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.

 

[Mississippi]

The players have consistently maintained their version of events to the point of lodging a complaint in the courts. So why bring up the Phil Egan case? Your response below implies that Egan led the witnesses on and framed the report for an outcome. That's implying the players aren't to be taken seriously. Which is just trying to character assassinate them.

Spot on Yardie.

 

[DogDaySonny]

Further, this guy had been accused for stealing money quite a while ago, which he denied when originally charged or investigated or whatever. He just appeared in court over it so it’s back in the news. Surely the defence would have avoided any reference or subtle hat tip to him or the report because of his already known issues. If they didn’t, then oops.

Did the court find against him yet? If not, then maybe he won’t even enter the timeline of this trial. Or maybe the defence will ask for the case to defer to see what happens to him.

We’ll see in a few weeks.

 

[DogDaySonny]

Phil Egan, the man who wrote the report has been changed with stealing $779,000 from the organisation he worked for by adding a bit to contractor invoices - allegedly.

Hawthorn racism report author accused of stealing $779,000

Former AFL player Phil Egan, who has previously denied any wrongdoing, appeared at court in Melbourne on Monday

www.theguardian.com

Ah, it’s a committal hearing so we’ll know in a week or two if he’s going to stand trial to these charges.

Isn’t it strange on how the timing of all these things always seems to come together?

 

[Yardie]

Ah, it’s a committal hearing so we’ll know in a week or two if he’s going to stand trial to these charges.

Isn’t it strange on how the timing of all these things always seems to come together?

I don't think this case has any bearing on the players' case. The details in the Federal Court lodging are a more refined/detailed version of the events mentioned in the original report. I'd also point out that Hawthorn, the defendant, was the one who engaged Egan. Lawyers would be rubbing their hands if it went down this path.

 

[DogDaySonny]

My guess is that this won’t impact the player’s complaint as it’s almost certain their submissions stayed 100,000 miles away from anything to do with this guy. There’s no way they would want to have key evidence vulnerable to a guy convicted of stealing from the very organisations that represented on the topic his supposed expertise.

If he’s convicted, though, then you would think the defence would want to introduce that and say, “Hey, slow down. The guy who said all this happened is a crook who stole to his advantage on this very issue.” So, maybe the defence will ask to have this matter delayed to see what happens in that matter. Or maybe the complaint is written so well that whatever happens to this guy will have no impact on the case we care about.

 

[DogDaySonny]

I don't think this case has any bearing on the players' case. The details in the Federal Court lodging are a more refined/detailed version of the events mentioned in the original report. I'd also point out that Hawthorn, the defendant, was the one who engaged Egan. Lawyers would be rubbing their hands if it went down this path.

I’ve got no idea which lawyers will be rubbing their hands (all of them?), and I have no idea if the complaint is written well enough to shield it from Egan’s possible taint. Those are the questions which are relevant however. We’ll have to be patient and see what comes out in the court process.

 

[CD Xbow]

The players have consistently maintained their version of events to the point of lodging a complaint in the courts. So why bring up the Phil Egan case? Your response below implies that Egan led the witnesses on and framed the report for an outcome. That's implying the players aren't to be taken seriously. Which is just trying to character assassinate them.

As you point out the players have maintained their version of events to the point of lodging a complaint in the courts and the folks involved have maintained their innocence. As it hasn't been resolved the courts are the right place for it to be sorted out. The claims will see the light of day.
.
If he is guilty, Egan appears to be an unfit person to run an enquiry and I will reiterate that the investigator is in an extremely powerful position to lead people through their biases or actively coerce them. I don't think anyone can dispute that. So wrt to the enquiry it raises an immediate issue of lack of fairness, that it may be tainted.

It does not mean I believe the players are lying. Most likely they are telling the truth as they see it. I think it's possible Egan has contributed, we may see in court. I actually think folks are going to be a bit disappointed by the evidence presented in court.

 

[brad sue well]

As you point out the players have maintained their version of events to the point of lodging a complaint in the courts and the folks involved have maintained their innocence. As it hasn't been resolved the courts are the right place for it to be sorted out. The claims will see the light of day.
.
If he is guilty, Egan appears to be an unfit person to run an enquiry and I will reiterate that the investigator is in an extremely powerful position to lead people through their biases or actively coerce them. I don't think anyone can dispute that. So wrt to the enquiry it raises an immediate issue of lack of fairness, that it may be tainted.

It does not mean I believe the players are lying. Most likely they are telling the truth as they see it. I think it's possible Egan has contributed, we may see in court. I actually think folks are going to be a bit disappointed by the evidence presented in court.

