NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed. Part 3

[Wosh]

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread.
Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the report button, please and thank you.

If you feel upset or need to talk you can call either Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14 at any time.

- Crisis support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 13YARN (13 92 76) 13YARN - Call 13 92 76 | 24 /7

This is a serious topic, please treat it as such.

Videos, statements etc in the OP here:

NO TROLLS - Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread. Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the...

www.bigfooty.com

Link to Hawthorn Statement. - Link to ABC Sports article. - Leaked Report

Process Plan - https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...erms-of-Reference-and-Process-Plan-FINAL-.pdf

AFL Ends Investigation - 'Imperfect resolution' as Hawks probe ends, no one charged

DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[eastfreo75]

This was bullshit from the start. Disgruntled ex players egged on by an entourage of attention seeking lawyers, hysterical journo’s, frauds and grifters hoping to cash in. They’ve been used, dudded and left with nowhere to go. Hawthorn will probably cough up the cash so the issue goes away for them. Good luck with the human rights angle where laws, facts, evidence and context is used not ‘versions of the truth’. An ex Hawk who was there at the time and whom I know quite well told me from the onset this was complete garbage. He was interviewed by the investigators. If anything untoward had happened the senior guys, Hodge, Mitchell, Burgoyne etc would have known about it. Everyone would have. Nothing stays a secret at a footy club. Had nothing but praise for Clarko, Fagan and Burt. Hard and tough as nails but totally fair and decent. Don’t think Clarko or Fagan will pursue the matter further unless they are forced to. They’ve had enough.

This was bullshit from the start. Disgruntled ex players egged on by an entourage of attention seeking lawyers, hysterical journo’s, frauds and grifters hoping to cash in. They’ve been used, dudded and left with nowhere to go. Hawthorn will probably cough up the cash so the issue goes away for them. Good luck with the human rights angle where laws, facts, evidence and context is used not ‘versions of the truth’. An ex Hawk who was there at the time and whom I know quite well told me from the onset this was complete garbage. He was interviewed by the investigators. If anything untoward had happened the senior guys, Hodge, Mitchell, Burgoyne etc would have known about it. Everyone would have. Nothing stays a secret at a footy club. Had nothing but praise for Clarko, Fagan and Burt. Hard and tough as nails but totally fair and decent. Don’t think Clarko or Fagan will pursue the matter further unless they are forced to. They’ve had enough.

Rioli and his partner wasn’t happy with certain things at the club.

Club held a review and found stuff.

 

[Stars align]

And what are you suggesting?

Will the HRC have access to the tens of thousands pages of documents that an eminent KC and 3 other highly credentialed legal types had access too but could find nothing to back up the claims of the accusers or does everyone just start with a clean slate and we go back to ground zero

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

If Clarkson, Burt and Fagan claimed that won’t given formerly the aggregations , how can they deny claims that they don’t know.

Nice to see you didn’t read Fagan’s statement.

FFS this thread is littered with people responding to things they haven’t even bothered to read about.

 

[sr36]

Yeah there is some ridiculous triumphalism in here. You are right that nothing here shows innocence but wrong that the coaches should have to give specific details to deny accusations that lack details and claimants willing to provide them. Nobody should have to defend themselves against a case that isn't even being made.

In normal situations they shouldn't have to, but when they've been running with claims of I can't wait to tell my version of events, not telling their events reduces their credibility.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Well said mate. Facts and evidence have prevailed. Its genuinely amazing how so many people on here refuse to see the situation for what it is and continue to shame 3 terrific people who don't have a racist bone in their body. Its even more disgusting how the media from the start gave credibility towards all this before the investigation had concluded and already made their mind up who was in the wrong. I don't get how you can automatically believe a group of nameless people who had refused to corporate from the start, have done nothing but complain about the process when the whole thing was designed to cater to their needs and started by taking their "trauma" to the ABC. As you said so many former player have denied it. No witness has come out and said anything the accusers said happened. If this played out in court the case would immediately be dismissed.

How the hell do you know they 'don't have a racist bone in their body'? Yes, many people denied the Stolen Generation as well but guess what it happened'. Yes 'trauma'.

 

[Kanga Commando]

Racism is much harder to prove than inappropriate conduct.

I think it's very likely that some very dodgy paternalistic control went on - reminiscent of much historical racism. But whether or not these guys were acting on stereotyped views or would have gone way overboard and exercised dodgy paternalistic control regardless of race is unknowable to me. Then you've got what could very easily be very dodgy gender stereotyping as well. This could get really ugly if the non-footy media starts running with it, which the AFL non-statement could easily lead to.

But regardless of the discrimination angles it smells really strongly of inappropriate conduct - Burt's supposed denial was bizarre in that he didn't actually deny the claims of Zac, but gave some supporting evidence.

This is a really important point.

We may find ourselves with the HRC making a determination on racism vs inappropriate conduct that has very far reaching implications.

