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.

 

[Randy Campbell]

I rarely post and haven't read the full 85 pages, however, feel compelled to comment here:

Definition of systematically - according to a fixed plan or system.
- Unless we see racial text at any hierarchy within the Hawthorn business plan I would throw the word systematically out the door.

Definition of cultural - relating to the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a society.
- A variant of cultural issues is where I believe this sits.

In my profession we often look at what has been "Normalised'' within a conglomerate. This is where an unofficial or unauthorised deviation from system/ procedure becomes accepted practice. Generally this originates from the coalface and it is up to those in a position of power to correct and direct, or allow it to pass and embed itself in culture. Often this is where those in power who go unchallenged impose their will.

In the said time period the club was manned by powerful personalities who, it would be fair to say, remained largely unchallenged for a number of years. If I were running this investigation I would be very interested in what Tracey Gaudry had to say around the culture of the club.

'Too busy winning'

 

[Simon Crawshay]

Usually when any sort of historic scandal breaks you get weeks of leaked stories about the accused piling up with further people coming forward and new information coming to light. It happens all the time, politics, sport, you name it.

The only new info we’ve had is an excerpt from Sam Mitchell’s book that Caro read that we all knew about and that’s literally been it. Even Caro who doesn’t mind doubling down on a big story has gone a bit quiet about it and concedes that there is a strong alternative version of events.

100% agree with your interpretation.

I think what may have occured here is that the journos have done some digging of there own which has led them to go very quiet indeed.

That's what blows my mind, the fact that the ABC went with this report without I can see doing any due diligence or background checks on the validity of the claims.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

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.

Completely different.
The afl went to essendon to protect them.
Hawthorn went to the AFL expecting ramifications

The AFL tried to act quickly with essendon to minimise damage
The afl isn't doing anything with the hawks

 

[Simon Crawshay]

You seem to be prone to hyperbole suggesting that Fagan and Clarkson were made out to be “worse than hitler” but the bolded above didn’t happen.

By naming them and stating what they are accused of in the report (with no right of reply let's all remind ourselves) they basically did even if they didn't explicitly say so in those exact words.

I will ask you a question SYL if you were the one being accused of these crimes would you be comfortable with the way this has been handled?

No presumption of innocence or natural justice here that I can see. Total subversion of our whole legal system.

 

[Rob R]

Not to cast any doubt on Amy’s truth of what has happened at all, but the versions currently going around of her and her situation could not be more stark and troubling. Surely without participating in the process, it almost guarantees this alternative version will eventually be accepted by most as fact.

Especially with the other complainants seemingly doing their best to separate themselves from her.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

By naming them and stating what they are accused of in the report (with no right of reply let's all remind ourselves) they basically did even if they didn't explicitly say so in those exact words.

I will ask you a question SYL if you were the one being accused of these crimes would you be comfortable with the way this has been handled?

No presumption of innocence or natural justice here that I can see. Total subversion of our whole legal system.

I find the whole “there’s no presumption of innocence” an absolute laugh.
Every single article that’s been posted about this investigation has hundreds of comments attached to them declaring that the players are lying, that they only want money and that Clarkson/Fagan etc shouldn’t have to answer to anyone.

If I was the one being accused of these crimes and I had the stature and ego that Clarkson and Fagan do I’d be as confident as they are that the AFL will do whatever they can to squash this, round it down to some misunderstanding, organise some cultural awareness training and would be letting my lawyer and manager guide me though it, like they are doing right now.

As much as the initial allegations were harrowing the amount of people in Australia who actually think Clarkson and Fagan are racist is minute, let’s not forget.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

That's what blows my mind, the fact that the ABC went with this report without I can see doing any due diligence or background checks on the validity of the claims.

Why would the ABC change habits of a lifetime? They are champions to the indigenous cause (not that there's anything wrong with that) and all it takes is an accusation and they'll run with it, whether there's any substance to it or not.

There is one similarity with the Essendon situation. People have jumped to conclusions before we know what actually happened. This may take some time, especially when not all parties will comply with the investigation.

 

[corporal]

I find the whole “there’s no presumption of innocence” an absolute laugh.
Every single article that’s been posted about this investigation has hundreds of comments attached to them declaring that the players are lying, that they only want money and that Clarkson/Fagan etc shouldn’t have to answer to anyone.

