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

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yes i'm sure the Indigenous players at North would love turning up to play under Clarkson if he gets off on a technicality.

When it was announced that Clarkson was to coach North, before this all broke open there were very strong rumours that Brad Hill , despite being under contract was wanting to trade to North. It was never about "all" the indigenous players.

 

[buttox]

If you think "it will finish somewhere in between" then that would mean a much later start date for Clarko no?

How do you think this may affect North Melbourne's plans for 2023?

It might stop us getting a few trade targets this trade period.
But we have assistants who can run training for a month or 2 if it comes to that.
If it drags on into next season that's a different story.

 

[Forward Press]

We have heard one side of the story.
We are not even sure those who made the accusations are willing to talk about it again at this stage.
If they are not willing to be cross examined and questioned on the allegations this could already be over.

At the moment the accusers are anonymous.
First thing that happens when the names are revealed is their credibility is questioned.
They would have been advised of this by there lawyer you would assume.
Being able to face your accusers is not a technicality.
If they are not willing to take part Clarko has nothing to answer as nothing been put forward.

Getting dangerously close to Essendon circa-2016 with the excuses being offered and doubt being cast on the whistleblowers...

There is only one reason why those supporting North are going down this route.

 

[RocketBooster]

We have heard one side of the story.
We are not even sure those who made the accusations are willing to talk about it again at this stage.
If they are not willing to be cross examined and questioned on the allegations this could already be over.

Why would players need to be cross examined by someone acting for Clarko or Fagan etc.?
They are relating their personal experiences at HFC
We already have 3 similar stories from the players (and likely to come)
The situation is already untenable for those named.

 

[mcnulty]

Why would players need to be cross examined by someone acting for Clarko or Fagan etc.?
They are relating their personal experiences at HFC
We already have 3 similar stories from the players (and likely to come)
The situation is already untenable for those named.

Why does anyone get cross examined?

 

[buttox]

Getting dangerously close to Essendon circa-2016 with the excuses being offered and doubt being cast on the whistleblowers...

There is only one reason why those supporting North are going down this route.

I'm not doubting any accusers.
But they could be anyone at this stage. Credibility is an important part of any legal proceeding.
Rightly or wrongly everyone gets theirs questioned in matters like this.
It may be brutal if the media get hold of the names.
I cant see how this ends up an open trial tbh.
I don't think we will hear much of what happens.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Your second paragraph is the one causing much debate in this room ‘it’s not looking good for them, based on the info available’.

The available info is far from complete and many in here are passing judgement on incomplete info. If anyone raises this, your howled down and deemed a racist.

No, I like many will not pass judgement on anyone until the facts are presented in a forum whereby everyone is afforded proper process.

Defending due process is not defending the alleged nor not believing the accusers, it’s about ensuring everyone is provided an opportunity in the most appropriate forum to give their account.

well i mean its not.

When your clubs president has emails getting leaked from his email, directly linked to alleged incidents. It does not look good.

There are different spectrums of opinions. Both vehemently defending them, to those vehemently persecuting them. The general consensus that i can see is that they indeed need natural justice. But what has come out to date, including their statements, their situation is getting worse & worse.

 

[buttox]

Why would players need to be cross examined by someone acting for Clarko or Fagan etc.?
They are relating their personal experiences at HFC
We already have 3 similar stories from the players (and likely to come)
The situation is already untenable for those named.

They will have to make there accusations again or the inquiry wont amount to much.
Clarko has the right to question those accusations.
Thats how it works.
We are going to have an inquiry about something but we are not allowed to hear about why.
That would not work.

 

[Forward Press]

I'm not doubting any accusers.
But they could be anyone at this stage. Credibility is an important part of any legal proceeding.
Rightly or wrongly everyone gets theirs questioned in matters like this.
It may be brutal if the media get hold of the names.
I cant see how this ends up an open trial tbh.
I don't think we will hear much of what happens.

At the moment the accusers are anonymous.
First thing that happens when the names are revealed is their credibility is questioned.
They would have been advised of this by there lawyer you would assume.
Being able to face your accusers is not a technicality.
If they are not willing to take part Clarko has nothing to answer as nothing been put forward.

Um, this post clearly is doing so.

It's not a criminal trial. They don't need to be cross examined before the AFL looks into it. Although obviously they are enlisting lawyers now (both the accused and the complainants), the investigation could have been done without lawyers, a judge or a jury. The current position is they are being believed, and the AFL integrity unit will do some more digging to verify. They don't have to do it to a 'beyond reasonable doubt' stage.

All that's left is for us to argue which side we are backing, and imo the majority of those backing Clarko, Fagan and co have a common link.