Assuming it goes that far.

 

[jackolanturn]

If nothing ever happened I'm not sure what specific details they need to offer. If one of my work colleagues misplaces their lunch and accuses me of eating it I don't have to go into a 30 minute defence speech in front of everyone to prove I didn't do it. Either present the evidence and facts, otherwise the the accusers have nothing to answer for.

Sorry if that seems like a dumb example but I feel I need to make my language as simplistic as possible for the posters on here who do not understand how basic law works here

 

[South of the Yarra]

If nothing ever happened I'm not sure what specific details they need to offer. If one of my work colleagues misplaces their lunch and accuses me of eating it I don't have to go into a 30 minute defence speech in front of everyone to prove I didn't do it. Either present the evidence and facts, otherwise the the accusers have nothing to answer for.

You're comparing you being accused of eating someones lunch to accusations of severe racial abuse. Seriously

 

[Jim Prideaux]

In normal situations they shouldn't have to, but when they've been running with claims of I can't wait to tell my version of events, not telling their events reduces their credibility.

Who do they tell their version of events to though? Due to the nature of tge report, they technically don’t know who accused them (in the report), and since then haven’t been formally accused. Now I’m not saying that the people who told their truth during the report need to accuse them formally or do anything for that matter. But until they do, there’s nothing that Fagan et al can do. You can’t mount a defence against an allegation that technically hasn’t been alleged yet.

 

[perplexed]

In normal situations they shouldn't have to, but when they've been running with claims of I can't wait to tell my version of events, not telling their events reduces their credibility.

Come on. Would you really be happy for them to provide those details? I wouldn't. It would inevitably mean the players losing their anonymity and the reasons for the interventions being made public? That is the one thing the victims have been clear about not wanting to happen and the few of us who respect their wishes have honoured by not paying google detective and working out who they are.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Nice to see you didn’t read Fagan’s statement.

FFS this thread is littered with people responding to things they haven’t even bothered to read about.

But, an eight month investigation featuring QCs, stacks of interviews and tens of thousands of documents is no match for the evidentiary might of random bigfooty posters and their inside sources.

 

[sr36]

Who do they tell their version of events to though? Due to the nature of tge report, they technically don’t know who accused them (in the report), and since then haven’t been formally accused. Now I’m not saying that the people who told their truth during the report need to accuse them formally or do anything for that matter. But until they do, there’s nothing that Fagan et al can do. You can’t mount a defence against an allegation that technically hasn’t been alleged yet.

They'd be really unwise to tell their version of events - I'm referring to the events published in the media. Burt had a go at it and clearly knew who had made the claims and what the events were referencing, and he just came off looking like a goose. I'm more pointing out that the claims of wanting to tell their version of events have been really hollow. They're not going to tell their version of events - unless forced to.

 

[eastfreo75]

Nice to see you didn’t read Fagan’s statement.

FFS this thread is littered with people responding to things they haven’t even bothered to read about.

Context is everything and timelines are important.

Fagan denied the allegations from the start and his main point was that he wasn’t given a right of reply. (That’s totally fair comment to make).

Fagan and Clarksons refused to give evidence to the investigation unless Hawthorn handed over the medical files and the evidence of the players allegations.

Demanding Hawthorn to break confidentiality with players medical files can be seen or view as tactic not to answer the allegations.

AFL, the investigations and players decide that it’s a waste of time as both Fagan and Clarkson refuse to talk.

AFL make the allegations known to the three guys but they still haven’t answered the allegations except for motherhood statements and not being specific.

 

[sr36]

Come on. Would you really be happy for them to provide those details? I wouldn't. It would inevitably mean the players losing their anonymity and the reasons for the interventions being made public? That is the one thing the victims have been clear about not wanting to happen and the few of us who respect their wishes have honoured by not paying google detective and working out who they are.

No. I'm pointing out that they've been being disingenous with claims of wanting to tell their version of events and not being able to. Burt was a moron - or probably just didn't have the funds to have decent counsel.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

How the hell do you know they 'don't have a racist bone in their body'? Yes, many people denied the Stolen Generation as well but guess what it happened'. Yes 'trauma'.

The poster in question arrived on the hawk board only weeks ago and announced themselves a new Hawk fan, who’s switched from being a lifelong Carlton fan a couple of months ago.

I would ignore the troll account.

 

[QuietB]

Rioli and his partner wasn’t happy with certain things at the club.

Club held a review and found stuff.

Person Rioli was not happy with completely unsighted in subsequent review and shit show

 

[Jim Prideaux]

They'd be really unwise to tell their version of events - I'm referring to the events published in the media. Burt had a go at it and clearly knew who had made the claims and what the events were referencing, and he just came off looking like a goose. I'm more pointing out that the claims of wanting to tell their version of events have been really hollow. They're not going to tell their version of events - unless forced to.

