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.

 

[Cheersquad71]

I think people should read and think about the statement:

AFL STATEMENT | Marque Lawyers

www.marquelawyers.com.au

 

[BobHawk]

Full statement here. Looks like the AFL has moved on before the investigation even started. Shocked!

 

[H00t]

Full statement here. Looks like the AFL has moved on before the investigation even started. Shocked!

AFL has gone full protection mode. It’s sad and disheartening to read that the terms of reference deliberately talk about the First Nation players and family’s testimonies might be inaccurate or unreliable due to cultural differences.

It seems clear what outcome the AFL is going for. And to have doubled down on what made the alleged behaviour so awful is just gross.

 

[derp de derp]

Fighting silencing tactics with silence.

This is arguably the worst outcome for all involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[QuietB]

Not up to them. They are ex employees. They will have no say in how Hawthorn responds to civil litigation. Insurers of Hawthorn and AFL will settle any civil claim. Won’t go to court

It actually should go to court.

If the players and their partners think they have been wronged and want to be heard well let's do it.

 

[burton5]

Regarding the statements discussion independence of the investigation/ToR:

• I'm not sure what more the AFL could do than what they've already done. The investigative panel is made up of highly qualified individuals including those from a First Nations background. The terms of reference are also extremely broad allowing this panel to look into a "any inappropriate conduct" which may have occurred.
• Again, regarding 'cultural safety', see above.
• "The question the AFL should be asking itself is not “Did these things happen?” but “How did these things happen on our watch?” So the AFL is supposed to automatically presume the complete truthfulness of the allegations without consulting all of the parties involved (Clarkson, Fagan etc.)? Laughable.

I think perhaps the only reasonable point made is the investigation being rushed. Other than that, imo it's postmodernist tribe rather than a reasonable legitimate comment on the procedural fairness aspects of the investigation.

Also if Amy had all these concerns, why did she initially take part ?

 

[Jables]

I wouldn't participate in a non-independent investigation if there's going to be a court case. The terms of reference that got sent to them said their testimony might be unreliable because of cultural differences, if I were them I'd give them the middle finger, no need to do the AFL a favour.

 

[cryptor]

The terms of reference that got sent to them said their testimony might be unreliable because of cultural differences

Hard to imagine Clarkson or Fagan would agree to participate if it was the indigenous families that got to arrange the independent investigation and included those exact same terms about non-indigenous participants.

 

[Easy Slips Catch]

This is a HR matter. The AFL is rightly trying to find out what took place. Why would any court touch it?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Do we attribute it as "Amy" or as something more specific if artwork was to be reproduced?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Regarding the statements discussion independence of the investigation/ToR:

• I'm not sure what more the AFL could do than what they've already done. The investigative panel is made up of highly qualified individuals including those from a First Nations background. The terms of reference are also extremely broad allowing this panel to look into a "any inappropriate conduct" which may have occurred.
• Again, regarding 'cultural safety', see above.
• "The question the AFL should be asking itself is not “Did these things happen?” but “How did these things happen on our watch?” So the AFL is supposed to automatically presume the complete truthfulness of the allegations without consulting all of the parties involved (Clarkson, Fagan etc.)? Laughable.

I think perhaps the only reasonable point made is the investigation being rushed. Other than that, imo it's postmodernist tribe rather than a reasonable legitimate comment on the procedural fairness aspects of the investigation.

Also if Amy had all these concerns, why did she initially take part ?

Perhaps the way the initial Hawthorn review was set up was culturally safe and didn't have the time issues.
Though where it was going to go after that - Hawthorn reporting to AFL is obvious to us outside the tent, maybe Amy thought it would be handled by the club (though I don't know how)

 

[corporal]

"Amy" doesn't want to speak to the AFL about the incident but was ok anonymously leaking the accusations to the media and is now releasing art work depictions of the incident via her lawyer. It's become a bit of a circus at this point.

 

[HairyO]

I wouldn't participate in a non-independent investigation if there's going to be a court case. The terms of reference that got sent to them said their testimony might be unreliable because of cultural differences, if I were them I'd give them the middle finger, no need to do the AFL a favour.

If they walk away the review will find no fault and nothing will change.

That doesnt seem particularly clever.

Can anyone explain why 2 months to interview 15 or 16 people is not enough time? What should the panel be doing that would take more than 2 months ?

 

[Brishawk]

"Amy" doesn't want to speak to the AFL about the incident but was ok anonymously leaking the accusations to the media and is now releasing art work depictions of the incident via her lawyer. It's become a bit of a circus at this point.

Would you want to participate in a process with terms of reference that cast doubt on the reliability of your testimony?

 

[corporal]

Would you want to participate in a process with terms of reference that cast doubt on the reliability of your testimony?

If that was going to be a concern why publicly blow it up in the media? did she expect a different outcome then an AFL investigation which seemed the only possible next course of action once it became front page news everywhere.

 

[Brishawk]

If that was going to be a concern why publicly blow it up in the media? did she expect a different outcome then an AFL investigation which seemed the only possible next course of action once it became front page news everywhere.

The terms of reference is a document which outlines the instructions for the investigators. It states that the player and family testimonies may be unreliable due to cultural differences. That isn’t a normal feature of investigations to instruct investigators to doubt the accusers and make no comment regarding the defendants.

 

[Gralin]

If that was going to be a concern why publicly blow it up in the media? did she expect a different outcome then an AFL investigation which seemed the only possible next course of action once it became front page news everywhere.

