News Hawthorn Racism Scandal

[StrappingTape]

Well put!



I what exactly did they do wrong in your opinion?

They implemented a process to improve the culture at their club by reaching out to former Indigenous players to seek their confidential views on how they found life at their Club. As soon as the confidential report was handed over to the Hawthorn Board containing allegations of racist behaviour that report was handed over to the AFL Integrity Commission as the AFL rules require.

Once the report hit the AFL its contents were leaked to journalists and the story became public. The source of that leak is not known and no one is suggesting it is leaked by Hawthorn.

So WTF did Hawthorn do wrong - Specifically? (apart from asking questions of Indigenous players that the AFL does not want asked despite all its recognition round marketing hype).

And what is the charge that you think should be levelled at Hawthorn - specifically?

Geez, I dunno besides the alleged dubious nature of the guy writing it, specifically hire someone who is going to write a biased report who doesn't test or interview any of the people accused of said actions to have their say and then move that onto the AFL integrity commission with the accused people having NFI or a right of reply.

 

[Jimmy95]

Hawthorn finding out what happens when you hold a Kangaroo Court.

 

[Festerz]

Besides the alleged dubious nature of the guy writing it, specifically hire someone who is going to write a biased report who

You do realise that no one involved is questioning the legitimacy of the report or that it did not accurately capture what was told by the Indigenous persons interviewed.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, separate un-related allegations made against the chief author of the report are a red herring used by a few not involved in the process. A classic 'shoot the messenger' approach to take the focus away from the real issues.

So back to the question - what exactly did Hawthorn do wrong and what AFL rules were breached?

doesn't test or interview any of the people accused of said actions to have their say and then move that onto the AFL integrity commission with the accused people having NFI or a right of reply.

LOL.

Speaking of NFI, you also seem not to understand that it is a requirement under the AFLs Respect and Integrity Policy signed by Gil himself that clubs notify the AFL Integrity Unit of any claimed breach in its behaviour and conduct protocols and that it is for the AFL to conduct an investigation - not the Club. This is exactly what happened.

Furthermore, those AFL rules require that any investigation or action 'shall afford principles of natural justice to any person alleged to have committed an offence.'

Seems to me that the AFL Investigation is what went horribly wrong here - from inception. And surprise surprise, McLachlan is looking to shift the blame away from him and his organisation.

And you're falling for it.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

You do realise that no one involved is questioning the legitimacy of the report or that it did not accurately capture what was told by the Indigenous persons interviewed.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, separate un-related allegations made against the chief author of the report are a red herring used by a few not involved in the process. A classic 'shoot the messenger' approach to take the focus away from the real issues.

So back to the question - what exactly did Hawthorn do wrong and what AFL rules were breached?

Omerta

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Whateley had Malcolm Speed on his regular monthly segment take his lawyer-barrister / ex sports administrator eye over the whole issue. Goes thru it step by step and looks at both legal and sports administrators point of view.

For those who don't know who Speed is, he was a Vic based solicitor for a decade, then a barrister for 15 years before in late 1990's became ceo of Cricket Oz for 5 years, then ceo of ICC for 5 years, first in London then when they moved to Dubai and oversaw the growth in ICC events and TV revenue. When he got back to Oz in 2008 has been a long standing adjunct professor of law at Deakin Uni, been on the Richmond board since 2011, Prez of Cycling Oz between 2014 and 2017 and involved in a whole lot of other sports bodies involvement as well as stuff with Melbourne Uni with Sports Law and Governance over last 30 years.

First 14 minutes is Hawthorn, then last 3 minutes discussing IPL and how big and powerful it has become.

Whateley | 1116 SEN

Combining authoritative journalism and sharp-eyed analysis with emotive broadcasting, Gerard Whateley is a unique voice in the coverage of sport in Australia. He'll bring all that and more to SEN mornings.

www.sen.com.au

 

[StrappingTape]

You do realise that no one involved is questioning the legitimacy of the report or that it did not accurately capture what was told by the Indigenous persons interviewed.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread separate un-related allegations made against the chief author of the report are a red herring used by a few numpties not involved in the process to dodge the main issues.

So back to the question - what exactly did Hawthorn do wrong and what AFL rules were breached?

