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.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Lots to unpack here.

Firstly Fagan and Clarkson have categorically denied the allegations and alleged treatment of the “victims”

Just as you say I no way to determine if these claims are bullshit how can you claim them to be truthful?

I didn't say they were truthful. I said we should treat alleged victims with the sympathy, care and kindness we would extend to confirmed victims. That includes not insinuating that they are liars. I hold this position while also not wanting the alleged perpetrators' heads on a pike immediately, and I see no contradiction with holding both those positions simultaneously. This is identical to how I would react in the case of any alleged crime.

We can have sympathy but the same time we’re allowed to doubt and test accusations, to not do so it patently stupid.

Do you understand the feeling that victims have if they have been through a traumatic situation only to have all and sundry calling them a liar? Society has done this over and over to rape victims in particular and exacerbated their trauma.

If you really want to doubt the alleged victims' stories, fine, it's a free country, I just urge you to exercise caution in future situations, particularly if you know the victim, to not make them feel any worse than they do after suffering once already.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Lots to unpack here.

Firstly Fagan and Clarkson have categorically denied the allegations and alleged treatment of the “victims”

Just as you say I no way to determine if these claims are bullshit how can you claim them to be truthful?

That this has happened to Fagan doesn’t strengthen my belief that it’s easy to throw out allegations (which are now being taken as fact without any investigations) and that we must just believe all victims.

The seriousness of these claims mean they deserve a through investigation and if Fagan/Clarkson are found to have act as alleged then they should rightly pay the price.

We can have sympathy but the same time we’re allowed to doubt and test accusations, to not do so it patently stupid.

I don’t agree with people being naked publicly with these sorts of things before the actual truth or as close to the truth is known.

It really is refreshing to see posts like this. Well said

 

[martinson]

You can see why the AFL held onto this hoping like hell Brisbane didn't make the GF.

 

[Tom14]

Well, a new day starts (I'm 3 hrs behind those of you on the AUS east coast - plus I slept in a bit )

Reading through the commentary this morning, I see not much has been added to any official account.

After having slept on this mess, I remain 100% behind Fages. I hope he coaches us again and I hope we as a footy club are able to get around him and support him.

I know for some of you, that moment is some way off and will require Fages' evidence to provide that pathway. For others, you might never forgive him and thus never again be able to support him in the coaches chair.

Regardless, the only thing I would ask is that we reflect on our coach of the past 6 years and rate him on that body of work.

We all like to deify our heroes and demonise our enemies. Fages is neither, right now. He's just a bloke somehow involved in a very unsavoury incident with massive repercussions and significant heinous elements.

If he did the wrong thing, I'm happy to shake his hand, say thanks, and see him off knowing that his time here was done.

If he did the right thing, I'm gonna make sure that I am one of the first there to say welcome back.

And if neither of those can be proven?

Then he's our coach until 2023.

Because until proven guilty, he's innocent.

The onus here is quite clear - it is up to the Prosecuting parties to prove their case.

We owe it to our concepts of justice to hold the accusing parties to this standard.

I’m sorry, but this is a common misconception. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal standard for a criminal trial - because the consequence is imprisonment. The consequence here is Fagan losing his job.

This gets conflated a lot, and we shouldn’t have a workplace investigation having the same standard as a criminal trial.

 

[Fitzroy bears]

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

 

[Lions time]

Well, a new day starts (I'm 3 hrs behind those of you on the AUS east coast - plus I slept in a bit )

Reading through the commentary this morning, I see not much has been added to any official account.

After having slept on this mess, I remain 100% behind Fages. I hope he coaches us again and I hope we as a footy club are able to get around him and support him.

I know for some of you, that moment is some way off and will require Fages' evidence to provide that pathway. For others, you might never forgive him and thus never again be able to support him in the coaches chair.

Regardless, the only thing I would ask is that we reflect on our coach of the past 6 years and rate him on that body of work.