Re your last sentence, in what way?

 

[CD Xbow]

Re your last sentence, in what way?

I don't think the evidence will be clearly support the most alarming claims. I could be wrong but I very much doubt anyone told the pregnant women she had to abort her pregnancy as has been claimed. Just doesn't ring true. There are many foibles of the human mind that can create a personal truth about the past which is not congruent with facts. Anyway, we will see.

 

[Yardie]

I’ve got no idea which lawyers will be rubbing their hands (all of them?), and I have no idea if the complaint is written well enough to shield it from Egan’s possible taint. Those are the questions which are relevant however. We’ll have to be patient and see what comes out in the court process.

It was poorly worded. I think the players' lawyers would be able to bat this one away quite easily.

 

[Yardie]

I don't think the evidence will be clearly support the most alarming claims. I could be wrong but I very much doubt anyone told the pregnant women she had to abort her pregnancy as has been claimed. Just doesn't ring true. There are many foibles of the human mind that can create a personal truth about the past which is not congruent with facts. Anyway, we will see.

You should read the court submission.

 

[CD Xbow]

You should read the court submission.

These are claims, they will be tested in court. My bet is that some of them won't be supported by evidence or be shown to be overblown. Not everything everyone tells you is true, even if they believe it.

 

[DogDaySonny]

It was poorly worded. I think the players' lawyers would be able to bat this one away quite easily.

I think you can hope that. You can't know that until you see what the defence has to say and then what the judge thinks about it all.

 

[Yardie]

These are claims, they will be tested in court. My bet is that some of them won't be supported by evidence or be shown to be overblown. Not everything everyone tells you is true, even if they believe it.

The submission is slightly different to what was in the original report and what was reported in the paper. It's worth having a read of the submission as it is more deliberate in explaining the players version of events. It removes all the emotion of the previous reports.

 

[Yardie]

I think you can hope that. You can't know that until you see what the defence has to say and then what the judge thinks about it all.

I think if you read the submission compared to the original report it'll be easy to deflect. Hawthorn also were the ones who hired him.

 

[CliffMcTainshaw]

I think if you read the submission compared to the original report it'll be easy to deflect. Hawthorn also were the ones who hired him.

Is the head nod by Fagan correct as reported by Matthews?

 

[Yardie]

Is the head nod by Fagan correct as reported by Matthews?

Yes

 

[Mississippi]

Is the head nod by Fagan correct as reported by Matthews?

With respect to Yardie - No.

Matthews was loyally inferring that all Fagan did was nod his head - no offence there.
Read my post #7,168 - or better still do yourself a favour and read the statement of claim which is freely available and can be downloaded from this forum.

Fagan was a club leader who sat in in a meeting for an hour or so where some outrageous things were purportedly said to the indigenous players. Fagan just sitting there and nodding his head signified his agreement with those offensive remarks directed to his players and their families.

Matthews should have just butted out. His comment was unhelpful and mischievous.
I wouldn’t like to be in Fagan’s shoes if he’s cross examined on the matter (which will inevitably happen if the matter goes to hearing).

 

[Yardie]

With respect to Yardie - No.

Matthews was loyally inferring that all Fagan did was nod his head - no offence there.
Read my post #7,168 - or better still do yourself a favour and read the statement of claim which is freely available and can be downloaded from this forum.

Fagan was a club leader who sat in in a meeting for an hour or so where some outrageous things were purportedly said to the indigenous players. Fagan just sitting there and nodding his head signified his agreement with those offensive remarks directed to his players and their families.

Matthews should have just butted out. His comment was unhelpful and mischievous.
I wouldn’t like to be in Fagan’s shoes if he’s cross examined on the matter (which will inevitably happen if the matter goes to hearing).

Just so we are all on the same page. Below is the extract. However, I went and read what Matthews said and he is being disingenuous in how he put forward what Fagan did. Yes he nodded his head but the context of the meeting and conversation must be taken into account.

 

[flinchfree]

With respect to Yardie - No.

Matthews was loyally inferring that all Fagan did was nod his head - no offence there.
Read my post #7,168 - or better still do yourself a favour and read the statement of claim which is freely available and can be downloaded from this forum.

Fagan was a club leader who sat in in a meeting for an hour or so where some outrageous things were purportedly said to the indigenous players. Fagan just sitting there and nodding his head signified his agreement with those offensive remarks directed to his players and their families.

Matthews should have just butted out. His comment was unhelpful and mischievous.
I wouldn’t like to be in Fagan’s shoes if he’s cross examined on the matter (which will inevitably happen if the matter goes to hearing).