Commissioned a report that was by design one sided that gave the accused parties no participation or right of reply and then lobbed that into the AFL.

Which is separate from the same accusers then adding extra accusations to the ABC and hiding behind anonymity further defaming the people but also muddied the conversations around the original report. You only need to read this thread and the main board one to see the impact the poorly thought out Hawthorn project had on their reputations because in the eyes of many they are complete card carrying racists no matter what now and forever simply based on that report. You'd be insane to do this in any other business but hey here we are.

 

[Festerz]

...one of Clarkson's enemies at Hawthorn leaked it.

Hawthorn finding out what happens when you hold a Kangaroo Court.

 

[It Just Is]

Hawthorn looks into its past record with indigenous players, found some issues that needed further investigation, uncovered some troublesome accusations against its former coaches, sent the report to the AFL, AFL leaked the report to the ABC, ABC publishes unsubstantiated accusations and names the coaches, AFL sets up an investigation that does nothing for 9 months, Clarkson steps down from his role as coach of North Melbourne due to the stress, 2 weeks later the AFL investigation reveals that there is nothing to see here and all parties are satisfied with that, complainants drop that they are prepared to take the issue to the Human Rights Commission, which now leaves Hawthorn, the original instigator of the report, the only party who is likely to be punished, even though Clarko, Fages, & Burto are innocent good guys and did nothing wrong.

How very V/AFL.

Do you think the AFL leaked the report or Hawthorn did?

I took away from yesterday that was the bit the AFL were pissed off with Hawthorn about.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I hadn't read this before I posted the Malcolm Speed interview on Whateley - but he did hint at Human Rights Commission move against Hawthorn, as AFL had done a deal with family for them not to take AFL to the Human Rights Commission.

Families at centre of Hawthorn saga to take claims to human rights commission

Legal counsel acting for the families confirmed the group would pursue a claim against former Hawks officials Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan and Jason Burt.

www.theage.com.au

Families at the centre of the Hawthorn racism saga are set to announce they will pursue claims in the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Legal counsel acting for the families, Leon Zwier, confirmed the group would pursue a claim through the human rights commission against the Hawthorn Football Club and former Hawks officials Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan and Jason Burt. The move could be announced publicly as soon as Wednesday.

Zwier represents the players and partners known by pseudonyms Ian, Liam and Jacqui, plus former Hawthorn champion Cyril Rioli and his wife, Shannyn Ah Sam-Rioli. It is unclear whether they all plan to be involved in the human rights commission case.

The AFL on Tuesday night reached an agreement with the families and apologised for past instances of racism in the game. Former Hawthorn officials Clarkson, Fagan and Burt were cleared of any wrongdoing under AFL rules, and have all strenuously denied allegations that they mistreated First Nations players and their partners at the Hawks between 2010 and 2016.

In the other story the Age ran they wrote;

No findings against Clarkson, Fagan and Burt in AFL deal, but Hawthorn could face charges

The AFL has reached an agreement with families involved in the allegations of historical racism at Hawthorn, and has made no findings against Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan and Jason Burt.

www.theage.com.au

According to a source with knowledge of the matter, who wanted to remain anonymous, Hawthorn were endeavouring to be a party to an agreement until at least late last week, but the eventual deal reached on Tuesday only included the families and the AFL.

Under the deal, which the accused trio were not party to, the former Hawthorn players and partners retain their rights to take further action in either the courts or the Australian Human Rights Commission, but not against the AFL.

McLachlan said the complainants had received no financial compensation as part of the agreement.

And pt 3 in Gil's statement


3. As a result of this agreement, the Complainants do not wish to pursue the Independent Panel Investigation (which they wholeheartedly supported), or make any claims against the AFL in any other process (including the AHRC) or Court in relation to their allegations.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

 

[TeeKray]

My take:

It's very unlikely that what is alleged to have occurred - or something closely resembling it - did not occur.

It's also very unlikely that the allegations can be proven as it seems a classic case of he said/she said with no real evidence in either direction.

This puts the AFL in a position where they can't actually punish the alleged perpetrators but nor can they be seen to be simply ignoring the accusers, especially given the cultural sensitivities at play. So the AFL did what the AFL do and spent a while trying to make a deal, which was probably never going to happen, and now they've squirmed their way out of it with a deliberately vague 'agreement' that doesn't agree to anything much aside from leaving the AFL itself out of it.

