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DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[Paul Medhurst]

I get that football clubs are particular types of workplaces, but they are still workplaces at the end of the day.

Imagine your own workplace. Management shouldn’t be telling you whether or not you should break up with your partner or terminate a pregnancy, reglardless of what field you work in. Your friends and family might get a say in your life, but not management. Management should support you and let your performance within the workplace dictate whether you are retained. Should management warn staff members that having kids early might impact their careers? Maybe, but this can be dispersed in an induction session where all new employees are present, along with other important correlates to success. Then, let the cards fall where they may.

I agree that if the allegations are true, they weren't done with an intention to enforce white cultural norms. I agree that the intention would have been to get the highest possible performance. But to isolate someone with a different culture and tell them that they shouldn't have a child or they may lose their job is foolish. It is negligent to overlook that this situation could feel discriminatory by the employee, as others in the organisation are allowed to live their private lives in alignment with their cultural values and be given the chance to perform the duties required, but not the employee.

This is negligent, regardless as to whether its in a normal workplace or a 'high performance industry'. Of course, if you choose to have kids and you are then unable to perform your duties, then, you should be given the sack. Whether or not you have those kids is not the decision of management and they should not be telling you what to do, however. That is your private life.

If you don't believe it is negligent towards cultural differences from a professional standpoint, then I hope you aren't in management overseeing a diverse team.

Cool attempt at a whack bro.

I think we are overlooking the fact there have also been claims of the players relationship being extremely volatile and him seeking advice on high risk pregnancies.

When this first came out, the discussion at my workplace was simple - what would you do if a very talented young worker was skipping out to the toilet on his phone, up and down emotionally, skipping days, just did not have his head in the game and it was clear to all and sundry that the source of this was a volatile relationship with this partner. Then he came in and said she was pregnant. Everyone in our workplace, some of us with indigenous children (myself included) stated in no uncertain terms that, out of purely wanting the best for the kid, they would tell him he needs to get out of that relationship and think about his future.

Black, white or purple - a bad relationship is a bad relationship and a good leader will always try and steer a young man out of one.

 

[rjslcM]

Cool attempt at a whack bro.

I think we are overlooking the fact there have also been claims of the players relationship being extremely volatile and him seeking advice on high risk pregnancies.

When this first came out, the discussion at my workplace was simple - what would you do if a very talented young worker was skipping out to the toilet on his phone, up and down emotionally, skipping days, just did not have his head in the game and it was clear to all and sundry that the source of this was a volatile relationship with this partner. Then he came in and said she was pregnant. Everyone in our workplace, some of us with indigenous children (myself included) stated in no uncertain terms that, out of purely wanting the best for the kid, they would tell him he needs to get out of that relationship and think about his future.

Black, white or purple - a bad relationship is a bad relationship and a good leader will always try and steer a young man out of one.

Are we talking about Miller-Lewis or Peterson?

I’m sorry if you were offended.

I’ll concede that maybe under these circumstances, where the staff member’s performance is an issue as you’ve pointed out, that some relationship advice would not be out of place, particularly by a boss who works with 18 year olds… but terminating a pregnancy? I’m just not sure that’s a road any boss should travel down.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Reading all the stuff that’s before the court, if proven , how can everyone at AFL house stay in their positions , from the chairman down they should all be marched out of the industry, smells of another AFL protect the brand at all costs and they are only small fry we will steamroll them

 

[sr36]

Cool attempt at a whack bro.

I think we are overlooking the fact there have also been claims of the players relationship being extremely volatile and him seeking advice on high risk pregnancies.

When this first came out, the discussion at my workplace was simple - what would you do if a very talented young worker was skipping out to the toilet on his phone, up and down emotionally, skipping days, just did not have his head in the game and it was clear to all and sundry that the source of this was a volatile relationship with this partner. Then he came in and said she was pregnant. Everyone in our workplace, some of us with indigenous children (myself included) stated in no uncertain terms that, out of purely wanting the best for the kid, they would tell him he needs to get out of that relationship and think about his future.