 

[PJays]

The Terms of Reference for the Egan review are clearly stated in the preface of the report.

View attachment 1522115

The research methodology (yarning) was specifically selected to provide a culturally safe and appropriate environment to enable the participation of Indigenous players and their families.

As outlined in the references to the report, it is a well understood and accepted methodology of securing the honest engagement of indigenous peoples in a review process that they would not otherwise be willing to participate in. Again kudus must be given to the Hawthorn Football Club for adopting such an inclusive engagement model .

The downside for those unfamiliar to this approach is that it necessarily leads to outcomes and recommendations that are not as structured and formalised as they would wish or be familiar with.

This is understood

But those accusing players will, at some point, whether they like it or not, need to accept the fact their recollections will be tested more forensically by 3rd parties and considered alongside a range of other factors including but not limited to

- The testimony of Clarkson, Fagan and many others

- A wider analysis of the club culture and treatment of non Indigenous players

- Whether any actions taken by coaches were reasonable within any relevant surrounding contexts and frameworks

Etc

Whether these indigenous players wish to go through this process, and who exactly runs this process (which is still being decided and may yet be tested legally) is ultimately beside the point. The big picture is these things will be tested, because it's simply unfair - ethically and I assume legally- to end careers over unproven allegations by anonymous individuals "yarned" to a single individual

 

[Slartibartfast]

We have heard one side of the story.
We are not even sure those who made the accusations are willing to talk about it again at this stage.
If they are not willing to be cross examined and questioned on the allegations this could already be over.

They are willing.
They want a commission that can cross examine all parties but they do want it to be totally independent from the AFL.

 

[faible]

Or there's a good chance they don't act like children, go to him and sit down and discuss their concerns, ask him what has happened, and go from there.
Why is there so many people that go to a stereotype (and that is what you've done, you've gone to a stereotype, or is that OK because you're siding a particular way?)

Act like children?

You might need to broaden your views if you think they'll simply accept a legal technicality over the words of those within their community.

Here's what Eddie Betts had to say;

“But I’m always gonna believe the players and the brothers.”

What stereotype exactly is it you think I'm using or raising?

At the moment the accusers are anonymous.
First thing that happens when the names are revealed is their credibility is questioned.
They would have been advised of this by there lawyer you would assume.
Being able to face your accusers is not a technicality.
If they are not willing to take part Clarko has nothing to answer as nothing been put forward.

I feel like you think this process is something it's not.

This isn't a court of law. This isn't a process whereby lawyers get to sit down and cross-examine those who've put their experiences down.

If the AFL decides not to sanction anyone involved because the players don't feel comfortable speaking to an AFL led and appointed body, then that's a technicality the AFL should resolve if it's serious about things.

It's a tricky thing if that were to happen.

I can see both sides of the coin. If Clarkson was cleared due to the players not wanting to talk about it again, the situation you outlined is a possibility and I don't think anyone would blame those players. We as humans judge people; it's one of the ways we survive.

On the other side, it sets a bit of a wonky precedence if you ban him from footy without definitive proof.

That situation would be the worst outcome. No clarity for anyone.

No one should blame those players for believing their community given what we've heard Eddie Betts say, or what posters in this thread have said about their experiences and just how common this kind of stuff is for them.

But people will.

 

[hawkman]

I'm not doubting any accusers.
But they could be anyone at this stage. Credibility is an important part of any legal proceeding.
Rightly or wrongly everyone gets theirs questioned in matters like this.
It may be brutal if the media get hold of the names.
I cant see how this ends up an open trial tbh.
I don't think we will hear much of what happens.

The media have their names, just choosing not to publish them

 

[buttox]

They are willing.
They want a commission that can cross examine all parties but they do want it to be totally independent from the AFL.

This is a good thing I think.
The AFL is not an investigative entity.
They know feck all about running this inquiry and are just ringing there mates who are lawyers to set one up.
Take it worksafe IMO.
They deal with workplace issues every day.

 

[Ingy]

I'm not doubting any accusers.
But they could be anyone at this stage. Credibility is an important part of any legal proceeding.
Rightly or wrongly everyone gets theirs questioned in matters like this.
It may be brutal if the media get hold of the names.
I cant see how this ends up an open trial tbh.
I don't think we will hear much of what happens.

The people in question are known, mate.

 

[Choc Milk]

Are you joking?

The behaviour of the accusers or the circumstances......

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It's a tricky thing if that were to happen.

I can see both sides of the coin. If Clarkson was cleared due to the players not wanting to talk about it again, the situation you outlined is a possibility and I don't think anyone would blame those players. We as humans judge people; it's one of the ways we survive.