We all like to deify our heroes and demonise our enemies. Fages is neither, right now. He's just a bloke somehow involved in a very unsavoury incident with massive repercussions and significant heinous elements.

If he did the wrong thing, I'm happy to shake his hand, say thanks, and see him off knowing that his time here was done.

If he did the right thing, I'm gonna make sure that I am one of the first there to say welcome back.

And if neither of those can be proven?

Then he's our coach until 2023.

Because until proven guilty, he's innocent.

The onus here is quite clear - it is up to the Prosecuting parties to prove their case.

We owe it to our concepts of justice to hold the accusing parties to this standard.

This X 100


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Johnny Bananas]

And Fagan would likely get a fair few emails / calls. It's quite easy to not see an email for 24 hours or more.

So how long do you want a journalist to sit on a story for, twiddling their thumbs by the phone, waiting for a call? In the general forum thread yesterday, people with some knowledge of the news media industry said that journalists rarely give more than 24 hours notice, sometimes 12 hours, sometimes less.

 

[Sausages]

its important to note fagan is a well off man who is likely to have the full suite of club in house lawyers / pr / media backing him through this process

i dont think we need to rush to defend him with the good bloke defence and make posts that sound like browbeating towards the victims here. fagan has all the resources in the world possible to exonerate himself if he has indeed done nothing untowards.

A situation mirrored, I would expect, by the structures available now to the accusers.

Except they have one thing Fagan doesn't - anonymity.

 

[Section 5]

“Weather he was not involved in the alligations, involved by means of not standing up for players, or recalls all of the alligations, is not the point now.”


This is the whole point … Going by your sentiments here , no one has a right to natural justice. Just cop it on the chin, have your life longs work , relationships, moral standing,denigrated and destroyed by something you may not have been a part of. That to me is disgusting.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I did not say it was fair

This is how i see it being played out

Because we don't know the truth one way or the other at this stage

 

[Section 5]

so you are saying he chose to not reply, I highly doubt this

Most likely the club advised him not to reply

 

[Johnny Bananas]

YEah Johnny Bananas is unwilling to consider any other alternative other than the reporter is 100% right, the three accounts are 100% accurate and 24 hours notice is a reasonable amount of time when Fagan has conducted exit interviews (set down for 2 days - 44 players) i.e. 22 players on the day the reporter contacted him - mind you Johnny Bananas is saying that you must return very phone call from all numbers that call you and respond to every single email - ignoring the fact that this reporters email could've gone in his spam folder - but sure Fagan has been negligent in not responding to this reporter.

Don't pretend you know what I think. You haven't got even one thing right in all of that blathering nonsense.

Now, whose to say he did see / heard it and took advice and was told not to respond. I'm willing to accept that, but to be mocked otherwise which Johny Bananas is doing with any plausible reason that Fagan may not have read the email, heard the voicemail or ignored an unfamiliar number is completely disinegnous b/c I am sure he / she answers every single call irrespective of whether he / she is in a meeting, spending time with a loved one or like me, isn't joined at the hip with my phone / laptop etc. What a holier than thou attitiutde is that partlculalry without even admitting that that could be the case.

Give up now mate.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Couldn't the same be said of Chris Fagan if he wasn't at the meeting, which Chris Fagan has said to Lions officials that he wasn't - then isn't he a victim that has wrongly been defamed, so where's his sympathy and kindness? Or b/c a reporter has said he was there, then he should be left out in the cold and not cared for either?

Isn' this a two way street or am I missing something?

His sympathy and kindness is me not assuming he's guilty and demanding his head. I'm reserving judgement on that, while wanting kindness for the alleged victim too.

 

[Sausages]

I’m sorry, but this is a common misconception. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal standard for a criminal trial - because the consequence is imprisonment. The consequence here is Fagan losing his job.

This gets conflated a lot, and we shouldn’t have a workplace investigation having the same standard as a criminal trial.