Black, white or purple - a bad relationship is a bad relationship and a good leader will always try and steer a young man out of one.

It depends on the size of the organisation, but a good leader (I'm talking above Clarkson) puts a firewall in place between welfare managers and performance managers who have hiring and firing powers. And welfare managers work with the issues you're discussing.

 

[JackOutback]

“Mr Peterson had sufficient skill and abilities as a football player of that age to have a long and successful career.”

What a blatant lie! He had already been delisted by Richmond without playing a game, was then a late rookie draft pick by Hawthorn. The chance of a delisted player and/ or late rookie draft player having a long and successful career is very slim.

Anyone who gets picked up by one club, let alone two, has sufficient skills and abilities for an AFL career. A lot of intangibles will decide whether it is long or not.

 

[South of the Yarra]

“Mr Peterson had sufficient skill and abilities as a football player of that age to have a long and successful career.”

What a blatant lie! He had already been delisted by Richmond without playing a game, was then a late rookie draft pick by Hawthorn. The chance of a delisted player and/ or late rookie draft player having a long and successful career is very slim.

And that is all you can take from all the that you have read

 

[SSSSSS]

Wow

 

[SSSSSS]

“Mr Peterson had sufficient skill and abilities as a football player of that age to have a long and successful career.”

What a blatant lie! He had already been delisted by Richmond without playing a game, was then a late rookie draft pick by Hawthorn. The chance of a delisted player and/ or late rookie draft player having a long and successful career is very slim.

Peterson being delisted came as a shock to me and I'm sure I'm not the only Hawthorn supporter who would have thought that at the time. Thought he had plenty to offer.

 

[western royboy]

Reading all the stuff that’s before the court, if proven , how can everyone at AFL house stay in their positions , from the chairman down they should all be marched out of the industry, smells of another AFL protect the brand at all costs and they are only small fry we will steamroll them

I understand your outrage and once upon a time i held your view. First hand experience tells me thats sadly not how it works. Defence is the first form of attack. The moment you have the whiff of legal action it becomes “admit nothing” and the PR spin takes over.

First examples in this mess was to shoot the messenger in Russell Jackson who broke the story and then pile on the ABC for running it, then in moved to Phil Egan who’s firm wrote the report commissioned by Hawthorn that drew this stuff out into the open. Clearly he has his own issues but the claims made in the report are the issue here - not him.

Bottom line - none if us have any idea of what went on and I’m guessing there’s probably a fair bit of misunderstanding on both sides. But there was always a basis to the claims and the story. Like it or not those claims needed to be aired and given some light. That is the exact opposite of what the AFL wanted and so it did everything to control the issue, the two “investigations” they ran were never going to amount to anything and proved nothing. Anyone claiming anything other than that is at best ignorant.

To lodge a claim in the Supreme/Federal Court is a pretty big thing, only fools do it with no basis. There are a few around but similarly Lawyers that work on no win no fee are certainly not inclined to do so.

What they are inclined to do is to ensure that they get a result and so mediation is highly likely.

What that means is that in agreeing to cease the claim permanently, a sum of money is paid with no admissions of liability.

What the AFL has done inadvertently is drag this on for far longer than necessary and its still no closer to completion.

If you think the Lawyers will sort it out quickly… - every six minutes the billing unit ticks over - it will be drawn out until just before it’s listed to go to court, thats my experience.

 

[peetoo]

Peterson being delisted came as a shock to me and I'm sure I'm not the only Hawthorn supporter who would have thought that at the time. Thought he had plenty to offer.

Mandated delistings AFL rules has a part to play here. If 3 or 4 spots are required it doesn’t matter what your upside is. If you are the 3rd or 4th in line, out you go.

Or are we saying this is culturally insensitive for certain people? That’s a dilemma. Normal workers have redress if they are cut for unsafe reasons

 

[Hawksboy72]

I hope it didn’t happen that way. That’s disgraceful.

"Words to the effect"...putting words in a person's mouth is a very dangerous game.