Hawthorn should not be punished for anything as they have done nothing wrong. The only instance where they should be punished is if someone at Hawthorn deliberately leaked the report to the media - which is possible but I haven't heard that specifically alleged by the AFL.

The ABC and Russell Jackson are open to legal action. As with most defamation cases, the truth pales into insignificance if you can't prove the truth. And I would suggest it's going to be very difficult to prove the whole truth of these allegations.

 

[Festerz]

Do you think the AFL leaked the report or Hawthorn did?

I took away from yesterday that was the bit the AFL were pissed off with Hawthorn about.

See this headline:


Thus far the Hawthorn Football Club are the only party to this saga that faces the possibility of sanctions from the AFL. Added to that is the fact that the leaking of the report before its allegations could be investigated properly has led to serious fraction between the club and celebrated former coaches, assistant coaches and players.

What possible benefit would Hawthorn have derived from the leaking of the report? None is my humble opinion.

Similarly, I see no possible benefit from the AFL leaking of the Report. None.

The Indigenous families involved did not have access to the full report so they were not the source of the leak and the outcome for them has been devastating. While their names have not been widely disclosed, they have been racially vilified in social media platforms for doing what they were asked to do by Hawthorn - give their honest and frank opinion of their time at Hawthorn. The leaking of their allegations and stories has cast a shadow not just over them but Indigenous players across the competition.

Similarly - those accused in the report did not have access to the report. The public leaking of its contents has been devastating to them. They have not been given the chance to clear their names or respond to the allegations without the glare of media spotlights. An absulte travesty of justice.

As we have seen in this thread and in the media, the reputation and vilification of Phil Egan once the report was leaked has been total and. He is as much a victim of the leaking of the report as anyone.

Once this report was leaked there was zero chance of any of the allegations being successfully investigated and resolved in public. It effectively destroyed any chance of resolution and has left a permanent stain on all those involved and the AFL itself. I can't see how that benefits any individual or organisation involved.

My guess that a rogue individual associated with one of the parties who had access to the report has leaked it for some misguided reason. Unless the journalist who received the leaked document decides to name his source, that person may never be identified.

As an aside, what I have seen is full page contents of the final document being leaked which staggers me. Confidential Cabinet documents are coded so that the source of any leaking of contents can be easily identified. Corporate organisations take similar steps with their commercial in confidence reports. Documents are electronically tracked and any unauthorised sharing, downloads via usb, printing, cut and pasting etc. are flagged. It staggers me that similar measures were not taken with this report given its contents.

A sign yet again of AFL acting like amateurs.

 

[StrappingTape]

I think the leak would be the obvious of a disgruntled HFC person who had a issue with clarkson. That's the logical one, no one in AFL house would want to make their job harder by leaking it, makes no sense.

 

[Portology]

Perhaps Clarko and Fagan might go after the Hawks?

No lawyer but if I understand correctly they'd be on safer ground going after the AFL.

The Hawks commissioned a cultural sensitivity report by an independent party. Once aware of the nature of the contents they notified the AFL as AFL rules require. The Hawks were free to "find out" any way they liked, it's the contents that were the trigger. And by accounts the report was run as professionally and sensitively as could be. The AFL process was stuffed from the start by unrealistic timeframes (by policy) then deadlocked by the refusal of some parties to the allegations to provide painful statements yet again to yet another party and by a corresponding and understandable refusal of the respondents to... respond... until said statements were received... and the matter then leaks to the ABC, which publishes the story, as any journalist would want to do.

Key point made by Malcolm Speed to Whately on SEN (see REH's post above) is that had Fagan and Clarko been asked they would very likely been advised by their legal not to say anything to Hawthorn's consultants. So formal grievance on their part is likely not going to be about the Hawthorn part of the process.

So you've got two processes, one at club level and one at AFL level which didn't mesh together. A leak out of the second process, and some likely damaged lives and damaged reputations. Also Malcolm: "leaks in the AFL are a growth industry".

It would be a perverse, unsurprising and uninspiring outcome for Hawthorn to be punished to compensate for failure of an AFL process. Don't get me wrong though: Stalin always blamed others for failure to meet five-year-plan targets, even when said others were literally starving the peasants to try to get there.