A workplace investigation which alleges darkly criminal behaviour which tears at the social fabric in the public sphere is, I feel, a justifiable scenario to take the amibiguity from "proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" and assess that as the prosecution must prove their case.

 

[McIvor]

Fact: Russell Jackson emailed Fagan and left a voicemail on his phone giving him 24 hours to reply before he published the story. I didn't make this up, Jackson posted it himself. I'm told 24 hours notice is standard or even generous in the news industry.

So what whether its standard or not.

Do you respond or see every email you receive in a 24 hour period, particulalry when you are back to back all day - I don't and know many that don't either.

Also, do you answer every single call from a private number or unknown number? Given your attitude, I am sure you do. Again, I'd say more than 50% of people don't. Same for listening to voicemails. I am probably worse than most, but when I'm busy, I am lucky to listen to my VM twice a week. Same as probably many others.

To blindly imply that Fagan was given every opportunity is utter horse crap for reasons I've just mentioned. But you are now disbelieving Fagan for what reason? He's conducted probably 20 odd exit interviews, had other meetings at the club, gone home cooked dinner, gone for a walk etc. and yet he must be switched onto his devices on the off chance some reporter is chasing him.

Answer me this, why didn't this reporter if he was serious about getting Fagan's comment reach out to others at the club? I bet he didn't and given he is defending himself like nobody's business on SM today saying how reasonable it was, I am sure if he had genuinely tried getting in contact with Fagan, he would have said so - but he hasn't.

The reporter's credibility is diminishing by the hour, even if the allegations are founded.

 

[Jeremiah001]

A workplace investigation which alleges darkly criminal behaviour which tears at the social fabric in the public sphere is, I feel, a justifiable scenario to take the amibiguity from "proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" and assess that as the prosecution must prove their case.

Who is this prosecution?

 

[briztoon]

Like our club? The only ones we've drafted recently have come through the academy

Cedrik Cox.

Going through the recent drafts, back to 2016, maybe 2018 small forward Bobby Hill instead of Ely Smith is the only potential selectin I can come up with.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Couldn't the same be said of Chris Fagan if he wasn't at the meeting, which Chris Fagan has said to Lions officials that he wasn't - then isn't he a victim that has wrongly been defamed, so where's his sympathy and kindness? Or b/c a reporter has said he was there, then he should be left out in the cold and not cared for either?

Isn' this a two way street or am I missing something?

And no, Fagan is not an alleged victim. There is no suggestion that he was coerced into cutting off his family or partner or terminating a pregnancy. He is not equivalent in this matter to the players who are allegedly involved. That's why his sympathy from me takes the form of reserving judgement until we know the truth.

 

[Lions time]

So how long do you want a journalist to sit on a story for, twiddling their thumbs by the phone, waiting for a call? In the general forum thread yesterday, people with some knowledge of the news media industry said that journalists rarely give more than 24 hours notice, sometimes 12 hours, sometimes less.

If it is 100 percent truthful, does it matter how long ? What are the motivations for waiting 1 day before publishing before asking the “accused “ for comment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Required]

I did not say it was fair

This is how i see it being played out

Because we don't know the truth one way or the other at this stage

If all parties stand their ground, I dont see how Fagan and Clarkson come back from this. Even If the players walk some of it back, there will be many who say they were coerced in some way to do so.

Besides the players, I do feel sympathy for both Lions and North clubs as both are blameless, at least in this case. Lions because of so much negative press lately, and North because after that initial ray of hope by getting a gun coach, they are now potentially in a far more precarious position than before. North fans are gutted. They may indeed end up in Tasmania, where only 2 days ago they were dreaming of a golden era.

 

[western royboy]

IMO this will not end well, no matter how it proceeds from here on. IMO there will be litigation as reputations and careers have been destroyed.

