Melbourne player investigated over alleged assault whilst overseas

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

13 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

The AFL must be very, very careful with their decisions and public statements. Not only are they at risk of exposing identities, but also opening themselves up should they not follow due process and civil fairness

If no complaints or charges are made and the AFL decides to impose a penalty could they not be opening themselves up for defamation charges? 

[Clintosaurus 6,421]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If no complaints or charges are made and the AFL decides to impose a penalty could they not be opening themselves up for defamation charges? 

No doubt they think they can - maybe using the old favourite 'Bringing the Game Into Disrepute'. Has a bit of the extrajudicial authority about it.

[Deemania since 56 6,132]

16 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

This is the other side of the Broadcast deal. 

So much money has changed hands that the AFL is now a law unto itself. No wonder they wanted to be the Jury of Essendrug. They had to join the WADA Code. 

But this is not WADA. The AFL don’t care about laws within Countries. They will take one of their employees (players) to task regardless. 

I was waiting for this, the money paid to broadcasters was just too much. 

We don’t know what was or wasn’t done, ( i have been told who is involved)

The AFL is now “big brother”, the trade off for player wages being so high. 

I have been interested in the fact that the AFLPA have said nothing, which is why i thought this chapter was not over

A dangerous road is being carved. 

Regardless of whether anything was done, the AFL are now Lawmakers beyond the game of football. 

 

Worrying, actually alarming and to the general perception, unwarranted. It is all a prolonged media hype  to draw attention to those for whom the issue can be aggravated and aggrandised. It makes one wonder who the AFL is attempting to represent - itself and its key personnel or the governance of its teams and the general public from whence it gains its support - not its obedience. Dangerous road, indeed.

[binman 37,967]

54 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Worrying, actually alarming and to the general perception, unwarranted. It is all a prolonged media hype  to draw attention to those for whom the issue can be aggravated and aggrandised. It makes one wonder who the AFL is attempting to represent - itself and its key personnel or the governance of its teams and the general public from whence it gains its support - not its obedience. Dangerous road, indeed.

Huh?

[bush demon 1,882]

AFL supporting the alleged victim but waiting till their people get back from  holidays. Imagine this being the police line. Meanwhile the player concerned is also left in limbo. Unfair to both parties. 

[sue 8,418]

38 minutes ago, bush demon said:

AFL supporting the alleged victim but waiting till their people get back from  holidays. Imagine this being the police line. Meanwhile the player concerned is also left in limbo. Unfair to both parties. 

Another reason why these matters should be left entirely to the police.  I cannot see why the AFL should have any role in this sort of thing.  For a start their prime motivation will be protecting the image of the AFL. Fairness to the parties involved will be secondary.  And even if they were fair, I don't see why the AFL should poke its nose in until the court process is finished.

Edit to add:.  And if there is no court process, what possible role has the AFL got other than getting involved in a libel action. (Of course they could threaten an 'employee' in some way  but that is also objectionable.  If mediation is required, once again I don't see a role for AFL house which has a major conflict of interest. )

Edited January 4, 2018 by sue

[Grapeviney 8,815]

My reading of the situation here is the opposite of what others seem to think - the AFL are not going to touch this in a million years. 

This whole thing is being driven by the media, who know the full allegations and details and are ringing the MFC, AFL and VicPolice almost daily to see if there's any development.

Unless the complainant progresses with it in Bali, nothing can or will happen, and eventually all three of of MFC, AFL and VicPolice will all be able to say "we can't do anything with it' with a clean conscience. In the meantime, for reasons of both public perception and the need to treat sexual assault allegations very seriously, it's incumbent on them to "support" the alleged victim. 

[sue 8,418]

27 minutes ago, Grapeviney said:

My reading of the situation here is the opposite of what others seem to think - the AFL are not going to touch this in a million years. 

This whole thing is being driven by the media, who know the full allegations and details and are ringing the MFC, AFL and VicPolice almost daily to see if there's any development.