On SM-S918B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[WillHayward]

I think there needs to be a difference between "racism" and "cultural insensitivity".

Some of the allegations appear to be the latter.

 

[sr36]

Mandated delistings AFL rules has a part to play here. If 3 or 4 spots are required it doesn’t matter what your upside is. If you are the 3rd or 4th in line, out you go.

Or are we saying this is culturally insensitive for certain people? That’s a dilemma. Normal workers have redress if they are cut for unsafe reasons

How often do clubs open up the bare minimum - 3 list spots.

That year, Hawks drafted 4 in ND. 1 in preseason draft and 4 in the rookie draft.

 

[Hawks_4478]

And that is all you can take from all the that you have read

Firstly, anyone with any intelligence knows that you need to hear the other side of the story before forming the opinion that the defendants are guilty. They are only claims/ allegations at this stage. They have not been proven to be correct. The law is innocent until proven guilty - something that you continually have great difficulty in understanding.

Secondly, the majority of the claims are unsubstantiated. For example, the document regularly states that copies of the text messages are no longer available. A lot of conversations without witnesses, lack of supporting evidence etc. As the law is innocent until proven guilty, unsubstantiated claims like these won’t hold up in a court of law.

This is also shown in the two reports by former Justice John Middleton KC and Gordon Legal. They found:

- a startling lack of evidence to support the allegations;

- concluded that the allegation that an Indigenous player and his partner were pressured to terminate a pregnancy could not be substantiated;

- a claim that the Hawks had demanded the separation of another First Nations family for the sake of the player’s career was also considered to be lacking in evidence;

- there was no basis whatsoever to support suggestions a subculture of racism had existed at Hawthorn or that the three accused club officials had behaved in anything other than a caring way for their players; and

- no sufficient evidence to substantiate the vast majority of the claims.


Allegations need to be proven and have actual evidence before they can be believed. Again, something that you continually have great difficulty in understanding.

 

[kickazz]

Makes it even weirder that Clarko and co would go the route they did, suggesting fatherhood would impact his career, when the odds were already so far against him.

It's weird, one reaction I have is "stay in your lane", you are a footy coach, not a father figure who should advise players about other things in their lives.

The thing is, at many levels, there ARE sports coaches that are good at this broader leadership stuff as well. We probably all know or remember at least one.

The problem is that with elite sport in this country, especially the AFL, the coaches (especially successful ones) are lionised for their leadership, and it's like this general "life leadership" capability is automatically bestowed upon them by default. And frankly, I do not know AC but his track record speaks for itself; I wouldn't hold him any regard at all when it comes to this aspect of mentoring young people.

 

[kickazz]

Black, white or purple - a bad relationship is a bad relationship and a good leader will always try and steer a young man out of one.

Sounds like they had a bad relationship with their coach and steered themselves out of it.

 

[Hawks_4478]

Anyone who gets picked up by one club, let alone two, has sufficient skills and abilities for an AFL career. A lot of intangibles will decide whether it is long or not.

That’s garbage, look at the statistics. The large majority of players who are delisted and/ or rookie listed do not have the skills and capabilities to have a long and successful afl career. That’s why they have short careers and are then delisted.

If what you are saying is true, then all these rookies/ previously delisted players would be having 10+ year careers. It doesn’t make sense.

The odds of him having a long and successful career when recruited to Hawthorn were very low.

 

[sr36]

I think there needs to be a difference between "racism" and "cultural insensitivity".

Some of the allegations appear to be the latter.

Is there a difference in the outcome for the person receiving it? I think the distinction needs to be more along the lines of a distinction between racist intention and racist outcome.

But the issue is that at the moment they both just get described as racism, and for many that only means racist intention with connotations of beliefs of racial superiority, which immediately puts backs up.

 

[WillHayward]

Is there a difference in the outcome for the person receiving it? I think the distinction needs to be more along the lines of a distinction between racist intention and racist outcome.

But the issue is that at the moment they both just get described as racism, and for many that only means racist intention with connotations of beliefs of racial superiority, which immediately puts backs up.

