Play Nice Hawthorn culture and Fagan

[dlanod]

This is going to be a very touchy subject.

There will be a very broad range of opinions about the correct way to handle this.

I'll remind everyone to post respectfully at this time - sniping at each other is not going to help.

Any continued pointless back and forth will get a day or more to cool off. If you want to avoid this fate, let it go.

 

[Elixuh]

I did answer your question - if we want fairness, which seems a reasonable goal to reach, then both parties' names should be made public.

That's "the material use" of identifying the currently anonymous.

How does that achieve fairness?

Fairness will be achieved through the formal AFL process and then any potential subsequent court action. That is, both sides will have a chance to understand the allegations, respond and be heard.

You keep using words like fairness but fail to explain how any of what you’re suggesting achieves that. Using buzz words isn’t a justification.

 

[lioninthesand]

Wow....if it's true that neither Fagan or Clarkston were invited, given a chance to respond or compelled to be interviewed as part of the Hawthorn commissioned "review".....then it has to be said that this particular "review" is one the most uninformed and imbalanced reviews of all time.
And to add ......that I wish the ALL parties were given the luxury of anonymity during this process until end was reached.
As I mentioned before you would want to be right in your reporting or else I foresee defamation cases following soon after

It was never a review that was intended to include white people from the club. It was a review commissioned to give indigenous players a chance to tell their stories. It was not an investigation, it’s was their chance to allow potential victims have their say.

If it was proposed, ‘you tell your story and then powerful white males will tell theirs, and we will release the findings and see who people think is right?’ - do you think they would have participated?

The review was also a fact finding mission, no one’s job was riding on it at the time it was commissioned, because of the gravity of the claims, they have sort higher guidance.

From this point, if Fagan and Clarko where not included that would be outrageous, but to this point - the First Nations review did not require intervention and participation from the accused.

 

[bungalow_bill]

I dont discriminate...they are all low principled turds.

Politically speaking I'm very much a leftie and can't stand Murdoch. Not sure how ones political leaning is relevant to this discussion.

 

[martinson]

I guess this is where you differ to many other people around here. If there is a 50/50 possibility Fagan is lying and the accusations are true, you are willing to immediately throw him under the bus and denounce him without getting the full picture. Even when there hasn't been a murmur of poor people management by him over the last 6 years.

Exhibit A:


I just think posts like the above are poor form and show you are more interested in reacting to a juicy story and pre-empting the consequences of the juicy story than waiting for the truth first. Which is really disrespectful to Fagan.

The same people who wanted to immediately decimate Zorko seem to be the ones taking these allegations prima facie which by implication skewers Fagan.

This is way more serious so perhaps deserves a period of reflection

 

[haystark]

Did the Bombers receive draft sanctions I can't recall. I do recall them getting the #1 draft pick as an indirect consequence of the drugs situation

You’re right, my mistake. They were banned from the finals series among other punishments.

 

[irel]

Maybe Burgoyne is a good bloke. Good blokes dont tend to know anything of these matters.

I am totally out of the loop with this comment. I do not understand it. Should I? What are you implying/suggesting?

 

[Toffee Lion]

Problem with 2) is that their reputations are damaged to such an extent that I fear they wont return to their jobs.

Potentially, hard to say though.

It's like the Zorko/Petty situation. Everyone gets shocked/outraged at first glance but if there is less proof provided with time passing on, that shock/outrage becomes diminished. Especially when more details come to light etc.

If 4 months from now there is still absolutely zero proof provided, it will become easier to believe Clarkson/Fagan, compared to say yesterday. Therefor their reputations will not become as damaged.

 

[Mighty Lions]

My view is that the story should not have been run by the ABC or any new outlet in the way it was. There is only one reason it was and it has absolutely nothing to do with informing the public, all just for $, clicks, publicity.

The information is entirely unsubstantiated. Although multiple sources appear to have provided similar instances there is no detail about how this information was elicited during the process. No attempts to corroborate that information. An experienced interrogator can easily elicit the answers needed to create such a narrative or conversely an inexperienced one can unintentionally insert biased information.

For these reasons I remain skeptical. Whole thing just has the smell of horseshit about it.

Further I disagree that this is the end for Fagan. We as a community should demand that it isn't. No one should be forced from their employment in these circumstances.