 

[Doctor Feel]

It happened, but try proving it. Basically.

 

[Izzy01]

Surprise surprise the AFL made a mess of all this.
What a hopeless organization.

 

[It Just Is]

I can’t be arsed doing it but wonder what would be found by digging back in the threads about Cyril unexpectedly quitting and fleeing Melbourne. I’m sure there were murmurings of a falling out with Kennett.

Good of Gil to step in and return the escaped skeleton to the closet.

 

[Jason K]

But listen to us and vote "Yes"

 

[Festerz]

Gil looks like he’s been playing blackjack at Crown for the last six hours straight.

He's been busy clearing his desk before he heads off to Europe...

 

[Andre]

Lol Hawthorn will now be punished for turning the rock over.

Which will achieve the AFL's real aim of 'Ok you 17 other clubs, if you've any similar issues, fix them up in house and DO NOT tell us about them or we'll punish only you for tarnishing our brand'.

 

[Jimmy95]

I don't blame the AFL for damage control. Sport would be in a big mess if it copped the blame everytime a few individuals associated the sport made clowns of themselves.

 

[Schulzenfest]

The ABC and Russell Jackson are open to legal action. As with most defamation cases, the truth pales into insignificance if you can't prove the truth. And I would suggest it's going to be very difficult to prove the whole truth of these allegations.

Keep in mind that defamation is a civil action, so works on the balance of probabilities standard of proof. For a defence of truth to a defamation action to get up, they don't need to prove that what they reported definitely happened, they only need to prove that it probably did. Which is exactly why I don't think Clarkson, Fagan and Burt would ever want to see a defamation trial.

 

[TeeKray]

Keep in mind defamation is a civil action, so works on the balance of probabilities standard of proof. For a defence of truth to a defamation action to get up, they don't need to prove that what they reported definitely happened, they only need to prove that it probably did. Which is exactly why I don't think Clarkson, Fagan and Burt would ever want to see a defamation trial.

Yes but the sticking point would be that ALL of the allegations would need to be proven on the balance of probabilities. Given the volume and nature of the allegations in the article, that would seem a difficult proposition. I suspect there will be a settlement somewhere down the line.

 

[Festerz]

Keep in mind defamation is a civil action, so works on the balance of probabilities standard of proof. For a defence of truth to a defamation action to get up, they don't need to prove that what they reported definitely happened, they only need to prove that it probably did. Which is exactly why I don't think Clarkson, Fagan and Burt would ever want to see a defamation trial.

Yep. And there is also the recent strengthening of the public interest test in relation to Australia's defamation laws introduced by Attorneys' General across the nation recently to “ensure that the law of defamation does not place unreasonable limits on freedom of expression and, in particular, on the publication and discussion of matters of public interest and importance“.

In summary section 27A (as it is listed in SA legislation - other jurisdictions may have different labelling clauses) provides that it is a defence to a publication of defamatory matter if a respondent proves that:

• the matter concerns an issue of public interest; and
• the respondent reasonably believed that the publication of the matter was in the public interest.

The ABC as the national broadcaster acting to report on claims made in an officially sanctioned report about behaviours within an AFL Club fits pretty well within those public interest parameters IMHO. As I see it, and I am not a practicing lawyer, the ABC has no accountability in relation to any defamation action as to the truth or otherwise of those allegations- just to accurately report on what those allegations were.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Yes but the sticking point would be that ALL of the allegations would need to be proven on the balance of probabilities. Given the volume and nature of the allegations in the article, that would seem a difficult proposition. I suspect there will be a settlement somewhere down the line.

Depends how hard line the ABC want to take this. If they have a lawyer with some balls, that lawyer would be responding to any defamation action with "you don't want to take this to trial, because even if we can't prove on the balance of probabilities that every single thing we alleged is true, we'll be able to prove enough of it to destroy your all-important public image. Our settlement offer is $0.00, if you really want to run this to a trial and have all your dirty laundry aired out, we'll see you in court."

The above probably won't actually happen because lawyers by their nature are risk-averse and would rather give up a settlement figure they can control than go to a trial they can't control, but if the ABC have the balls to call Clarkson/Fagan/Burt's bluff, I'm not sure whether Clarkson/Fagan/Burt would actually push it to a hearing.