There is a clear difference yes.

Insensitivity could be a clash of values E..g. "treat everyone the same" can often be insensitive.


Racism is different treatment because of race.

 

[WillHayward]

Firstly, anyone with any intelligence knows that you need to hear the other side of the story before forming the opinion that the defendants are guilty. They are only claims/ allegations at this stage. They have not been proven to be correct. The law is innocent until proven guilty - something that you continually have great difficulty in understanding.

Secondly, the majority of the claims are unsubstantiated. For example, the document regularly states that copies of the text messages are no longer available. A lot of conversations without witnesses, lack of supporting evidence etc. As the law is innocent until proven guilty, unsubstantiated claims like these won’t hold up in a court of law.

This is also shown in the two reports by former Justice John Middleton KC and Gordon Legal. They found:

- a startling lack of evidence to support the allegations;

- concluded that the allegation that an Indigenous player and his partner were pressured to terminate a pregnancy could not be substantiated;

- a claim that the Hawks had demanded the separation of another First Nations family for the sake of the player’s career was also considered to be lacking in evidence;

- there was no basis whatsoever to support suggestions a subculture of racism had existed at Hawthorn or that the three accused club officials had behaved in anything other than a caring way for their players; and

- no sufficient evidence to substantiate the vast majority of the claims.


Allegations need to be proven and have actual evidence before they can be believed. Again, something that you continually have great difficulty in understanding.

Re termination thing

The most likely factors in that was probably age and or the stability of the relationship, and not race.

Frankly I don't think anyone should have a kid unless they are in a stable committed relationship with a strategy and plan in place.

Nothing at all to do with race

At the same time I get this could have been handled poorly and come across as patriarchal and white man preaching.

 

[western royboy]

That’s garbage, look at the statistics. The large majority of players who are delisted and/ or rookie listed do not have the skills and capabilities to have a long and successful afl career. That’s why they have short careers and are then delisted.

If what you are saying is true, then all these rookies/ previously delisted players would be having 10+ year careers. It doesn’t make sense.

The odds of him having a long and successful career when recruited to Hawthorn were very low.

I’m unsure why people are getting hung up on lines like this from a statement of claim? You get one shot at it - its your view / opinion - doesn’t mean its right and in the scheme of things it is a throwaway line. No one knows what would have occurred. It’s speculation at best.

 

[ferball]

Is there a difference in the outcome for the person receiving it? I think the distinction needs to be more along the lines of a distinction between racist intention and racist outcome.

But the issue is that at the moment they both just get described as racism, and for many that only means racist intention with connotations of beliefs of racial superiority, which immediately puts backs up.

FWIW tho in 2009 these ideas were not mainstream. The systemic racism that occurred was more a result of attitude than structure. It was better than 1989 for sure but by 2019 things were very different. In 2009 if you weren't black or an academic you wouldn't have been exposed to the idea of systemic structural racism that was a function of institutional existence not just a deliberate bastard act.

 

[sr36]

There is a clear difference yes.

Insensitivity could be a clash of values E..g. "treat everyone the same" can often be insensitive.


Racism is different treatment because of race.

The definition has changed for a few different reasons. Most significantly because we no longer look just at the perspective of the person in power. For the experiencer, it doesn't really matter if the actions were driven by racist beliefs or not - it's whether or not they had a racially disadvantaging outcome that really matters.

 

[kickazz]

Re termination thing

The most likely factors in that was probably age and or the stability of the relationship, and not race.

Well yeah, but anyone with half a brain cell and basic understanding of this country's past would see that it is highly racially insensitive for white people to question the ability of black people to raise their own children.

I mean shit surely they knew this was a very delicate matter?

Besides, next time a person at one's workplace announces they are pregnant, I challenge anyone in this thread to go up and discuss with them the career implications it might have. Bonus points if you are their manager! Go on, give it a go!

 

[Carringbush2010]

intention is irrelevant - it's about consequence of the action or policy.

Which is wrong, intention should be taken into account. I just can't agree with this.