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DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[blackshadow]

Or, indeed, a fully qualified barista. But it may be too latte for that.

What would Jobe do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elixuh]

Reading the article it seems the AFL want it to go away.

Implying that the AFL will punish the Hawks if they drag it through the courts.

This is the same AFL that found there was no wrongdoing...tanking doesn't exist...tried to sweep the PED scandal under the rug etc.

The Hawks don’t want to litigate this. Even if they are successful, reputational damage isn’t worth it.

 

[SSSSSS]

The Hawks don’t want to litigate this. Even if they are successful, reputational damage isn’t worth it.

We're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Vested interest from the coaches, the players involved and the AFL.

We're wearing a belt full of grenades at the moment.

 

[Elixuh]

We're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Vested interest from the coaches, the players involved and the AFL.

We're wearing a belt full of grenades at the moment.

Hawthorns governance has been atrocious so I hardly think the hawks are the victims here.

 

[SSSSSS]

Hawthorns governance has been atrocious so I hardly think the hawks are the victims here.

Not saying the Hawks are.

Feel most sorry for the families especially after the AFL buried their head in the sand trying to throw cash to make the issues go away.

 

[perplexed]

It's actually a really good and clear article from Wilson. No irrelevant references, opinion or snide remarks. Just the facts and mostly relevant quotes. Probably could have done without Jeff's thoughts, but this issue needs some sort of comic relief.

 

[peetoo]

Not quite, Clarko got defamed and now is getting compensated as per my original predicted outcome

Any precedent of a defamatory ‘comment’ meant to be in a private report ( they are more common than we think) which somehow got leaked?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I have not been paying attention too much to all this but from my understanding Clarkson did something really racist, and somehow he is going to be getting a big pay out for it.

Agree. You haven’t been paying attention.

 

[Tas]

They kind of had to. Could you imagine the PR disaster it would have been had they received the results of the report and tried to silence them, only for the report to get leaked?

I think they should have got someone who was qualified to handle an investigation to run it, he could then have got Egan or whomever to talk to the players on their behalf if they didn't trust that person who was in control.

They should have gone back to the past players/WAGs and said based on the allegations made they want to follow up with an investigation so we can get a resolution so these allegations might end up public, could end up in a court or some other tribunal and could potentially have legal consequences if any part isn't factual and then offered them the chance to alter or retract any allegations before the club pursued the next phase.

Once they tabled a list of non-confidential allegations they should have brought in Clarkson, Fagan and Burt and say these are the allegations, what are your accounts of what happened, what is the context, etc. and would they be willing to sit down and have a chat about experiences, raise issues, etc to see if we can avoid escalating this further. Get legal opinion if you desire but we want to avoid it going to a court or to arbitration. Even if it goes to human rights or some other panel that can hear claims of racism, etc, it is most likely going to end in arbitration anyway, so it would be beneficial to go through that process internally and avoid the media circus.

Bring in all parties, have a heartfelt chat about their experiences, I am sure Clarkson did a lot of things that pissed players off, Mitchell wrote about some of them. A lot of the issues raised seemed like they could be resolved with a conversation. A few were very serious and had to be resolved.

You can't just go to the AFL with confidential allegations that haven't even been tested for accuracy or even context, without even talking to those accused. It put extreme pressure on those who made the allegations in confidence of anonymity to make it a public issue, and exposed them to potential litigation issues. It threw those who made confidential allegations under the bus. People are more likely to exaggerate confidential/anonymous allegations.

Hawks must have lawyers on the payroll, surely they didn't approve this farce of a process. it is just insane to operate this way. It just exposed the club to unforgiveable risk.

 

[Chief]

I think they should have got someone who was qualified to handle an investigation to run it,

But it was not an investigation. That's what the AFL were doing.

I agree that their choice of Egan was not good, but also it changes nothing about what the players and their partners and families have said.

 

[peetoo]

The Hawks don’t want to litigate this. Even if they are successful, reputational damage isn’t worth it.

