23 hours ago, loges said:

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

Well of course they can.

They have done it before.

Boot studders laying $2 bets.

Ricky Nixon and the St Kilda school girl.

Recent hanky panky at AFL house with Lethlean and some other guy.

The AFL took action of their own volition in those cases.

But these are all when the balance of power has rested with them. Boot studders don't have much comeback against the might of the AFL legal section, which probably takes up as many storeys as all the rest of the organisation combined.

A down and out Ricky Nixon is a pretty soft target especially when the AFL probably felt like getting rid of him anyway.

Lethlean ... was embarrassed by the story breaking, doesn't have much comeback, plus the AFL like to position themselves as social leaders, so they have the stronger hand.

Now when we come to something like Dustin Martin and his chopsticks ... there was police involvement. What happened? Only a very few people know. (I’m not one of them.) But going after a big name player, at a big club ... with the media behind them ... means that the AFL would want to be very certain of their facts.

They could easily leave themselves open to counter charges ... legal ones ... and every Richmond-supporting lawyer in Victoria would be weighing in.

As it turned out, it was reported that the AFL leaned on the girl to "make her aware" that her life "might" become pretty "uncomfortable" if she did try to take things further.

When faced with a murkier and more difficult situation, suddenly they weren't quite the social warriors any more.

Now ... it is possible for things to happen and not be proven in a court. Or even get near a court.

The AFL are free to conduct their own investigations and decide for themselves if things did or did not happen, in their judgement. And take action. Fairly or unfairly.

What they cannot do is control the consequences.

They would want to be very very very careful in this Bali case.

If the victim does not want to take it further, it is difficult for a 3rd party to do so. And then to get a satisfactory outcome is even harder.

(For the record: I do not know what happened, who supposedly was involved, or even if something happened at all. I have not even heard rumours of names. All I know is what’s been in the papers.)

If the AFL are going to pursue this -- worst case scenario -- if they're going to take away a player's career and reputation, with effects ongoing into his after-footy life (depending on the seriousness of the charge), they may find that it is themselves bringing the game into disrepute. Because it is them bringing into the light something which the police won't, something murky and likely unprovable.

In this case. It could be a big name.  The backlash could be huge. There's a lot at stake when it comes to running a player out of the game when nothing's proven. Even if the AFL believe the victim. It's a hell of a precedent.

When the balance of power is not nearly so slanted heavily in the AFL's favour, they take the course of least resistance. Which will end up being "nothing to see here".

If the player is a lesser light, one seen as expendable, the AFL may give them a public shaming, with a POW confession of crimes and begging for forgiveness.

But even if their investigations come to nothing, names will be leaked as "under suspicion".

The AFL could well light a fire that gets out of control, and burns everyone, including them.

The one thing that is sure, is that we will find out who the suspected player is -- by that I mean whose name has been floated on the grape vine -- because they will cop the Stevie Milne treatment. As soon as the teams run on to the ground in round 1, every nuffy and idjit will be screaming abuse and delivering their personal version of instant karma to the player. Mick Malthouse might even chime in. That's something that no-one can control. And it will never go away. Innocent or not.

 

48 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Well of course they can.

They have done it before.

Boot studders laying $2 bets.

Ricky Nixon and the St Kilda school girl.

Recent hanky panky at AFL house with Lethlean and some other guy.

The AFL took action of their own volition in those cases.

The difference is, none of the examples you mention are criminal offences. Hence why this one was referred to VicPol.

52 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

The difference is, none of the examples you mention are criminal offences. Hence why this one was referred to VicPol.

Ricky Nixon's hair should definitely be a criminal offence, Eth.

Unless the woman requests the AFL to take action and the player admits guilt or there is clear evidence of guilt, I cannot see how this can go any further, thst is, beyond rampant rumour mongering, which is a given in any case

21 hours ago, pineapple dee said:

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.

I've been meaning to do this for a few days. 

Locked until further notice/developments.