Unless the complainant progresses with it in Bali, nothing can or will happen, and eventually all three of of MFC, AFL and VicPolice will all be able to say "we can't do anything with it' with a clean conscience. In the meantime, for reasons of both public perception and the need to treat sexual assault allegations very seriously, it's incumbent on them to "support" the alleged victim. 

may be true.  But if so, yet again the AFL's motivation is to protect its own reputation rather than be fair to the complainant (by dragging things out) or the players involved (including those which might be the alleged perpetrator).

[Sir Why You Little 34,432]

37 minutes ago, Grapeviney said:

My reading of the situation here is the opposite of what others seem to think - the AFL are not going to touch this in a million years. 

This whole thing is being driven by the media, who know the full allegations and details and are ringing the MFC, AFL and VicPolice almost daily to see if there's any development.

Unless the complainant progresses with it in Bali, nothing can or will happen, and eventually all three of of MFC, AFL and VicPolice will all be able to say "we can't do anything with it' with a clean conscience. In the meantime, for reasons of both public perception and the need to treat sexual assault allegations very seriously, it's incumbent on them to "support" the alleged victim. 

Too much money is involved for the AFL to do nothing. 

This is exactly why the term

“bringing the game into disrepute” was invented

[loges 6,021]

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Too much money is involved for the AFL to do nothing. 

This is exactly why the term

“bringing the game into disrepute” was invented

I'm with those who can't see how the AFL can possibly adjudicate on this without some sort of police investigation.

[faultydet 7,593]

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Too much money is involved for the AFL to do nothing. 

This is exactly why the term

“bringing the game into disrepute” was invented

I cannot imagine any scenario (regarding the original accusation) where a player would be touched by those rules without a formal complaint being lodged with the appropriate department in Bali. 

Just couldn't happen.

[Ethan Tremblay 28,358]

The matter was correctly referred to the Police by the AFL. If the woman chooses to not assist Police then there is absolutely nothing the AFL can do in way of penalising the player. 

If the woman did provide a formal complaint and go through the investigation process, then the player’s club or the AFL may have chosen to stand down the player while the matter was being investigated and/or going through the court process. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Ethan Tremblay

[hardtack 10,126]

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Too much money is involved for the AFL to do nothing. 

This is exactly why the term

“bringing the game into disrepute” was invented

The problem the AFL now has it that if they truly want to protect the “victim’s” privacy, then they cannot act against a player, because as soon as the player is identified then the victim is easily identified.  Surely the “bringing the game into disrepute” path can only be taken if the case becomes public (that is, people involved are disclosed publicly)? The AFL appears to be caught up in a perfect Catch22 scenario.

Edited January 4, 2018 by hardtack

[ding 5,126]

53 minutes ago, hardtack said:

The problem the AFL now has it that if they truly want to protect the “victim’s” privacy, then they cannot act against a player, because as soon as the player is identified then the victim is easily identified.  Surely the “bringing the game into disrepute” path can only be taken if the case becomes public (that is, people involved are disclosed publicly)? The AFL appears to be caught up in a perfect Catch22 scenario.

I agree. Well sort-of.

There is no way the AFL could use the old "Bringing the game into disrepute" unless there was something disreputable that occurred. Surely no possible punishment cant be meted out, even under the "disrepute" guise, without something being proven. At minimum, there would need to be a balance of probabilities based on evidence, or it would be a total injustice. Legal types would be much better equipped to explain the possibilities, im just a Nurse.

Anyway, no evidence = no disrepute. Public or not, the AFL cant do very much without it i reckon.

Otherwise, it's just he-said she-said, and you couldn't punish anyone based on that.

Could you? 

Dunno, guess we will see.

[faultydet 7,593]

4 hours ago, sue said:

Another reason why these matters should be left entirely to the police.  I cannot see why the AFL should have any role in this sort of thing.  For a start their prime motivation will be protecting the image of the AFL. Fairness to the parties involved will be secondary.  And even if they were fair, I don't see why the AFL should poke its nose in until the court process is finished.