Depends what the public apology opens them up to from the other side.

I thought there had been a public apology

 

[blackshadow]

But it was not an investigation. That's what the AFL were doing.

I agree that their choice of Egan was not good, but also it changes nothing about what the players and their partners and families have said.

Don’t get sucked into the hawthorn spin. It was an investigation. A very poorly set up and implemented investigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackshadow]

I think they should have got someone who was qualified to handle an investigation to run it, he could then have got Egan or whomever to talk to the players on their behalf if they didn't trust that person who was in control.

They should have gone back to the past players/WAGs and said based on the allegations made they want to follow up with an investigation so we can get a resolution so these allegations might end up public, could end up in a court or some other tribunal and could potentially have legal consequences if any part isn't factual and then offered them the chance to alter or retract any allegations before the club pursued the next phase.

Once they tabled a list of non-confidential allegations they should have brought in Clarkson, Fagan and Burt and say these are the allegations, what are your accounts of what happened, what is the context, etc. and would they be willing to sit down and have a chat about experiences, raise issues, etc to see if we can avoid escalating this further. Get legal opinion if you desire but we want to avoid it going to a court or to arbitration. Even if it goes to human rights or some other panel that can hear claims of racism, etc, it is most likely going to end in arbitration anyway, so it would be beneficial to go through that process internally and avoid the media circus.

Bring in all parties, have a heartfelt chat about their experiences, I am sure Clarkson did a lot of things that pissed players off, Mitchell wrote about some of them. A lot of the issues raised seemed like they could be resolved with a conversation. A few were very serious and had to be resolved.

You can't just go to the AFL with confidential allegations that haven't even been tested for accuracy or even context, without even talking to those accused. It put extreme pressure on those who made the allegations in confidence of anonymity to make it a public issue, and exposed them to potential litigation issues. It threw those who made confidential allegations under the bus. People are more likely to exaggerate confidential/anonymous allegations.

Hawks must have lawyers on the payroll, surely they didn't approve this farce of a process. it is just insane to operate this way. It just exposed the club to unforgiveable risk.

That’s the case if a proper investigation was what those who commissioned the investigation wanted.
From what I was told the person who pushed for the shit show wanted the findings to tip a bucket of shit all over Clarkson.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tas]

But it was not an investigation. That's what the AFL were doing.

I agree that their choice of Egan was not good, but also it changes nothing about what the players and their partners and families have said.

What they said was confidential and anonymous, it should never have been given to the AFL without their approval. It was going to push it from being anonymous to being an open investigation and they should have been made aware of their legal vulnerability had they done so.

Call it an investigation, a report or whatever, Egan's report recommended it be sent directly to the AFL's integrity unit for disciplinary action and Hawthorn's president didn't rule out legal action against former staff members.

It just came to a screeching halt when lawyers got involved and threats of litigation started.

What has happened since? AFL scrapped their investigation, then this was pushed to some arbitration process and that is it, it is all over with? It seems to be a bit of a fizzer of an ending given the severity of the allegations.

 

[RichLeMonde]

But it was not an investigation. That's what the AFL were doing.

I agree that their choice of Egan was not good, but also it changes nothing about what the players and their partners and families have said.

The problem, though, is that if you look at Egan's report, he draws conclusions and make recommendations that are consistent with it being an investigation, not a report into how some people experienced something. He way exceeds his scope.

This is the problem with 'truth-telling' exercises, in which some people get an opportunity to tell their story, but the other parties involved in that story don't. Truth-telling exercises only tell the truth of how certain people felt, not the facts of the matter - which we can only get close to using juridical conventions - but such "truth-tellings" are presented as though they are inarguably factual.

 

[Chief]

The problem, though, is that if you look at Egan's report, he draws conclusions and make recommendations that are consistent with it being an investigation, not a report into how some people experienced something. He way exceeds his scope.

Which the people paying for the process could ignore. It doesn't change what the people said.

 

[RichLeMonde]

Which the people paying for the process could ignore. It doesn't change what the people said.

