old dilf posting on the Clarko thread
Lomas
Premium Platinum
10k Posts
North Melbourne - 2024 Hugh Greenwood Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2023 Ailish Considine and Bella Eddy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - Bella Eddey and Vicki Wall Player Sponsor - Season 7
North Melbourne - 2023 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
- Nov 4, 2020
- 10,405
- 25,122
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
You'll feel even older in a few weeks when you turn 30.
Bed time for you laddie.
cachepotpro
Debutant
stop reminding me of me also turning 30 in two weeks time please and thanks
ferball
desperately terminally-contrarian
North Melbourne - 2024 Hugh Greenwood Player Sponsor
Veteran
North Melbourne - 2023 Ailish Considine and Bella Eddy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2023 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
10k Posts
30k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
- Jul 24, 2015
- 46,697
- 97,958
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
LOL You're younger than Badmotorfinger.
4cunningTonneTruck
All Australian
- Aug 21, 2022
- 862
- 3,725
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Yeah not everyone sits as comfortably as others with everything that's happened. We all want our footy team to be the best, but not at all cost. I know it's a bit of an echo chamber in here, but I think it's absolutely fair enough that some fans feel conflicted and would rather wait for the investigation to be completed before making up their minds on how they feel about the situation.
Lucky bugger..... Sigh
Devington
Brownlow Medallist
- Jun 4, 2013
- 18,402
- 48,437
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
There is a difference between believing someone when they say they are innocent, and it being 'proven' they are innocent.
Bojan KantKick
Man United Legacy Supporter
- Sep 5, 2014
- 30,680
- 29,222
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Manchester United, Stevenage FC
it had ended by the time I posted
cachepotpro
Debutant
Don't say that, I live in adelaide. It cancels the age thing out
Bojan KantKick
Man United Legacy Supporter
- Sep 5, 2014
- 30,680
- 29,222
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Manchester United, Stevenage FC
There is human psychology element to peoples changing view of the situation over time imo. From what I have seen on here and from a select few on the main board, most people including myself, just want to see the investigation run its course before rushing to judgement or people losing their careers and reputations.
On the main board the vast majority of posters have rushed to judgement and won't hear any opposing arguments or calls for the accused to be allowed to give their views. Naturally this has pushed some of our posters over time into kind of defending Clarkson when really the majority are just defending their right to give their view. I would be surprised if many of our supporters would back Clarko if an independent body says that they did the things they were accused of doing.
You could have gone around for a BBQ with marklovesbeer - he won a meat raffle.
cachepotpro
Debutant
Is that something you do after you hit 30? Meat raffles and having Jack Mahoney as a whipping boy?
Horace
Premium Gold
North Melbourne - 2024 Hugh Greenwood Player Sponsor
Veteran
North Melbourne - 2023 Ailish Considine and Bella Eddy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2023 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
10k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2020 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
In my opinion, given that the independent investigation into the allegations has barely started , if at all and is not due to return its findings until late December, both North and Brisbane are acting appropriately in having both Clarkson and Fagan, commencing/returning to their coaching duties on the 1st of November.
It is a disgrace on the part of the AFL, that it has taken this long to get the process started, given that the allegations were first made made public around 5 weeks ago. Neither club can afford to be without their most senior man at this critical time when the pre-season is about to start.
Who knows what the outcome will be, but should there be need for sanctions, then the time for that to be decided/handed out, is after the Panel reports back to the AFL. In the meantime it should be business as usual.
It is a disgrace on the part of the AFL, that it has taken this long to get the process started, given that the allegations were first made made public around 5 weeks ago. Neither club can afford to be without their most senior man at this critical time when the pre-season is about to start.
Who knows what the outcome will be, but should there be need for sanctions, then the time for that to be decided/handed out, is after the Panel reports back to the AFL. In the meantime it should be business as usual.
Sillygit
Norm Smith Medallist
- Mar 6, 2019
- 7,152
- 21,389
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
worth turning off now i reckon, we are terrible
Gee that’s aged well after Maxi has gone berserk
Sillygit
Norm Smith Medallist
- Mar 6, 2019
- 7,152
- 21,389
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
still counter balanced with Finch blocking out a whole over like he's wearing whiteGee that’s aged well after Maxi has gone berserk
- Aug 6, 2021
- 9,992
- 28,335
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
It’s in the sticky post to the MB thread
DocSholl
Club Legend
- Aug 10, 2021
- 2,722
- 10,871
- AFL Club
- GWS
I think the racism (if any) can be systemic/institutional rather than deliberately or outwardly racist actions by the accused.
Ie - if Hawthorn didn't have sufficient systems in place to handle players with certain backgrounds, or weren't sensitive enough to how certain actions may have been perceived etc. Which would again come back to education and improvements, rather than punishment.
- Status