Even If found not gulity of any of the allegations, I suspect Chris will still walk away. (just a guess) The stress & trauma of this on Chris, Ursula & the rest of his family is huge. (just an opinion) An absolute nightmare for all. In addition, like other posters before me have said, sponsors will also have their say in whether they want him back or not.

 

[martinson]

From my reading of Fagan's statement he is categorically denying this has occurred or he was completely unaware.

 

[bungalow_bill]

The alleged meetings that occurred probably won’t be the deciding factor as to how this plays out as both sides would have differing opinions as to what and how they played out in a possible he said/she said type scenario.

What might get them is if there are copies of these emails and/or text msgs floating around that are referenced in that original article. If any of those exist and make reference to the allegations then they’ll have some trouble disproving it. Once something is in writing, you’re generally screwed.

We shall wait to see if they do in fact exist.

I'm not an expert here but I thought deleted texts / emails were still accessible to investigators via the users internet provider?

 

[Tom14]

I guess this is where you differ to many other people around here. If there is a 50/50 possibility Fagan is lying and the accusations are true, you are willing to immediately throw him under the bus and denounce him without getting the full picture. Even when there hasn't been a murmur of poor people management by him over the last 6 years.

Exhibit A:


I just think posts like the above are poor form and show you are more interested in reacting to a juicy story and pre-empting the consequences of the juicy story than waiting for the truth first. Which is really disrespectful to Fagan.

No, I think it shows I have a healthy respect for the journalist in question to not be making stuff up and I'm showing sympathy for those involved who allegedly have been through something truly awful. Your default seems to be that it isn't true. That's fine if that it is your opinion but equally I'm entitled to mine.

What I will call out is attacking the journalist/media organisation on spurious grounds. Or the notion that we must have a criminal trial level of proof of guilt for it to be ok to have an opinion - that is a ridiculous standard.

OJ Simpson, for example, didn't get convicted at trial but was found liable on the civil standard. Completely different situation of course that shouldn't be compared, but I feel comfortable with my personal standards, even if you want to call me wanting to 'react to a juicy story.'

I also don't think De Goey should have been playing while there was a serious criminal charge against him, and if we were to recuit him I'd cancel my membership too. So if you want to discount me as reacting to 'juicy stories,' so be it.

 

[lioninthesand]

The alleged meetings that occurred probably won’t be the deciding factor as to how this plays out as both sides would have differing opinions as to what and how they played out in a possible he said/she said type scenario.

What might get them is if there are copies of these emails and/or text msgs floating around that are referenced in that original article. If any of those exist and make reference to the allegations then they’ll have some trouble disproving it. Once something is in writing, you’re generally screwed.

We shall wait to see if they do in fact exist.

In my workplace, such high level and volatile discussions that are alleged - would only be undertaken with minuted notes, HR representation and witnesses present.

If I wanted to give health advice, discuss a persons family life or make recommendations on how they should manage their personal affairs, there would be a team there and they would have been offered time to arrange a representative to be present.

If they are the people in a position of power and the employer can’t provide evidence a safe place and that due process was afforded to their employees - I think the report would frown upon it landing on ‘well no one can prove who said what’.

The onus would be on the people in the position of power/employer to demonstrate they can prove these alleged victims were not put in these positions somehow.

 

[Bucking Beads]

 

[Tom14]

From my reading of Fagan's statement he is categorically denying this has occurred or he was completely unaware.

Yep that is how I read it too - or he wasn't at the meeting in question, and wasn't at the house where they took the player to move them out and away from their partner.

 

[Brett C]

It was never a review that was intended to include white people from the club. It was a review commissioned to give indigenous players a chance to tell their stories. It was not an investigation, it’s was their chance to allow potential victims have their say.

If it was proposed, ‘you tell your story and then powerful white males will tell theirs, and we will release the findings and see who people think is right?’ - do you think they would have participated?

The review was also a fact finding mission, no one’s job was riding on it at the time it was commissioned, because of the gravity of the claims, they have sort higher guidance.

From this point, if Fagan and Clarko where not included that would be outrageous, but to this point - the First Nations review did not require intervention and participation from the accused.

Cute that you think it was a fact finding mission.

Facts are thing are known or proven to be true, neither is the case here.

