Opinion Non-Crows AFL 6: This Is Getting Cruel

[Kane McGoodwin]

Link?

I haven't been closely following this story recently, but a few weeks back one of their lawyers mentioned the AFL review wasn't their only course of action they were considering. This was before the AFL determined who the members of the review were & the TOR.

 

[George Kramer]

Is there a dedicated thread for the Hawks scandal?

 

[Vader]

Link?

It was widely reported at the time the story broke. Unfortunately, those stories are now buried under reports about the AFL's investigation (as far as googling for media articles is concerned).

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Is there a dedicated thread for the Hawks scandal?

Yes, but it is rather quiet lol...

Opinion - Hawthorn - Clarkson - Fagan Racism Investigation

Was thinking yesterday ....if the AFL adopt an industry wide report of all Clubs ......and similar issues are reported at other Clubs ....does that mitigate any actions that "may" be taken against the defendants ??

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Vader]

Here's a report from SEN:
Affected families “unwilling” to retell evidence in AFL’s Hawks investigation: Wilson

“They all week have been saying they want an independent judicial enquiry, I think Leon Zwier their lawyer is trying to get something together with Peter Gordon, not that they’re on the same side, they’re not.

“But that’s why it’s such a mess, because these people gave their evidence, are unwilling to do so again in an environment they don’t trust.”

 

[Mutineer]

I haven't been closely following this story recently, but a few weeks back one of their lawyers mentioned the AFL review wasn't their only course of action they were considering. This was before the AFL determined who the members of the review were & the TOR.

I suspect the accused Clarkson, Fagan and Burt would be extremely happy to have their accusers claims tested in a court of law.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I suspect the accused Clarkson, Fagan and Burt would be extremely happy to have their accusers claims tested in a court of law.

I doubt any accused would prefer to end up in a court...

 

[Vader]

I suspect the accused Clarkson, Fagan and Burt would be extremely happy to have their accusers claims tested in a court of law.

You do realise there's a difference between a judicial enquiry and a trial?

 

[footy4ever]

“Our side of the story”?

So there’s a story?

They did the things they’re accused of, or they didn’t. They can only have a ‘side’ to their story if it is reasons or excuses for what they did, unless they think their side to the story is that nothing of the sort happened.

 

[GreyCrow]

Its not like any AFL review will be under resourced or avoid asking the hard questions

 

[1970crow]

Here's a report from SEN:
Affected families “unwilling” to retell evidence in AFL’s Hawks investigation: Wilson

So they’re ok spilling their guts when there’s no possibility of a cross examination. Oh well, bin the investigation and just move on as if nothing happened. They can file whatever civil suits they choose and make whatever criminal complaints they feel are justified to the police.

 

[1970crow]

I doubt any accused would prefer to end up in a court...

You’re wrong there.

 

[1970crow]

“Our side of the story”?

So there’s a story?

They did the things they’re accused of, or they didn’t. They can only have a ‘side’ to their story if it is reasons or excuses for what they did, unless they think their side to the story is that nothing of the sort happened.

That’s exactly what they have said. In their recollections, what they’ve been accused of did not happen.

 

[footy4ever]

That’s exactly what they have said. In their recollections, what they’ve been accused of did not happen.

Then I wonder why players would collaborate to fabricate such damaging accusations. For what reason?

 

[Bearded Clam]

AFL's red-faced admission on concussion study​

MSN

The AFL has issued an apology to players who took part in a concussion study after an independent review found the research project to be "under-funded and under-resourced".

The independent review, chaired by senior lawyer Bernard Quinn KC, found that seven editorials from associate professor and ex-AFL concussion advisor Paul McCrory contained plagiarised text in what was an "embarrassing blemish" on McCrory's reputation.

A 260-page report from the review was made public by the AFL on Tuesday. It determined that the research project was under-funded and under-resourced and suffered from a lack of governance, stewardship and coordination in how it was rolled-out and implemented, and how it simultaneously accommodated clinical and research objectives.

AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon said the league accepted the outcome of the report and apologised to the players who were "let down" by the study.

"The AFL apologises to the past players who gave up their time in the hope of better understanding their own conditions and to assist with the research for the benefit of current and future players and were let down by the manner in which some of the research and clinical programs were at times conducted," Dillon said in an AFL statement.

"We will continue to invest, engage, resource and do better on this type of research and the facilitation of care going forward."

The AFL's apology comes after former Eagles premiership player Daniel Venables, whose career was cut short due to concussion problems, was critical of the league's handling of concussion issues, saying the AFL "100 per cent" let him down.

"I wasted a lot of time, the most important part of my rehab," he told Seven earlier this year.

"Yeah, for sure (I could be playing footy).

"There were a lot of red flags looking back on it, and it's shattering."

Despite the report shedding light on McCrory's plagiarism, it also found that the instances of plagiarism "do not affect or taint the work" that the professor had undertaken as they "do not involve the falsification or fabrication of relevant research".

While the panel found that McCrory was neither an employee nor a contractor to the AFL, but rather an advisor on an "informal and mostly unpaid basis", the relationship between the two parties was found to have "problematic" aspects, particularly relating to "the absence of clear reporting lines".

McCrory was found to have "protracted periods" of no or delayed responses to correspondence. It was deemed that more active oversight from the AFL may have helped mitigate these problems.

Yet another example of everything the AFL touches turning into a complete shambles and ending up nothing more than an arse covering exercise.

No wonder the Clarkson/hawthorn scandal accussors dont want a bar of the AFL’s “independant” investigation. You’d have to be a fcckn idiot to put your trust in that.

With concussion.. its clear the AFL couldnt really give a toss, its all about them looking like they care and are doing something..

If they cared then port adelaide wouldve been absolutely smashed for sending Butters and the other guy (cant remember who it was) back on the field no more than 5 minutes after a massive head clash this year..

If the AFL cared they’d have already stepped in and said to seedsman.. “sorry mate, its all over, we cannot let you continue to play.. the risk is too great” and found him an off field role they can re-train him into..

The Circus rolls on…

 

[Bearded Clam]

“Our side of the story”?

So there’s a story?

They did the things they’re accused of, or they didn’t. They can only have a ‘side’ to their story if it is reasons or excuses for what they did, unless they think their side to the story is that nothing of the sort happened.

And..

If there is a “their side to the story” that they are so keen to tell and they believe they have done absolutely nothing wrong..

Then why havent they told it already?..

Why didnt they, when they were offered a right of reply in the days before the ABC story broke, simply meet with the Journalist and tell it?.. they have nothing at all to hide right?..

But no… they’ve constantly said nothing more than “its not true and we want to tell our side”.. but then… not told their side.

Because they want to tell their side in an “independant” AFL run investigation held behind closed doors where everyone involved has been made to sign confidentiality agreements!.. and the outcomes of which can be cherry picked and presented, at a later date, to the public by the AFL with all the bad bits redacted under the guise of “confidentiality”…

The AFL then can make some secret payments to the accusers, tell the public that it was a big miss understanding and everyone has hugged, kissed and made up and sweep the entire sordid affair under the carpet with the rest of their fxxk ups..

Hey presto.. the leagues greatest coach is back and everyone’s happy!..

 

[footy4ever]

And..

If there is a “their side to the story” that they are so keen to tell and they believe they have done absolutely nothing wrong..

Then why havent they told it already?..

Why didnt they, when they were offered a right of reply in the days before the ABC story broke, simply meet with the Journalist and tell it?.. they have nothing at all to hide right?..

But no… they’ve constantly said nothing more than “its not true and we want to tell our side”.. but then… not told their side.

Because they want to tell their side in an “independant” AFL run investigation held behind closed doors where everyone involved has been made to sign confidentiality agreements!.. and the outcomes of which can be cherry picked and presented, at a later date, to the public by the AFL with all the bad bits redacted under the guise of “confidentiality”…

The AFL then can make some secret payments to the accusers, tell the public that it was a big miss understanding and everyone has hugged, kissed and made up and sweep the entire sordid affair under the carpet with the rest of their fxxk ups..