On the other side, it sets a bit of a wonky precedence if you ban him from footy without definitive proof.

That situation would be the worst outcome. No clarity for anyone.

A few days after the Clarkson position was announced, it was announced that one of their out of contract indigenous players wouldn't be offered another contract.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Rather than relying on the media to run the agenda, those accused are seeking counsel as they should do. They have also denied any wrongdoing and await a forum to provide their account to the allegations.

For me, I think it’s prudent for the accused not to respond to specific allegations in the media, a public cross examination won’t be good for anyone involved.

A public execution via the media has the potential to stop participation of victims, witnesses and the accused, which will not serve the initial intent of the HFC commissioned report.

It's prudent, if they are defending themselves from a legal perspective.

But being able to coach again won't be a legal thing - it will be an image thing.

They have done nothing so far to defend their reputations against what seems to be early attempts by the AFL to burn them in the media. They did the same with Hird. They leak stuff to set a tone, so when the axe comes down it appears a reasonable course of action.

Farkson haven't denied that this stuff happened. They've just denied that there was any wrongdoing on their part.

This approach isn't helping their image, and is supporting the narrative that they were powerful white guys, being culturally insensitive, ignorant, and displaying racial bias towards some indigenous players and their families.

If they play the 'nah, that's not racism. I'll explain to you what racism is...' card, which is what it's starting to sound like, they'll never coach or be involved in footy again.
They may not have thought they were being racist, but in 2022 the actions described by the players is racist.

Their current strategy, is likely best to protect them financially though. Which is why I believe they're either being very poorly advised, or they know they're screwed and won't coach again, and are just positioning themselves to protect their payouts.

If they want to coach again, they just need to explain now to the public what happened, and apologise for it. That's the only way they'll coach again.

 

[Proper Gander]

At the moment the accusers are anonymous.
First thing that happens when the names are revealed is their credibility is questioned.
They would have been advised of this by there lawyer you would assume.
Being able to face your accusers is not a technicality.
If they are not willing to take part Clarko has nothing to answer as nothing been put forward.

This is a strange take.

The victims are not anonymous. They recounted their experiences when asked to for a review. There are names to these accounts. They have been supported at least in part by other staff at Hawthorn, who are likewise not anonymous. Their names have not been published at this stage to protect them, and their families which include young children, from attacks on their credibility from randoms like you who know nothing of their circumstances.

Further, the victims have not refused to participate further in the process, but appear to have expressed some doubts about the proposed enquiry and the entity commissioning and overseeing it.

I mean “nothing has been put forward” … WTF?

 

[freofc1994]

Look at country kids coming into the game, no real life experience especially in the big smoke, makes sense to have them share a house with a few teammates/coach until they find their feet and it isn’t just the club pushing it, parents do as well.

I'm not against it, neither do I believe its racist to want to remove a young person from a potentially harmful family or community environment.

 

[Proper Gander]

Or there's a good chance they don't act like children, go to him and sit down and discuss their concerns, ask him what has happened, and go from there.
Why is there so many people that go to a stereotype (and that is what you've done, you've gone to a stereotype, or is that OK because you're siding a particular way?)

Oh sure. If I’m a footy player with dreams of playing AFL, totally I would demand a one on one with a very senior figure at the club to have him explain fully why I shouldn’t be nervous that he is a total campaigner. Especially if I am a young player or a fringe player. And absolutely I would choose a senior staff member who has made it clear the he reckons he has done no wrong. And yeah, I would definitely have this conversation about my doubts with the guy who reckons he has done no wrong and also has considerable influence over seniors selection and delistings. I’d make sure to time this conversation titled “I’m worried about reports of you being a campaigner” to occur when this senior guy is aggravated, pissed off and fuming about his own brand damage.

 

[buttox]

I'm not against it, neither do I believe its racist to want to remove a young person from a potentially harmful family or community environment.

Clubs move players all the time. I would not be comfortable with my boss picking my house myself.
I think that will be one of the outcomes from this.
Managers help players find houses. Not clubs.

 

[kingswood71]

I'm not against it, neither do I believe its racist to want to remove a young person from a potentially harmful family or community environment.

Who makes the judgement call about what is a "harmful family or community environment?"

 

[buttox]

Who makes the judgement call about what is a "harmful family or community environment?"

The players manager would get my vote.
They are being paid to look after the players best interest.

 

[Proper Gander]

The players manager would get my vote.
They are being paid to look after the players best interest.

While being on a percentage of the players potential earnings, so they have a few interests of their own.

How about people contemplate what I would have thought was self evident, that not all interests coincide and intervening in certain matters with adults would be clearly something where you don’t attempt to use your influence