If I was the one being accused of these crimes and I had the stature and ego that Clarkson and Fagan do I’d be as confident as they are that the AFL will do whatever they can to squash this, round it down to some misunderstanding, organise some cultural awareness training and would be letting my lawyer and manager guide me though it, like they are doing right now.

As much as the initial allegations were harrowing the amount of people in Australia who actually think Clarkson and Fagan are racist is minute, let’s not forget.

Do you think Clarkson and Fagan are racist?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Do you think Clarkson and Fagan are racist?

There was a discussion on the SRP board (in the woke thread) about the meaning of the word racist. There is the view that racist implied you are a racial bigot at a personal level (ie actively acting in favour/ disfavour to a person based on their racial heritage) - this is the common interpretation of the word.

There is also a more academic definition which is being supportive of (by failing to act against) systems which act for or against someone based on racial heritage. Unfortunately this definition is extremely broad and by this definition pretty much everyone has engaged in racist behaviour (certainly I have by this definition).

What happens is that those who write reports / academic types then use their definition but those they report on interpret it as the common definition- and then just angry that their integrity has been attacked.

 

[corporal]

There was a discussion on the SRP board (in the woke thread) about the meaning of the word racist. There is the view that racist implied you are a racial bigot at a personal level (ie actively acting in favour/ disfavour to a person based on their racial heritage) - this is the common interpretation of the word.

There is also a more academic definition which is being supportive of (by failing to act against) systems which act for or against someone based on racial heritage. Unfortunately this definition is extremely broad and by this definition pretty much everyone has engaged in racist behaviour (certainly I have by this definition).

What happens is that those who write reports / academic types then use their definition but those they report on interpret it as the common definition- and then just angry that their integrity has been attacked.

That's very interesting Crankyhawk. It does make this even more complicated, are Clarkson & Fagan accused of being bigots or are they being accused of being part of systems that have disadvantaged certain racial backgrounds?

 

[Crankyhawk]

That's very interesting Crankyhawk. It does make this even more complicated, are Clarkson & Fagan accused of being bigots or are they being accused of being part of systems that have disadvantaged certain racial backgrounds?

I think the accusations sit among the being part of systems, but because the language lacks that precision it’s been interpreted as being accusation of being a bigot.

 

[HedgeFund]

Definetly this will be going to the courts.

I'm no lawyer but if this isn't a lay down misere for a massive payout for Clarko and Fages I don't know what is.

Let's not forget that the ABC named and shamed them as being racists without even knowing the identities of those making the claims. That's completely nuts in my opinion.

I am a lawyer, and have been for 25 years.

In my opinion it is not a lay down misere for a payout to the coaches.

The ABC didn’t say they were racist. They reported what had been said to them by those who engaged in Egan’s investigation, which was initiated by the club. They also stated that what was contained in the report provided to Hawthorn were allegations only. We’re also very consistent in the use of the word allegation (as opposed to stating it as a proven fact).

Coaches and Burt were advised ahead of time that details were going to be published, invited to comment and didn’t do so.

When a media outlet reports:

1. allegations have been raised

2. then outlines the contents of those allegations

3. Noting they were raised within a formal investigation undertaken at the request of a football club and

4. Those allegations have now been provided to the AFL

IMHO that’s not defamatory.

There’s plenty left to play out yet….

 

[the big lebowski]

I am a lawyer, and have been for 25 years.

In my opinion it is not a lay down misere for a payout to the coaches.

The ABC didn’t say they were racist. They reported what had been said to them by those who engaged in Egan’s investigation, which was initiated by the club. They also stated that what was contained in the report provided to Hawthorn were allegations only. We’re also very consistent in the use of the word allegation (as opposed to stating it as a proven fact).

Coaches and Burt were advised ahead of time that details were going to be published, invited to comment and didn’t do so.

When a media outlet reports:

1. allegations have been raised

2. then outlines the contents of those allegations

3. Noting they were raised within a formal investigation undertaken at the request of a football club and

4. Those allegations have now been provided to the AFL

IMHO that’s not defamatory.

There’s plenty left to play out yet….

I’m happy to bow to your better judgement as I’m not involved in law at all, but my understanding was that whilst they did splash allegations around everywhere Jackson did need to assess the validity of the claims being made

Specifically the demand for an abortion. That is such a headline grabbing, face smacking, shocking claim, it would want to be correct

• I didn’t think it was in the report
• Amy admits she wasn’t part of the conversation at the club
• the person who said that to Jackson seems to have some very serious issues
• it may turn out that hawthorn people other than Clarkson/fagan will confirm there was a discussion, but it didn’t happen as reported, and that neither Clarkson or fagan were present.