Edit to add:.  And if there is no court process, what possible role has the AFL got other than getting involved in a libel action. (Of course they could threaten an 'employee' in some way  but that is also objectionable.  If mediation is required, once again I don't see a role for AFL house which has a major conflict of interest. )

 

11 minutes ago, ding said:

I agree. Well sort-of.

There is no way the AFL could use the old "Bringing the game into disrepute" unless there was something disreputable that occurred. Surely no possible punishment cant be meted out, even under the "disrepute" guise, without something being proven. At minimum, there would need to be a balance of probabilities based on evidence, or it would be a total injustice. Legal types would be much better equipped to explain the possibilities, im just a Nurse.

Anyway, no evidence = no disrepute. Public or not, the AFL cant do very much without it i reckon.

Otherwise, it's just he-said she-said, and you couldn't punish anyone based on that.

Could you? 

Dunno, guess we will see.

Ding, meet Sue.

I think Sue is a legal type? Dunno, but seems to have a firm grip of reality in this case.

[Sir Why You Little 34,432]

3 hours ago, faultydet said:

I cannot imagine any scenario (regarding the original accusation) where a player would be touched by those rules without a formal complaint being lodged with the appropriate department in Bali. 

Just couldn't happen.

But from what was written up yesterday, The AFL are going to go it alone. 

That’s why this conversation continues

[Deestar9 1,402]

2 hours ago, ding said:

I agree. Well sort-of.

There is no way the AFL could use the old "Bringing the game into disrepute" unless there was something disreputable that occurred. Surely no possible punishment cant be meted out, even under the "disrepute" guise, without something being proven. At minimum, there would need to be a balance of probabilities based on evidence, or it would be a total injustice. Legal types would be much better equipped to explain the possibilities, im just a Nurse.

Anyway, no evidence = no disrepute. Public or not, the AFL cant do very much without it i reckon.

Otherwise, it's just he-said she-said, and you couldn't punish anyone based on that.

Could you? 

Dunno, guess we will see.

Ask yourselves this ...if your daughter/sister...friend etc was the victim of this “alleged “ complaint but chose not to pursue it through the courts and put herself through even more angst and degradation but instead went to the “employer” of her “alleged “ attacker & stated her case & then asked them to investigate & to see if the “employee “ fits into the standards & ethics that the organisation stands for then so be it... I can absolutely understand a woman not wanting to drag this through a court but the investigation will be thorough & just because it won’t go to court doesn’t mean that the “alleged” offender should get off scott free... surely any self respecting individual would want some form of justice?  I would be extremely surprised if the AFL or the club will make any of this public & neither should they ...but don’t kid yourselves that this is a lot of “nothing “ 

[Ethan Tremblay 28,358]

Take the emotion out of it Deestar. 

It’s a matter for the Police and there’s been no offical complaint from the woman. It’s not up to the AFL to punish the ‘alleged offender’ because you feel he shouldn’t get off ‘scott free’.

You’ve put yourself in the woman’s shoes, do the same for the player. Would you want your employer determining your guilt based on a half baked investigation? Without going too much into a sex assault investigation, a lot more goes into one than just interviewing those concerned. The AFL can’t do much more than that.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Ethan Tremblay

[pineapple dee 2,892]

For goodness sake, can we shut down this nonsensical thread which will reveal and shed light on absolutely nothing at all. It is just going around and around in circles.

[ding 5,126]

1 hour ago, Deestar9 said:

Ask yourselves this ...if your daughter/sister...friend etc was the victim of this “alleged “ complaint but chose not to pursue it through the courts and put herself through even more angst and degradation but instead went to the “employer” of her “alleged “ attacker & stated her case & then asked them to investigate & to see if the “employee “ fits into the standards & ethics that the organisation stands for then so be it... I can absolutely understand a woman not wanting to drag this through a court but the investigation will be thorough & just because it won’t go to court doesn’t mean that the “alleged” offender should get off scott free... surely any self respecting individual would want some form of justice?  I would be extremely surprised if the AFL or the club will make any of this public & neither should they ...but don’t kid yourselves that this is a lot of “nothing “ 

Well, no. 