You're so obviously biased in your assumptions every word you've uttered above reads as humbug.
You wouldn't know at all what Fagan was doing, agreeing to, or other.
Unless you've talked to him yourself and he relayed his thinking? Oh, I thought not.
For you to be so committed in damning the men before they've had their moment to explain themselves is willfully spiteful, for zero good reason.
I'll go with Matthews knowledge, at least it's second hand and from a man I have enormous respect for.

 

[flinchfree]

Just so we are all on the same page. Below is the extract. However, I went and read what Matthews said and he is being disingenuous in how he put forward what Fagan did. Yes he nodded his head but the context of the meeting and conversation must be taken into account.

View attachment 2078146

Wow.
Another poster so sure of themselves.

'Words to the effect of'.
Brilliant, bring the pitchforks and stakes.

At which EXACT moment did Fagan nod, exactly?
I'll wait................

 

[Yardie]

Wow.
Another poster so sure of themselves.

'Words to the effect of'.
Brilliant, bring the pitchforks and stakes.

At which EXACT moment did Fagan nod, exactly?
I'll wait................

What do you mean so sure of themselves? This is just from the submission to court. I'm sure it is worded this way by the lawyers because it isn't exact phrasing.

Matthews IS being disingenuous by just referencing the nod and not the context of the possible conversation. Just cause he was good at football doesn't mean he is infallible.

 

[flinchfree]

What do you mean so sure of themselves? This is just from the submission to court. I'm sure it is worded this way by the lawyers because it isn't exact phrasing.

Matthews IS being disingenuous by just referencing the nod and not the context of the possible conversation. Just cause he was good at football doesn't mean he is infallible.

No.
You labeling him as disingenuous without being in full possession of the facts is what's 'so sure of yourself'.
Perhaps Matthews IS aware of the context of the conversation, because Fagan gave him his version of events.
I just think it's outlandish to begin taking shots at Lethal with zero knowledge that he is, in fact, incorrect in his assertion.

 

[Mississippi]

You're so obviously biased in your assumptions every word you've uttered above reads as humbug.
You wouldn't know at all what Fagan was doing, agreeing to, or other.
Unless you've talked to him yourself and he relayed his thinking? Oh, I thought not.
For you to be so committed in damning the men before they've had their moment to explain themselves is willfully spiteful, for zero good reason.
I'll go with Matthews knowledge, at least it's second hand and from a man I have enormous respect for.

Utter nonsense.

I’m taking the statement of claim at face value. That’s what you do pending the submission of any defence.
And of course it’s free for Fagan and others, as they will, to plead their own versions of the matters.

But if, as pleaded, Fagan by his conduct, by nodding (that’s what you do when you agree), merely condoned or consented to offensive statements made by others, then it’s certainly damming of his conduct.
My point is that his cross examination, if it happens, will be interesting to say the least.

What’s Matthew’s knowledge that you’re going with? That Fagan was just sleepy during the 1 hour or so meeting (despite the seriousness of the occasion)?

My other point is that it would have been far better if Matthews (as many others have) had just butted out. Look at my moniker, for God’s sake. I love the man.

We know this litigation will end in tears.

So talking about knowledge and not making assumptions - question to you.
What’s Matthew’s knowledge that you’re going with?

 

[flinchfree]

Utter nonsense.

I’m taking the statement of claim at face value. That’s what you do pending the submission of any defence.
And of course it’s free for Fagan and others, as they will, to plead their own versions of the matters.

But if, as pleaded, Fagan by his conduct, by nodding (that’s what you do when you agree), merely condoned or consented to offensive statements made by others, then it’s certainly damming of his conduct.
My point is that his cross examination, if it happens, will be interesting to say the least.

What’s Matthew’s knowledge that you’re going with? That Fagan was just sleepy during the 1 hour or so meeting (despite the seriousness of the occasion)?

My other point is that it would have been far better if Matthews (as many others have) had just butted out. Look at my moniker, for God’s sake. I love the man.

We know this litigation will end in tears.

So talking about knowledge and not making assumptions - question to you.
What’s Matthew’s knowledge that you’re going with?

I'm not pulling out the tar and feathers for anyone right now.
And re Matthews, his knowledge comes directly from an involved party.
Yours doesn't.
I don't think that makes him privy to the truth, but it sure as hell doesn't make him just some dope who should shut their mouth for your edification.

Looking forward to hearing all parties and won't sling shit at any of them until I do.
Would be nice if others would do the same.