If that last part is confirmed via the investigation, the abc wouldn’t have a leg to stand on as far as I can tell as seemingly no investigation from Jackson took place to confirm that Clarkson demanded an abortion.

 

[Simon Crawshay]

I’m happy to bow to your better judgement as I’m not involved in law at all, but my understanding was that whilst they did splash allegations around everywhere Jackson did need to assess the validity of the claims being made

Specifically the demand for an abortion. That is such a headline grabbing, face smacking, shocking claim, it would want to be correct

• I didn’t think it was in the report
• Amy admits she wasn’t part of the conversation at the club
• the person who said that to Jackson seems to have some very serious issues
• it may turn out that hawthorn people other than Clarkson/fagan will confirm there was a discussion, but it didn’t happen as reported, and that neither Clarkson or fagan were present.

If that last part is confirmed via the investigation, the abc wouldn’t have a leg to stand on as far as I can tell as seemingly no investigation from Jackson took place to confirm that Clarkson demanded an abortion.

That's very true.

Because the allegations were very specific (especially the abortion one) allegations made against specific individuals if any of those allegations turn out to be not correct (and it appears the abortion one is looking shaky) then the ABC are toast.

Media outlets have to validate the claims of an investigation of this type prior to publishing.

Let's not forget this wasn't a criminal investigation by WorkCover or the police so there is no legal protection for the ABC if (any) claims turn out to be untrue.

 

[Rhayader]

I’m happy to bow to your better judgement as I’m not involved in law at all, but my understanding was that whilst they did splash allegations around everywhere Jackson did need to assess the validity of the claims being made

Specifically the demand for an abortion. That is such a headline grabbing, face smacking, shocking claim, it would want to be correct

• I didn’t think it was in the report
• Amy admits she wasn’t part of the conversation at the club
• the person who said that to Jackson seems to have some very serious issues
• it may turn out that hawthorn people other than Clarkson/fagan will confirm there was a discussion, but it didn’t happen as reported, and that neither Clarkson or fagan were present.

If that last part is confirmed via the investigation, the abc wouldn’t have a leg to stand on as far as I can tell as seemingly no investigation from Jackson took place to confirm that Clarkson demanded an abortion.

How do you know he didn’t assess the validity of the claims?

 

[the big lebowski]

How do you know he didn’t assess the validity of the claims?

Because IF it is proven that Clarkson wasn’t in the meeting when abortion was discussed, then he obviously didn’t apply journalistic rigour in assessing the validity of the claims.

 

[Rhayader]

Because IF it is proven that Clarkson wasn’t in the meeting when abortion was discussed, then he obviously didn’t apply journalistic rigour in assessing the validity of the claims.

Right, so that’s just, like, your opinion, man?

 

[Simon Crawshay]

How do you know he didn’t assess the validity of the claims?

Given that to my understanding the claims were made by an unnamed person for an event that happened at an unspecified date that would be a hard claim to verify?

Which makes the fact that the ABC published these claims (the abortion one in particular) pretty mind blowing IMOH.

If you publish that kind of claim you would want to be 100% certain it's true and judging by the media silence on it at the moment I think it's fair to say their is growing evidence that the abortion claim in particular is looking shaky.

People might think I am defending Clarko but if you look back through my posts I have been highly critical of Clarko and his coaching/man management style at times.

What I am staggered at is how this process has unfolded. It has totally bypassed and subverted the rule of law and judicial processes.

 

[Off The Couch]

The ABC story is separate from the AFL investigation - people seem to be having trouble separating the two

Clarkson and Fagan would be suing the ABC, “Amy and Ian” and other media outlets in relation to that story for defamation if the allegations are in correct. You would presume in this instance that Amy would have medical records that she’s going to be able to use to show that there was a termination. It would be very difficult for the defendants to try and prove that it wasn’t as a result of trauma from previous conversations with HFC representatives

Then depending on the outcome of the “independent” investigation may then look at suing HFC

There’s the other forgotten faces in all of this - not much media attention being given to them and I wonder if they’ve also been able to return to work like Fagan and Clarkson while this “investigation” goes through the processes.

 

[Rhayader]

Given that to my understanding the claims were made by an unnamed person for an event that happened at an unspecified date that would be a hard claim to verify?