I would say they went public to avoid the AFL being able to stage manage and bury this without any scrutiny

this is a continuation of that, the AFL investigation is not independent and the TOR seems setup to push a particular end result

again putting public pressure and scrutiny on how this is being handled by the AFL, because ultimately we know they tend to protect the brand over anything and anyone else

they'll protect Clarkson and Fagan as long as they see that as the better option for brand AFL even if they know the accusations are true

if they think they can't then they might turn on one or both of them to make it a problem of just a couple of bad apples but they will act like the industry doesn't enable this either way

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I would say they went public to avoid the AFL being able to stage manage and bury this without any scrutiny

this is a continuation of that, the AFL investigation is not independent and the TOR seems setup to push a particular end result

again putting public pressure and scrutiny on how this is being handled by the AFL, because ultimately we know they tend to protect the brand over anything and anyone else

they'll protect Clarkson and Fagan as long as they see that as the better option for brand AFL even if they know the accusations are true

if they think they can't then they might turn on one or both of them to make it a problem of just a couple of bad apples but they will act like the industry doesn't enable this either way

It’s running a very similar path to the Essendon doping scandal where the AFL stood between Essendon and ASADA and then said just do what we say and take the hits when they come. Instead though Hird took the investigating body to court and forced the AFL to cut him adrift.

The players and the lawyers involved know that the AFL’s priority is not that the truth comes out, it’s that the AFL brand remains as clean as possible.

 

[corporal]

I would say they went public to avoid the AFL being able to stage manage and bury this without any scrutiny

this is a continuation of that, the AFL investigation is not independent and the TOR seems setup to push a particular end result

again putting public pressure and scrutiny on how this is being handled by the AFL, because ultimately we know they tend to protect the brand over anything and anyone else

they'll protect Clarkson and Fagan as long as they see that as the better option for brand AFL even if they know the accusations are true

if they think they can't then they might turn on one or both of them to make it a problem of just a couple of bad apples but they will act like the industry doesn't enable this either way

So they blew it up in the media to that there wasn't a cover up. Now the AFL has launched an investigation the people who leaked it won't participate. So how does this end? A continued drip feed of leaks to the media and inflammatory twitter posts? What's the aggrieved parties end game here? Public telling of the truth? Compensation? The heads of Clarkson & Fagan?

 

[Gralin]

So they blew it up in the media to that there wasn't a cover up. Now the AFL has launched an investigation the people who leaked it won't participate. So how does this end? A continued drip feed of leaks to the media and inflammatory twitter posts? What's the aggrieved parties end game here? Public telling of the truth? Compensation? The heads of Clarkson & Fagan?

I mean the statement posted on the last page was pretty clear that the primary purpose for speaking up was to try and stop this happening again to others.
That's not going to happen if the AFL does the nothing to see here thing and keeps going as it is currently is it

 

[thehardway]

I would say they went public to avoid the AFL being able to stage manage and bury this without any scrutiny

this is a continuation of that, the AFL investigation is not independent and the TOR seems setup to push a particular end result

again putting public pressure and scrutiny on how this is being handled by the AFL, because ultimately we know they tend to protect the brand over anything and anyone else

they'll protect Clarkson and Fagan as long as they see that as the better option for brand AFL even if they know the accusations are true

if they think they can't then they might turn on one or both of them to make it a problem of just a couple of bad apples but they will act like the industry doesn't enable this either way

I think the panel appointed by the AFL would be highly aggrieved and offended at the suggestion that they are somehow puppets to a preferred AFL outcome. From what I can see they are truly independent and of the highest integrity and will be determined to seek out the truth without any interference.

 

[Gralin]

I think the panel appointed by the AFL would be highly aggrieved and offended at the suggestion that they are somehow puppets to a preferred AFL outcome. From what I can see they are truly independent and of the highest integrity and will be determined to seek out the truth without any interference.

This isn't about the members of the panel this is about how the AFL has setup the investigation.

The investigation has not been setup to let the panel seek out the truth without interference.

The AFL will have complete control over the findings of the investigation and what if anything to publish, they have set the terms of the investigation, they've put their legal counsel in the middle of this and they appointed a lawyer to represent all the families as a group.

There is no mention of investigating claims of racism in their TOR for the investigation but there is reference in the TOR to the testimonies of First Nations people possibly being "inaccurate or unreliable" due to "cultural differences"

They didn't outsource this to an external body to investigate, something the original Hawthorn Report recommended

This is the AFL investigating itself and controlling the message again

 

[thehardway]

This isn't about the members of the panel this is about how the AFL has setup the investigation.

The investigation has not been setup to let the panel seek out the truth without interference.

The AFL will have complete control over the findings of the investigation and what if anything to publish, they have set the terms of the investigation, they've put their legal counsel in the middle of this and they appointed a lawyer to represent all the families as a group.

There is no mention of investigating claims of racism in their TOR for the investigation but there is reference in the TOR to the testimonies of First Nations people possibly being "inaccurate or unreliable" due to "cultural differences"

They didn't outsource this to an external body to investigate, something the original Hawthorn Report recommended

This is the AFL investigating itself and controlling the message again

With all due respect I disagree. You're reading too much into the TOR and still maintain the Panel will have no interference in seeking out the truth. In fact after the recent questioning of their independence they'll be fearless in their investigation. I also believe the AFL have committed to release the full findings of that investigation.

 

[flinchfree]

It's all just gutting.

 

[Gralin]

With all due respect I disagree. You're reading too much into the TOR and still maintain the Panel will have no interference in seeking out the truth. In fact after the recent questioning of their independence they'll be fearless in their investigation. I also believe the AFL have committed to release the full findings of that investigation.

where have they committed to releasing the full findings?