Hey presto.. the leagues greatest coach is back and everyone’s happy!..

TBF if it was me, ‘guilty’ or not, no way would I allow a journo of any kind to interview me. By the time the vision or the conversation got to air it would have been cut into whatever outcome or agenda of the journo’s choice.

Quite reasonable to refuse a right of reply I’d have thought.

 

[Bearded Clam]

TBF if it was me, ‘guilty’ or not, no way would I allow a journo of any kind to interview me. By the time the vision or the conversation got to air it would have been cut into whatever outcome or agenda of the journo’s choice.

Quite reasonable to refuse a right of reply I’d have thought.

if these accusations are untrue as Clarkson et al are claiming… and you are Clarkson.. you’d be telling the AFL to jump and you’d be getting a legal team together and launching massive defamation claims against the ABC and the accussers.

 

[Vader]

if these accusations are untrue as Clarkson et al are claiming… and you are Clarkson.. you’d be telling the AFL to jump and you’d be getting a legal team together and launching massive defamation claims against the ABC and the accussers.

Why the ABC? This was an internal Hawthorn club report. The ABC was just reporting on the report's contents.

 

[Jetsteam]

And..

If there is a “their side to the story” that they are so keen to tell and they believe they have done absolutely nothing wrong..

Then why havent they told it already?..

Why didnt they, when they were offered a right of reply in the days before the ABC story broke, simply meet with the Journalist and tell it?.. they have nothing at all to hide right?..

But no… they’ve constantly said nothing more than “its not true and we want to tell our side”.. but then… not told their side.

Because they want to tell their side in an “independant” AFL run investigation held behind closed doors where everyone involved has been made to sign confidentiality agreements!.. and the outcomes of which can be cherry picked and presented, at a later date, to the public by the AFL with all the bad bits redacted under the guise of “confidentiality”…

The AFL then can make some secret payments to the accusers, tell the public that it was a big miss understanding and everyone has hugged, kissed and made up and sweep the entire sordid affair under the carpet with the rest of their fxxk ups..

Hey presto.. the leagues greatest coach is back and everyone’s happy!..

Yeah can easily hear the coaches saying. Sorry if anyone mis-interpreted what I said. blah blah blah

 

[Bearded Clam]

Why the ABC? This was an internal Hawthorn club report. The ABC was just reporting on the report's contents.

But… Werent we told by Gill at the press conference he held the day the ABC story broke that the revelations in that story went a lot further than what they had uncovered in the Hawthorn report that they had yet to release?…

And it was those new revelations that Clarkson et al had claimed were untrue..

 

[DJ75]

Medi-sub?? What a joke. Took all of 5 minutes before clubs just started using it as a normal sub, and of course the AFL did nothing about it. Once again it showed how hopeless the AFL are and how little they think through their decisions.

 

[Redline]

Yeah can easily hear the coaches saying. Sorry if anyone mis-interpreted what I said. blah blah blah

That's where this headed. Fagan and Clarkson can't afford for this to go on for years. There is going to be some form of negotiated outcome where everyone can claim to be right.

 

[DJ75]

That's where this headed. Fagan and Clarkson can't afford for this to go on for years. There is going to be some form of negotiated outcome where everyone can claim to be right.

A manufactured outcome where the AFL sweep everything under the carpet and carry-on like all is good?
Surely not?

 

[DJ75]

Surprised Oleg Markov

37

Oleg Markov

Age

28

Ht

188cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.1

3star

K

8.4

3star

HB

4.8

3star

M

4.8

5star

T

1.4

3star

MG

228.8

4star

No current season stats available

D

15.4

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

4.2

4star

M

6.0

5star

T

2.0

4star

MG

295.2

5star

was delisted today. I don't watch GC regularly (I'm not a sadist), but thought he was tracking pretty well.