Which makes the fact that the ABC published these claims (the abortion one in particular) pretty mind blowing IMOH.

If you publish that kind of claim you would want to be 100% certain it's true and judging by the media silence on it at the moment I think it's fair to say their is growing evidence that the abortion claim in particular is looking shaky.

People might think I am defending Clarko but if you look back through my posts I have been highly critical of Clarko and his coaching/man management style at times.

What I am staggered at is how this process has unfolded. It has totally bypassed and subverted the rule of law and judicial processes.

What is this based on? My understanding from the ABC is that Jackson directly interviewed the complainants for the original story, which was not based on the review. It’s possible he has no idea who “Amy” is, but seems unlikely on this situation? I mean, he had to track her down in the first place?

Not saying you’re wrong, just curious about what the basis of this statement is and therefore your assessment that he didn’t do any verification.

 

[Simon Crawshay]

What is this based on? My understanding from the ABC is that Jackson directly interviewed the complainants for the original story, which was not based on the review. It’s possible he has no idea who “Amy” is, but seems unlikely on this situation? I mean, he had to track her down in the first place?

Not saying you’re wrong, just curious about what the basis of this statement is and therefore your assessment that he didn’t do any verification.

Well you are probably correct in that the reporter knows her identity but even there we are making an assumption given the lack of detail being provided.

That goes to my whole point in how this has played out. Messy, outside the rules of law just something I wouldn't expect to see in a first world country with a mature legal system like Australia.

That's what Clarko and Fagan will go hardest at the ABC (maybe the AFL even the Hawks) at I reckon. The total disregard for judicial process and natural justice.

 

[SJT76]

Well you are probably correct in that the reporter knows her identity but even there we are making an assumption given the lack of detail being provided.

That goes to my whole point in how this has played out. Messy, outside the rules of law just something I wouldn't expect to see in a first world country with a mature legal system like Australia.

That's what Clarko and Fagan will go hardest at the ABC (maybe the AFL even the Hawks) at I reckon. The total disregard for judicial process and natural justice.

Why do you keep talking about rules of law? They have no bearing whatsoever on journalism.

If the ABC are satisfied that they can substantiate the truth of what they publish, they have every right to do so.

Clarkson and Fagan have the right to take the ABC to the courts if they wish.

 

[Rhayader]

Well you are probably correct in that the reporter knows her identity but even there we are making an assumption given the lack of detail being provided.

That goes to my whole point in how this has played out. Messy, outside the rules of law just something I wouldn't expect to see in a first world country with a mature legal system like Australia.

That's what Clarko and Fagan will go hardest at the ABC (maybe the AFL even the Hawks) at I reckon. The total disregard for judicial process and natural justice.

What judicial process? It’s not before the courts. Anyone can say pretty much anything, and if it’s wrong, then the aggrieved party can take action.

Defamation cases can be complicated and expensive, so “the accused” in this scenario - ie rich people - are best placed to use that system to protect themselves. The accusers, not so much. Probably why they have chosen the remain anonymous, given what I’ve seen written about them here and elsewhere…

 

[Spook]

I am overseas, Central America and the Caribbean, so I don’t know the details so of someone help me with what the “racism” accusations are that would be appreciated? I’ve read about the accusations of terminating a pregnancy and moving away from family but I haven’t read about the racism accusations, can some one help please.

 

[Davo23]

I am a lawyer, and have been for 25 years.

In my opinion it is not a lay down misere for a payout to the coaches.

The ABC didn’t say they were racist. They reported what had been said to them by those who engaged in Egan’s investigation, which was initiated by the club. They also stated that what was contained in the report provided to Hawthorn were allegations only. We’re also very consistent in the use of the word allegation (as opposed to stating it as a proven fact).

Coaches and Burt were advised ahead of time that details were going to be published, invited to comment and didn’t do so.

When a media outlet reports:

1. allegations have been raised

2. then outlines the contents of those allegations

3. Noting they were raised within a formal investigation undertaken at the request of a football club and

4. Those allegations have now been provided to the AFL

IMHO that’s not defamatory.

There’s plenty left to play out yet….

Hedgefund

If you are a lawyer, you would know that truth is a complete defence to defamation.
As long as you can prove that it is true.

If the complainants won’t give evidence, the ABC is going to be going to have big issues defending the case. I’ve been involved in legal cases like this, and they are always settled.

At least the ABC has plenty of money to pay any Judgment …