The thing is they can’t currently, as they have no one to defend themselves against.

They may want to, I really don’t know, but they currently can’t. If the people involved in the report don’t want to take it further, and fair enough if they don’t, then that really is the end of it.

 

[sr36]

This is a really important point.

We may find ourselves with the HRC making a determination on racism vs inappropriate conduct that has very far reaching implications.

Assuming it goes that far.

South of the Yarra is running with the academic definition of racism, where it is deemed racism if it has an extra negative effect for people of a particular cultural group. Which is different to the layman's defnition which assumes some negative intent towards that cultural group in order to categorise it as racism.

No idea how a body like the HRC would define it.

 

[jackolanturn]

The poster in question arrived on the hawk board only weeks ago and announced themselves a new Hawk fan, who’s switched from being a lifelong Carlton fan a couple of months ago.

I would ignore the troll account.

I bet if my opinion matched yours you'd wanna take me out for drinks this weekend
This is what happens when you have an opposing opinion in 2023, you get labelled.
I'd be happy to go into why I changed from Carlton to Hawthorn in greater detail if you like (similar to why Hughsey changed from Footscray to Carlton) but its not even relevant to this thread.

 

[Sphynx]

Context is everything and timelines are important.

Fagan denied the allegations from the start and his main point was that he wasn’t given a right of reply. (That’s totally fair comment to make).

Fagan and Clarksons refused to give evidence to the investigation unless Hawthorn handed over the medical files and the evidence of the players allegations.

Demanding Hawthorn to break confidentiality with players medical files can be seen or view as tactic not to answer the allegations.

AFL, the investigations and players decide that it’s a waste of time as both Fagan and Clarkson refuse to talk.

AFL make the allegations known to the three guys but they still haven’t answered the allegations except for motherhood statements and not being specific.

I think you have the completely wrong angle on this.

Unless you believe the documents they requested the entire time (their medical records) were released to Clarkson and Fagan recently, as per Fagan’s statement.

I think it much more likely it was specific evidence, I.e emails, texts etc

 

[sr36]

The thing is they can’t currently, as they have no one to defend themselves against.

They may want to, I really don’t know, but they currently can’t. If the people involved in the report don’t want to take it further, and fair enough if they don’t, then that really is the end of it.

Of course they could deny the aspects of the reported claims that they disagree with - Fagan is actually making statements about categorical denial, which doesn't make sense in the context of Burt's story. But yes, they would be ill-advised to talk to the reported claims. Personally I think Clarko has been ill-advised to have spoken about how keen he is to tell his version of events - detracts from his credibility on the matter, unless he takes the fraught path of actually doing it.

 

[perplexed]

No. I'm pointing out that they've been being disingenous with claims of wanting to tell their version of events and not being able to. Burt was a moron - or probably just didn't have the funds to have decent counsel.

I don't doubt the coaches want to tell their versions. they are angry and want to clear their names. But Burt was foolish to speak when it was clear he couldn't provide the detail he wanted to. As you say, he probably had poor counsel. They should just shut up and sue. They don't need to either smear the victims or risk saying something that undermines their case.

 

[PeterSalt]

I suppose the issue is who does Fagan take to court at this point? Technically he doesn’t know who the players are (I’m sure he actually does, but not in the formal sense) and those players haven’t publicly accused him of anything, so he wouldn’t really have a case against them. Hawthorn nor Egan nor the AFL have admitted to leaking the report, and without proof, he’s got no case against them (I’ve not seen any evidence as to whom leaked the report). The ABC wrote an article, but proving it was defamatory would be incredibly difficult. So, TL;DR, he currently doesn’t have anyone to fight against at this point in time, so he can’t really put up.

In the letter he published this evening he mentioned he'd been given all of the reports, however cannot comment publicly on the contents

 

[eastfreo75]

I think you have the completely wrong angle on this.

Unless you believe the documents they requested the entire time (their medical records) were released to Clarkson and Fagan recently, as per Fagan’s statement.

I think it much more likely it was specific evidence, I.e emails, texts etc

You know both Fagan and Clarkson refused to talk?

They both claimed they wanted a right to reply and then refused to talk.

If Fagan and Clarkson had texted or emailed they sent to the players, they could have easily got access to them.

Let say Fagan and Clarkson didn’t ask for medical files, why would Hawthorn not give texts or emails that Fagan and co sent to the players?

 

[HairyO]

They'd be really unwise to tell their version of events - I'm referring to the events published in the media. Burt had a go at it and clearly knew who had made the claims and what the events were referencing, and he just came off looking like a goose. I'm more pointing out that the claims of wanting to tell their version of events have been really hollow. They're not going to tell their version of events - unless forced to.

And yet a day later the AFL drops the investigation.

Fagan is willing to. He said he would be ok with all documents made public. He wants the fight to clear his name.