NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

[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

 

[SunshineBoy]

Wasn’t west coast Simpson at the hawks , given their alleged stance on drafting players of the right background

 

[tassietime]

Given the email evidence and testimony of 3 separate witnesses, I would say Clarkson is cooked unless there is overwhelming evidence to disprove these allegations..

Allegations from anonymous people only ‘tested’ by a journalist and one consultant? That would set a dangerous precedent. I can’t see how the complainants maintain anonymity if Clarkson digs in. Could get (even more) messy over a long period.

 

[Chief]

If true, these alleged actions are of course beyond the pale, but they are by products of a system that treats people like assets.

Welcome to capitalism.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

48 hours, and offered fago extra time from what I saw.

This event is from 10 years ago, I think the reporter and AFL could have got statements from the accused even if it took a month or two. Now it's turned into a media circus with guilt already assigned

 

[glengowan]

And when these young kids go off the rails and end up on the wrong side of the law what do you suggest? Tough s**t... The media will say they weren't given enough support

The greater percentage of them wouldn't be getting on an AFL list in the first place.

 

[DesertRoo]

No that would be the Sack Hinkley thread on our board. s**t be movin' 24/7.

So um like, asking for a friend, how good a coach is he?
My friend might even be happy with a 5/10

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

I have seen this being said, and I'll take your (and others) word for it.

But then he's employed the very well known tabloid tactic of giving the accused a days notice to respond so that they can run with the story and 'claim' they gave the other party the opportunity to respond (it's that line you will always hear "...declined to respond to this story").

So even if the journalist is a serious perhaps his boss or someone above him who is handling his work and it's release has used the old trick before releasing the story.

They could have denied it but they didn't. The journalist did nothing wrong, it was Clarkson and co who refused to speak.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Allegations from anonymous people only ‘tested’ by a journalist and one consultant? That would set a dangerous precedent. I can’t see how the complainants maintain anonymity if Clarkson digs in. Could get (even more) messy over a long period.

Nice alias is that you Eddie ?

 

[Chief]

This event is from 10 years ago, I think the reporter and AFL could have got statements from the accused even if it took a month or two. Now it's turned into a media circus with guilt already assigned

The reporter offered more time.

"Thanks get back to me in a month I have to get all the information together."

 

[Blue1980]

"I don't identify as a racist therefore I am not a racist!"

Flawless logic really

Maybe these people are “racist fluid”

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

The reporter offered more time.

"Thanks get back to me in a month I have to get all the information together."

You know exactly why it was handled the way it was.. the reporter had already assigned guilt without getting all sides of the story. If they really cared about the situation the report from the club would have gone straight to the AFL and the AFL would have handled it behind closed doors before offering their findings to the public. Writing a hit piece and saying you gave accused 24 hours to respond to email and tried calling them is weak as piss. The author had already decided what the agenda was

 

[mcnulty]

Welcome to capitalism.

I once read a piece by a brilliant (though provocative) African American sportswriter that compared the NFL draft combine to a 17th century slave market. At first this sounds outrageous, but when you think about it is young men literally being measured for their presumed worth in front of prospective buyers.

And if sports players are so ruthlessly commodified, I suppose as consumers we all share some of the blame.

 

[Mikey13G]

They could have denied it but they didn't. The journalist did nothing wrong, it was Clarkson and co who refused to speak.

Clarkson has denied it! Look up the word refute in the dictionary.

 

[TDS7]

Seems odd to me that Clarkson and Fagan weren't interviewed as part of the external review. Does anyone know why?

I think this part of the situation really needs to be cleared up:

The Hawthorn Review and the ABC article are two different documents on the same topic.

The Hawthorn Review was carried out by an external consulting team at the behest of Hawthorn. The goal was to get an understanding of past indigenous players' experiences with the club. The goal of the report was to identify ways the club could internally improve its culture and systems when dealing with young indigenous recruits. To do this, the external consultant interviewed 20 indigenous men who have been on a Hawthorn list. After these interviews were conducted, outside of the club's eye for the privacy of the individuals involved, the report was handed back to the Hawthorn admins for their review of the findings. After reading the review the club felt the included details were deserving of an investigation by the AFL Integrity unit and referred the report to them. The report was not on the abuse of power Clarko, Fagan, Burt, or any other Hawthorn staff may have enacted. The report was on a separate issue that Clarko, Fagan, and Burt were not a relevant factor in until the findings. The AFL integrity unit may have planned to bring Clarko, Fagan, Burt, and Neabold into the fold for the investigation but at this stage, we'll never know if that was the plan. There is no world where it is reasonable for Hawthorn to contact Clarko, Fagan, or any others accused in the report. Their directive is to report to the AFL Integrity unit and allow them to run the process, not investigate on their own behalf.

Russell Jackson got a hold of the situation surrounding the report and the scope of interviewing players. He then approached past indigenous players and interviewed them about their experiences at Hawthorn. That is what has been published in the article. As far as I can see, Clarko is not denying being contacted for a reply by Jackson, only that he was not informed by Hawthorn. Jackson had the material for publishable accusations, went to Clarko and Fagan for comment, and gave them an industry standard 24 hours to either reply or ask for more time.

