Isn't Buckley under a bit of a cloud too given Collingwood are the OG racist club?
Oppo Camp The Hawthorn Racism Report
- Thread starter kane249
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Isn't Buckley under a bit of a cloud too given Collingwood are the OG racist club?
- Jan 19, 2017
- 1,617
- 4,358
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Woosh 
Sounds like the best option.
Shown he isn’t afraid to tell the truth, with what he has said about Essendon.
He has also worked across multiple teams, including Carlton, WCE, Adelaide and Bombers
Sounds like the best option.
Shown he isn’t afraid to tell the truth, with what he has said about Essendon.
He has also worked across multiple teams, including Carlton, WCE, Adelaide and Bombers
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Monocle
And the rebuild begins.
- Sep 18, 2003
- 12,385
- 39,456
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Claremont NE Patriots Eagles AFLW
With "have a baby in a loving family environment" on one end and "encouraging an abortion and breaking all family contact" on the other, what's the middle ground?
Quietly hoping for a miscarriage and a subsequent break-up?
Charlie Cameron has also spoken to Gil personally and indigenous player leaders around the league, in support of Fagan.
Cam Ellis-Yolman was interviewed as well up in the NT.
Hand up....I laughed
Needs to be independent. Having someone on the AFL payroll is the opposite of this.
Most coaches would have played football and then moved straight into coaching. What would they know about conducting an investigation. I understand they have context to the inner workings of the football club but any form of investigation needs to be conducted against some form of methodology.
But independence doesn't guarantee the desired outcome. Cant have that.
- Aug 14, 2019
- 1,262
- 2,311
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The people making the accusations are now saying they will refuse to co - operate with the AFL on any investigation because they have already told their story once to Hawthorn and that should be enough. But they are demanding "accountability", or in other words they want the people they are accusing to be sacked purely on the basis of them being accused. This is what Jon Ralph is reporting. As of two days ago McLachlan said that Hawthorn were still refusing to give the AFL the report and supporting documentation nor the identities of the people making the accusations.
Hawthorn are a disgrace of an organisation. They are now backpedalling and saying it was a "truth seeking exercise" and "not a report". Because they did not adhere to any of the basic standards required for it to be called a report. It sounds like all they did was interview a handful of people, gather up the accusations and then leak it to the ABC in the middle of grand final week. Don't forget that. Hawthorn leaked this to left wing media before even telling the AFL nor the people accused that they had been accused of anything. Furthermore the people making the accusations were not required to sign statutory declerations. This means there are no consequences for them if they have lied or exaggerated. If this was any kind of reasonable process then as soon as people start making serious accusations against others they are asked to sign statutory declerations. That means they have committed perjury if they lie. It imposes a potential cost on the person making the accusation and starts sorting the wheat from the chaf. Lets see if the person sticks to their story once there are serious consequences for lying or exaggerating. And that is not being racist, that is just basic common sense and convention in these situations no matter what the race of the people involved is. If you go to the police and accuse another person of a serious crime the first thing they will do is make you make a statutory decleration.
Hawthorn should have informed the people making the accusations that they would not be acted on if they were not prepared to sign stat decs and participate in a formal AFL run investigation. Because they can't be. You can not fire Clarkson or Fagan without giving them due process. Then informed the accused of what the accusations are and given them right of reply or right to be interviewed and put their side and then passed it on to the AFL and maintained confidentiality with no media leaks.
I also find the lack of context regarding these conversations in the ABC report to be a clear tell that the ABC version is far from the truth. Context matters a lot. For example, who brought up the issue or option of abortion. Did Clarkson and Fagan walk into a room, start the conversation and tell the player concerned that they needed to make their girlfriend have an abortion and don't take no for an answer, or did the player go to the club and say his girlfriend is accidently pregnant and one of the options they are considering is abortion and Clarkson/Fagan told them if they decided to go for an abortion the AFL's health policy for players includes reproductive health issues and the club will organise and pay for it if that is what they decide to do? Those are two totally different conversations and we don't know which end of the spectrum the truth is closer to because no context has been offered in what has been leaked. And since the people who leaked it clearly want to scalp the accused men, as does the ABC, to me that means that the context probably doesn't support the outcome they want from this if it has been deliberately omitted from the leaks.
The likely outcome of this is that no action is taken against Clarkson or Fagan because nothing can be substantiated or proven, or whatever is substantiated is not a crime or breach of the AFL code and so they can't be fired. But they have to continue on with this mud that they can't wash off that has been thrown at them, and the sport in general will have some of this mud stick to it, and GF week was ruined. McLachlan should ask the Hawthorn CEO for his resignation for mishandling this so badly.