It doesn't change what the people said, but it should influence how we make sense of what was said. You, and many others on here, were very happy to take what the players said as though it was factual. Many others on here have said that when you have only one side of a story, you should reserve any judgement whatsoever about the facts of the matter; hearing only one side tells you absolutely nothing about the facts. When you hear one side, all you can do is empathise with the feelings that are being expressed.

 

[Chief]

You, and many others on here, were very happy to take what the players said as though it was factual.

I believe them, yes.

 

[Chief]

It doesn't change what the people said, but it should influence how we make sense of what was said. You, and many others on here, were very happy to take what the players said as though it was factual. Many others on here have said that when you have only one side of a story, you should reserve any judgement whatsoever about the facts of the matter; hearing only one side tells you absolutely nothing about the facts. When you hear one side, all you can do is empathise with the feelings that are being expressed.

The coaches had many chances to tell their story.

They refused. Fagan sued to stop the investigation.

 

[RichLeMonde]

I believe them, yes.

People like you are dangerous.

Why on earth would you believe one party rather than another in a dispute over the facts, while knowing absolutely nothing first-hand about the events in dispute? Why would you have any beliefs on the matter at all?

The coaches had many chances to tell their story.

They refused. Fagan sued to stop the investigation.

This is a point that is almost childlike in its naivety.

The coaches followed the advice of their legal teams - as would any sane person in this country - because the stakes are high.

 

[Chief]

People like you are dangerous.

Ridiculous.

Why on earth would you believe one party rather than another in a dispute over the facts, while knowing absolutely nothing first-hand about the events in dispute? Why would you have any beliefs on the matter at all?

Because there were multiple people who gave their own accounts.

Why would you think they are all lying?

This is a point that is almost childlike in its naivety.

It's exactly what happened. How is that naive?

The coaches followed the advice of their legal teams - as would any sane person in this country - because the stakes are high.

I am sure they did. "This is how you avoid having to answer questions."

So what?

 

[RichLeMonde]

Ridiculous.

Because there were multiple people who gave their own accounts.

Why would you think they are all lying?


It's exactly what happened. How is that naive?

I am sure they did. "This is how you avoid having to answer questions."

So what?

Why would you think the coaches are all lying? Obviously, there are any number of plausible reasons why the former players could be lying, why the couches could be lying, and why there could be genuine, honest misunderstanding. It's ridiculous that anyone would choose a side in this situation and have any opinion at all on what happened.

It's naive because you make the point as though it's meaningful, when in reality anyone and everyone would simply follow their legal counsel and do the same. You make out like it's some gotcha - it's an asinine point.

 

[DoesNotBoo]

Why on earth would you believe one party rather than another in a dispute over the facts, while knowing absolutely nothing first-hand about the events in dispute? Why would you have any beliefs on the matter at all?

In my case, it was Eddie Betts saying he believed the accusations based on what he had experienced in footy and life generally. You talk as if racism wasn't a thing, mate.

 

[phantom13]

Hawthorn should be forced to pay their compo to Clarko and Fagan etc out of their soft cap imo

I get the sentiment but this will just lead to lower level employees being sacked to cop the cap hit. They’re not to blame.

 

[Simon Crawshay]

Don’t get sucked into the hawthorn spin. It was an investigation. A very poorly set up and implemented investigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

100% this.

I keep coming back Egan's report itself.

Anyone who has actually read it will understand just how incredibly amateur it is in both its design and implementation.

It is in essence a criminal investigation report (making claims of criminal acts against specific individuals) yet without any of the standard elements you would expect to see in a criminal investigation (i.e. fat checking, hard evidence, sworn testimony, interviewing the accused, etc).

It definitely is not a cultural safety review. A cultural safety review would not have named the coaches.

That is why the Hawks are in all kinds of s..t, they commissioned it and they in essence own it and all its myriad of flaws.

I can understand why the AFL took their time when they received the report, it was a bloody hand grenade with the pin already pulled out!