Whether they should have had more leniency is up for debate. What is not up for debate is Hawthorn's review practices. As far as I can see, Hawthorn took the only course of action appropriate when an external review made up of player experiences comes back with the alleged accusations. They certainly should not have informed Clarko or Fagan before referring the matter to AFL Integrity, that would have been a direct contradiction to AFL Clubs' integrity reporting guidelines. Hope this clears up the situation.

 

[Falcon27]

You know exactly why it was handled the way it was.. the reporter had already assigned guilt without getting all sides of the story. If they really cared about the situation the report from the club would have gone straight to the AFL and the AFL would have handled it behind closed doors before offering their findings to the public. Writing a hit piece and saying you gave accused 24 hours to respond to email and tried calling them is weak as piss. The author had already decided what the agenda was

Wrong, he gave them more time if they wanted it. They did not reply.

It would have taken just one of those parties to say ‘give me more time’ and the story wouldn’t be run yet. But no one did.

 

[Schneebly11]

You know exactly why it was handled the way it was.. the reporter had already assigned guilt without getting all sides of the story. If they really cared about the situation the report from the club would have gone straight to the AFL and the AFL would have handled it behind closed doors before offering their findings to the public. Writing a hit piece and saying you gave accused 24 hours to respond to email and tried calling them is weak as piss. The author had already decided what the agenda was

Even if they denied it or is that enough to not run the story?

The journalist has 3 witness statements and email and text messages. No doubt there were other witnesses he could use to verify it too.

So because Clarkson and Fagin refuse to respond he should not run the story?

You know exactly why it was handled the way it was.. the reporter had already assigned guilt without getting all sides of the story. If they really cared about the situation the report from the club would have gone straight to the AFL and the AFL would have handled it behind closed doors before offering their findings to the public. Writing a hit piece and saying you gave accused 24 hours to respond to email and tried calling them is weak as piss. The author had already decided what the agenda was

And?

Clarkson and Fagin just denied the claims anyway. Wasn’t enough to not run the story.

Eventually you’re going to have to stop deflecting and realise the big issue here is the treatment of indigenous AFL players, not the time length a journalist allowed a respondent to have before issuing a denial.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

I once read a piece by a brilliant (though provocative) African American sportswriter that compared the NFL draft combine to a 17th century slave market. At first this sounds outrageous, but when you think about it is young men literally being measured for their presumed worth in front of prospective buyers.

And if sports players are so ruthlessly commodified, I suppose as consumers we all share some of the blame.

I know it's crazy that young men are judged on their ability to play the sport they are being recruited for.. crazy world we live in

Wrong, he gave them more time if they wanted it. They did not reply.

It would have taken just one of those parties to say ‘give me more time’ and the story wouldn’t be run yet. But no one did.

He specifically mentioned 24 hours and a phone call. Anyway he should have gone to the AFL and let them deal with it before writing a hit piece. Then we might have a chance of getting all the facts from both sides.

 

[gouki88]

I know it's crazy that young men are judged on their ability to play the sport they are being recruited for.. crazy world we live in

He specifically mentioned 24 hours and a phone call. Anyway he should have gone to the AFL and let them deal with it before writing a hit piece. Then we might have a chance of getting all the facts from both sides.

Your understanding of investigative journalism and its value in society is quite off the mark

 

[Falcon27]

I know it's crazy that young men are judged on their ability to play the sport they are being recruited for.. crazy world we live in

He specifically mentioned 24 hours and a phone call. Anyway he should have gone to the AFL and let them deal with it before writing a hit piece. Then we might have a chance of getting all the facts from both sides.

This is the journalist’s tweet.

 

[Happy Idiot]

I know it's crazy that young men are judged on their ability to play the sport they are being recruited for.. crazy world we live in

He specifically mentioned 24 hours and a phone call. Anyway he should have gone to the AFL and let them deal with it before writing a hit piece. Then we might have a chance of getting all the facts from both sides.

Let the AFL deal with a scandal?!? That’s a joke, right? Sarcasm?

 

[mcnulty]

I know it's crazy that young men are judged on their ability to play the sport they are being recruited for.. crazy world we live in

The obvious point is of course when you look at someone purely in terms of their value to your organisation, other things impacting their welfare may be overlooked, or even be an inconvenience.

 

[Toump Ass]

"Ok, so before we run this story, let's give these really powerful organisations with millions of dollars and "king counsel" falling out of their pumpum six months to pressure, intimidate, coerce, or bribe our witnesses, then we'll run the story if there's nothing else to report on. Ripper!"

 

[gouki88]

Let the AFL deal with a scandal?!? That’s a joke, right? Sarcasm?

'Deal with' and 'ignore' are synonymous for him, it seems.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

Your understanding of investigative journalism and its value in society is quite off the mark

Yep the idea that there are two sides to a he said she says story is crazy isn't it.. we aren't talking about a murder here my friend. We all know why this was handled the way it was, clicks and views for days. The media loves these stories.

 

[Munich]

I know it's crazy that young men are judged on their ability to play the sport they are being recruited for.. crazy world we live in

He specifically mentioned 24 hours and a phone call. Anyway he should have gone to the AFL and let them deal with it before writing a hit piece. Then we might have a chance of getting all the facts from both sides.

Get a grip FFS