IMO the lawyers may question the integrity of the internal Hawthorn review, there may be question marks of how it was conducted, the methods used, there may even be wrong people named at specified meetings, or events or recollections or the conduct of those meetings. Only one side of the story has emerged at this stage and IMO once the dust has settled and perhaps other details emerge, ABC and the journalist may not escape scrutiny as well. This to me has a smell that something is not right. If what has been alleged to have happened the court of law will settle it and people will be and should bear the consequences. However until such time I reserve the right to give Fagan the presumption of innocence.

IMO Fagan at some near future should return to his coaching job. He has not been found to be guilty of the allegations. At this stage it is only allegations. Fagan has denied he was involved, or recollect that he was involved or that his recollections may differ from the allegations.

Like I said this may be settled via the legal system.

If it is settled by the legal system…then it will be an absolute shit show…because everyone of them is and usually there are no winners - other than the lawyers - they always win regardless

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Do you respond or see every email you receive in a 24 hour period, particulalry when you are back to back all day - I don't and know many that don't either.

I don't need to answer this question, because you already put words in my mouth to answer it for me in that comedy post you made earlier.

Also, do you answer every single call from a private number or unknown number?

I don't need to answer this question, because you already put words in my mouth to answer it for me in that comedy post you made earlier.

Given your attitude, I am sure you do. Again, I'd say more than 50% of people don't. Same for listening to voicemails.

As opposed to your attitude, which is supremely condescending.

I am probably worse than most, but when I'm busy, I am lucky to listen to my VM twice a week. Same as probably many others.

I don't care what you do. The sad thing is I quite liked your posts until you decided to be a shameless troll just now.

To blindly imply that Fagan was given every opportunity is utter horse crap for reasons I've just mentioned.

He was. 24 hours is an opportunity. Fagan did not take it and others cannot be blamed for that.

But you are now disbelieving Fagan for what reason?

What am I disbelieving? I haven't disputed anything he's said.

He's conducted probably 20 odd exit interviews, had other meetings at the club, gone home cooked dinner, gone for a walk etc. and yet he must be switched onto his devices on the off chance some reporter is chasing him.

Nobody said he must be, only that he had the opportunity.

Answer me this, why didn't this reporter if he was serious about getting Fagan's comment reach out to others at the club?

Why should he? Are those people Chris Fagan?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

If it is 100 percent truthful, does it matter how long ? What are the motivations for waiting 1 day before publishing before asking the “accused “ for comment.

That's how deadlines work in journalism.

 

[martinson]

It's jmo but I don't see how the inquiry set up by the AFL will resolve anything when you can see through this thread people have their minds made up on their political enemies/issues even where a proper process and a Court of Law has determined otherwise. Good luck with an AFL sanctioned probe.

You never get anyone to change their minds on matters like this in my experience. So whatever the truth is I feel for the victims and the alleged perpetrators if in fact they are innocent because the mud will stick forever. The victims are probably in a heightened state of anxiety right now having to relive trauma if it occurred in anything like the manner described. No one wins whoever they are.

Standby for more details to be leaked over the next few days/weeks.

 

[knaf]

Most likely the club advised him not to reply

Dont agree that it’s “most likely” but it is a possibility. if Fagan saw the email, he would probably seek advise including from the club.

However I don’t see the issue of whether or not he was asked for comment, saw the request and ignored it or chose not to reply as important.

The Hawks report was going to come out. too many reports relating to AFL and First Nation players havent been released. (Listed in the Age this morning).

Fages name was going to come out prior to the start of the Formal AFL investigation.

assumptions would be made before he had a chance to put his side of events.

 

[Dom PC]

I’m sorry, but this is a common misconception. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal standard for a criminal trial - because the consequence is imprisonment. The consequence here is Fagan losing his job.

This gets conflated a lot, and we shouldn’t have a workplace investigation having the same standard as a criminal trial.

Some peoples careers are their life's work. You shouldn't minimise the damage that can happen to people's lives through losing their career... arguably it is worse than imprisonment - I know people who'd rather spend a year in jail then never be allowed to work in their industry again.

You should be damn sure an accusation is true before you ruin someone's career...