It was an opportunity to tell a story

 

[CarterS]

It's funny watching all the right wing murdoch fans come out of the woodwork discrediting the abc. It must hurt them deeply that it exists. If they could just get rid of this pesky channel uncle rupert could assert full domination over the airwaves and the liberals / catholic church would never be held accountable again.

We are getting seriously derailed here. Wtf is this?

 

[Jeremiah001]

I am totally out of the loop with this comment. I do not understand it. Should I? What are you implying/suggesting?

Have you heard of the legendary BigFooty Lions clique? Well in the Afl there is something similar. Jobs for the boys, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours, indiscretions covered up or minimized, not guilty at the tribunal. That sort of thing. Turn on Foxfooty. I'm sure you will find some examples there.

 

[Hanley]

Re fairness, interesting to note the article came out after all key parties were out of the premiership race. Totally open question, I do wonder if the article was held back for that purpose, or whether it would have been released at the same time with the Lions entering a grand final on the weekend. I suspect the former, which is at least decent form from the ABC/journo. Not commenting on the response window etc., just an observation that I haven't seen come up elsewhere.

 

[martinson]

Yep that is how I read it too - or he wasn't at the meeting in question, and wasn't at the house where they took the player to move them out and away from their partner.

I'm finding it hard to disbelieve him on the basis of that statement.

He just doesn't seem the type to outright lie on a matter that goes deep to his personal integrity.

Perhaps that's my own bias speaking.

 

[T Rick]

Is this only accessible by Fagan or others around the club ? I don't even entertain the thought of opening Emails when I'm not working. I gather no one is deeply involved at the club at the moment after the season ending last week.

Was the email ever opened?
Fages was up to his eyeballs in Exit interviews all day…

 

[Tom14]

The same people who wanted to immediately decimate Zorko seem to be the ones taking these allegations prima facie which by implication skewers Fagan.

This is way more serious so perhaps deserves a period of reflection

You can tag me directly, I won't be upset.

For the record I still think Zorko should no longer be captain going forward. Am I shocked that Dees players were also being F-wits? No, not really. I think that is a fair assumption about most behaviour on the footy field.

 

[martinson]

Re fairness, interesting to note the article came out after all key parties were out of the premiership race. Totally open question, I do wonder if the article was held back for that purpose, or whether it would have been released at the same time with the Lions entering a grand final on the weekend. I suspect the former, which is at least decent form from the ABC/journo. Not commenting on the response window etc., just an observation that I haven't seen come up elsewhere.

I put it up a while ago. My take was that the AFL held back hoping like hell we didn't make the GF .

 

[Mayestro]

What material purpose does it serve for Fagan's name to be made public?

Where is the difference between the accuser and the accused insofar as provision of anonymity is concerned?

We speak about wanting a fair end equitable process....how exactly is that goal achieved in the current environment?

The only way I can see for some semblance of parity to return is for the identity of both sides to be revealed.

Fair and equitable is not really achievable when privilege and power between these two groups- the accusers and accused- is very asymmetrical. Fagan and Clarkson are well off individuals with the backing of powerful organisations. Do you think the accusers are in the same situation, or will have anywhere near that support? Anonymity protects them from targeted harassment from the supporter bases of each of the clubs involved, racists who want to have a swing and the institutions themselves in previous eras.

Whistleblower laws are also designed to protect identity from harrassment. No one would come forward ever if they had to confront the full force of this harassment.

Yassmin Abdul-Magied was harassed out of Australia, Goodes was hounded out of the game.

Do you see why anonymity is important?

 

[irel]

Have you heard of the legendary BigFooty Lions clique? Well in the Afl there is something similar. Jobs for the boys, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours, indiscretions covered up or minimized, not guilty at the tribunal. That sort of thing. Turn on Foxfooty. I'm sure you will find some examples there.

Are you saying that the reason Burgoyne did not know of these matters was because he was not respected by the Aboriginal players at Howthorn and he was thought of as belonging to the boy's club?

 

[Section 5]

The Pies falling down the ladder was much more likely centred on destroying the onfield culture and belief amongst the playing group, when players had their reputations questioned publicly by the club and were traded out, all in the name of rebalancing their salary cap.

It all played a part in their fall from grace
If big problems surround clubs be it from admin down to players it has an affect on how the team plays
Pies bounced back to a PF the following year basically with the same players