It's up to the coppers to investigate, not the workplace. If the police don't have allegations to work with, that's where it will end. No formal complaint from an alleged victim, and there is nothing to go on.

Too many people have already made their mind up that someone needs to be punished. Based on nothing more than newspaper articles which dont provide anything more than someones "opinion".

No complaint = no investigation = no finding of guilt = no punishment.

You know, the law and everything.

 

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

18 hours ago, faultydet said:

Civil fairness?

 

Care to explain what you mean by this?

 

Are you inventing a new legal standard?

Procedural fairness?

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

1 hour ago, Deestar9 said:

Ask yourselves this ...if your daughter/sister...friend etc was the victim of this “alleged “ complaint but chose not to pursue it through the courts and put herself through even more angst and degradation but instead went to the “employer” of her “alleged “ attacker & stated her case & then asked them to investigate & to see if the “employee “ fits into the standards & ethics that the organisation stands for then so be it... I can absolutely understand a woman not wanting to drag this through a court but the investigation will be thorough & just because it won’t go to court doesn’t mean that the “alleged” offender should get off scott free... surely any self respecting individual would want some form of justice?  I would be extremely surprised if the AFL or the club will make any of this public & neither should they ...but don’t kid yourselves that this is a lot of “nothing “ 

Unless the matter is sent through the appropriate authorities, and possibly even if it is, then it is nothing more than he said/she said situation. Unless the player admits to any kind of inappropriate behaviour how will they determine guilt? Does he have no recourse to defend himself? Is the alleged victim going to submit to medical testing and cross examination/investigation or whatever else is usual in these cases?

This is not to downplay the behaviour but just to look at it from a legal perspective. Before any punishment can be issued it is surely imperative that guilt is determined.

[Moonshadow 16,162]

The only way the AFL can go it alone without Vic Pol or Bali Pol is if they have a watertight clause in player contacts which says they can do whatever the f*** they like and everything and  everyone else can suck s***. Otherwise they better have massively deep pockets because both parties will sure them to kingdom come and back again

Edited January 4, 2018 by Moonshadow

[bing181 8,164]

The AFL are pretty clear:

"Our sport is committed to addressing the cultural issues that cause harm to women and girls. We know that it requires policies, procedures, education and leadership to address those issues.

This policy is about making sure that if and when we face incidents in our game that have harmed women, we have a transparent and trustworthy process to deal with complaints.

The new policy includes:

• A clear complaint, investigation and support protocol
• The ability for members of the public to complain
• Increased oversight by the AFL's integrity unit
• Principles and objectives for disciplinary responses to harassment and violence against women
• Maintenance and review mechanisms

"We know that football has fallen down in the past on the management of incidents involving harmful attitudes or actions towards girls and women. We need to send a message that individuals will be treated fairly and ensure they are provided with appropriate support."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-11-16/transparent-trustworthy-afls-new-respect-policy

 

[rjay 23,888]

3 hours ago, bing181 said:

The AFL are pretty clear:

"Our sport is committed to addressing the cultural issues that cause harm to women and girls. We know that it requires policies, procedures, education and leadership to address those issues.

This policy is about making sure that if and when we face incidents in our game that have harmed women, we have a transparent and trustworthy process to deal with complaints.

The new policy includes:

• A clear complaint, investigation and support protocol
• The ability for members of the public to complain
• Increased oversight by the AFL's integrity unit
• Principles and objectives for disciplinary responses to harassment and violence against women
• Maintenance and review mechanisms

"We know that football has fallen down in the past on the management of incidents involving harmful attitudes or actions towards girls and women. We need to send a message that individuals will be treated fairly and ensure they are provided with appropriate support."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-11-16/transparent-trustworthy-afls-new-respect-policy

 

Sorry 'bing', it might be a bit early in the morning for me but that doesn't clarify anything at all.

Lots of nice words like...protocol, integrity, mechanisms, sending a message & appropriate support though.

Sounds like 'Dill' speak to me.

Edited January 4, 2018 by rjay