Hawthorn are a disgrace of an organisation. They are now backpedalling and saying it was a "truth seeking exercise" and "not a report". Because they did not adhere to any of the basic standards required for it to be called a report. It sounds like all they did was interview a handful of people, gather up the accusations and then leak it to the ABC in the middle of grand final week. Don't forget that. Hawthorn leaked this to left wing media before even telling the AFL nor the people accused that they had been accused of anything. Furthermore the people making the accusations were not required to sign statutory declerations. This means there are no consequences for them if they have lied or exaggerated. If this was any kind of reasonable process then as soon as people start making serious accusations against others they are asked to sign statutory declerations. That means they have committed perjury if they lie. It imposes a potential cost on the person making the accusation and starts sorting the wheat from the chaf. Lets see if the person sticks to their story once there are serious consequences for lying or exaggerating. And that is not being racist, that is just basic common sense and convention in these situations no matter what the race of the people involved is. If you go to the police and accuse another person of a serious crime the first thing they will do is make you make a statutory decleration.
Hawthorn should have informed the people making the accusations that they would not be acted on if they were not prepared to sign stat decs and participate in a formal AFL run investigation. Because they can't be. You can not fire Clarkson or Fagan without giving them due process. Then informed the accused of what the accusations are and given them right of reply or right to be interviewed and put their side and then passed it on to the AFL and maintained confidentiality with no media leaks.
I also find the lack of context regarding these conversations in the ABC report to be a clear tell that the ABC version is far from the truth. Context matters a lot. For example, who brought up the issue or option of abortion. Did Clarkson and Fagan walk into a room, start the conversation and tell the player concerned that they needed to make their girlfriend have an abortion and don't take no for an answer, or did the player go to the club and say his girlfriend is accidently pregnant and one of the options they are considering is abortion and Clarkson/Fagan told them if they decided to go for an abortion the AFL's health policy for players includes reproductive health issues and the club will organise and pay for it if that is what they decide to do? Those are two totally different conversations and we don't know which end of the spectrum the truth is closer to because no context has been offered in what has been leaked. And since the people who leaked it clearly want to scalp the accused men, as does the ABC, to me that means that the context probably doesn't support the outcome they want from this if it has been deliberately omitted from the leaks.
The likely outcome of this is that no action is taken against Clarkson or Fagan because nothing can be substantiated or proven, or whatever is substantiated is not a crime or breach of the AFL code and so they can't be fired. But they have to continue on with this mud that they can't wash off that has been thrown at them, and the sport in general will have some of this mud stick to it, and GF week was ruined. McLachlan should ask the Hawthorn CEO for his resignation for mishandling this so badly.
Last edited:
- Sep 21, 2004
- 39,780
- 29,969
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Norwood & Liverpool.
Gil said he had read the report though.
"AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan on Wednesday morning confirmed he’d read the report, but admitted further details in the ABC story were a “challenging, harrowing and disturbing read” and not in the Hawks-comissioned report."
Biggie
Eat better and exercise
- Moderator
- #441
Lions coach issues fresh statement, retains legal team as AFL search for panel continues
‘I intend to defend myself: Lions coach doubles down in fresh statement
www.foxsports.com.au
Hawks may be bound by conf identiality agreements with those they spoke to. Who knows? The AFL havent seen the report but Gil has read it. It is different to the ABC story.
Now the accusers will not speak.
MMMM
This is fertile ground for lawyers making big cash. I suspect the 'investigation ' is a side show to the courts/legal negotiations.
As for the concept of innocence until proven guilty - the damage is done. Thats what we do know.
Ochre
:o
He's likely to be coaching Essendon by the end of the week.
"The people making the accusations are now saying they will refuse to co - operate with the AFL on any investigation"
Getting a bit sus from the accusers side now if that's true.
Getting a bit sus from the accusers side now if that's true.
Ochre
:o
These are pretty traumatic events for the people involved, you can't blame them for not wanting to have to repeatedly tell them, especially if they understandably don't trust the AFL
Ochre
:o
They hadn't told their story at that point. There's a difference between not wanting to tell it and not wanting it to tell it repeatedly
Yeah definitely must have and still is a traumatic time for them no doubt, but I wonder if cooperation could be done through a third party or similar?
Some of your information is way off. Hawthorn handed their report to the AFL almost two weeks ago.
Nor did Hawthorn go to the ABC.
The public doesn’t know for sure at this stage, how the ABC reporter got wind of the Hawthorn report.
At this stage, all the reaction is towards the ABC, and their possible failure to let the indigenous families know what potentially lies ahead of them.
Fagan has engaged a very highly respected (and costly) Law firm and Kings Council.
Fagan issued another statement today, through his lawyers. The ABC better be ready to go to court.
