Alastair Clarkson says Jon Patton has needed time away to reflect after ‘quite immense’ public scrutiny

A fair bit to unpack in this one but:

Pretty fair that there is “”immense” public pressure” in relation to these allegations.

The League is leading the investigation, and I assume police?

I hope the club is also checking on and working with alleged victims in relation to there wellbeing.

This whole comment feels is an absolute  train wreck to me:

“These are young men that, in a lot of cases because of AFL footy, are sheltered from the real world in terms of what they have to endure,” Clarkson told SEN Breakfast. “So sometimes they’re not equipped with the coping strategies – and that’s been the case with ‘Pats’, who’s found himself on the front page of the paper.

“The investigation will determine whether that’s right or wrong, but the scrutiny that some of these footballers are under is quite immense. He’s found himself in a space where he needs some time away to reflect.

“You’ve just got to slow down and take a breath. I’m not usually too good at this, but in crises like these, it’s probably one of my strengths to slow down, take a breath, absorb all the information that’s coming our way, let the authorities make the decision.

“In ‘Hodgey’s’ case, it was the law. We didn’t need to impose any other penalties. There was a law that imposed the penalty in terms of him breaking the law and then there was the public scrutiny – and in a lot of instances, I think that’s enough punishment for anyone … it’s the public scrutiny that gets these guys more than anything else.”

 

Clarkson said the allegations against Patton were “murky territory” for those investigating.

“It’ll be a really interesting test case for what is the law around this sort of stuff,” he said. “That‘s why there’s an investigation in place and that’s why we’re at the mercy of that investigation, No. 1 to keep it private and confidential until the outcome of that is determined, but secondly to actually establish what are the standards in this sport of space.

“I know that I‘ve got my own personal standards, but I don’t know what my personal standards are in terms of the social media type of platform because it’s just so different.”

General warning to all.  Unsubstantiated rumours are not tolerated and will result in a permanent ban. No exceptions.

If this thread devolves like the last one it will be closed.

1 hour ago, Cards13 said:

Alastair Clarkson says Jon Patton has needed time away to reflect after ‘quite immense’ public scrutiny

A fair bit to unpack in this one but:

Pretty fair that there is “”immense” public pressure” in relation to these allegations.

The League is leading the investigation, and I assume police?

I hope the club is also checking on and working with alleged victims in relation to there wellbeing.

This whole comment feels is an absolute  train wreck to me:

“These are young men that, in a lot of cases because of AFL footy, are sheltered from the real world in terms of what they have to endure,” Clarkson told SEN Breakfast. “So sometimes they’re not equipped with the coping strategies – and that’s been the case with ‘Pats’, who’s found himself on the front page of the paper.

“The investigation will determine whether that’s right or wrong, but the scrutiny that some of these footballers are under is quite immense. He’s found himself in a space where he needs some time away to reflect.

“You’ve just got to slow down and take a breath. I’m not usually too good at this, but in crises like these, it’s probably one of my strengths to slow down, take a breath, absorb all the information that’s coming our way, let the authorities make the decision.

“In ‘Hodgey’s’ case, it was the law. We didn’t need to impose any other penalties. There was a law that imposed the penalty in terms of him breaking the law and then there was the public scrutiny – and in a lot of instances, I think that’s enough punishment for anyone … it’s the public scrutiny that gets these guys more than anything else.”

 

Clarkson said the allegations against Patton were “murky territory” for those investigating.

“It’ll be a really interesting test case for what is the law around this sort of stuff,” he said. “That‘s why there’s an investigation in place and that’s why we’re at the mercy of that investigation, No. 1 to keep it private and confidential until the outcome of that is determined, but secondly to actually establish what are the standards in this sport of space.

“I know that I‘ve got my own personal standards, but I don’t know what my personal standards are in terms of the social media type of platform because it’s just so different.”

This is a reflection of Clarkson's penchant for gobbledygook, where he says a lot and none of it has any substance. What is 'standards in this sport of space'?

(Clarko missed his calling, he would have been a great cop, you've heard them on the radio, seen them on the TV, the ones who 'talk' above their station, using big words when plain simple language says it way better. )

In this case, he should have switched off his capacity to explore the boundaries of linguistic comprehension and perhaps say nothing: much more eloquence there.

Edited February 6, 20214 yr by dieter

I’m a believer that AFL footballers make a lot of money for being good at footy. That doesn’t mean they should just be open season from the press no matter how well they are paid.

They have to uphold good community standards but still be treated as humans when they do stuff up.

Patton likely has punishments coming to him in various forms and fair enough.

But a lot of the media coverage was way out of line with the allegations IMO. What should be reported factually and clinically took out a nasty tabloid angle which isn’t good for anyone involved. 

Clarko’s right to support his player until all the facts are on the table. That doesn’t mean he’s covering it up or minimizing it 

I’m probably more worried about his comments about Hodge in this. They took the easy road on that one. 17 other clubs would’ve too. But probably don’t bring it up as a triumph 

24 minutes ago, dieter said:

This is a reflection of Clarkson's penchant for gobbledygook, where he says a lot and none of it has any substance.

He does a lot of that dieter.

So, are they "sheltered" or are they victims of "public scrutiny"?

?

 

3 hours ago, dieter said:

This is a reflection of Clarkson's penchant for gobbledygook, where he says a lot and none of it has any substance. What is 'standards in this sport of space'?

(Clarko missed his calling, he would have been a great cop, you've heard them on the radio, seen them on the TV, the ones who 'talk' above their station, using big words when plain simple language says it way better. )

In this case, he should have switched off his capacity to explore the boundaries of linguistic comprehension and perhaps say nothing: much more eloquence there.

Sorry Dieter but that was a generalization too far. If you had of said politician instead of "cop"  I might have agreed with you. Now I will always question your posts  based on where you think your "station" is.

4 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I’m probably more worried about his comments about Hodge in this. They took the easy road on that one. 17 other clubs would’ve too. But probably don’t bring it up as a triumph 

If I recall they had finals coming up, so whaddyaknow, we'll just leave that up to the law outside of footy, no internal suspension.

Edited February 6, 20214 yr by John Demonic

Oh dear

Over a long period of time I have noticed that reports and comments about the alleged mis-deeds of young footballers are increasingly tinged with elements of envy and resentment that the young players earn too much money for playing sport.

To me it is grossly unfair to hold them to a higher standard of behaviour just because they are perceived to be both overpaid and undeserving.

 

This sheltered/not part of society etc is rubbish.

No matter who you are, you know certain things are wrong and can end up with you in trouble with the law.

Its more they think they are so much better than the average pleb that they run the gauntlet. 
And yeah, when it hits the fan it’s public, that’s the reason clubs spend thousands of $$$ on education of players. Just seems not to work well for some.

1 hour ago, tiers said:

Over a long period of time I have noticed that reports and comments about the alleged mis-deeds of young footballers are increasingly tinged with elements of envy and resentment that the young players earn too much money for playing sport.

To me it is grossly unfair to hold them to a higher standard of behaviour just because they are perceived to be both overpaid and undeserving.

 

No one is being held to "a higher standard of behaviour" here. If anyone did what Patton is alleged to have done the strict legal consequences would be the same. The difference is that because he is a public figure the media exposure for Patton is multiplied many times over. If an unremarkable person, like any of us on this site with no public profile at all, were charged over such matters and they were substantiated in court,  there would be possibly one day's media exposure. The result would be that those who know us might become aware of the outcome. For everyone else the matter would be largely unnoticed. For someone in Patton's position there is no escaping scrutiny. That is the only difference.

Edited February 6, 20214 yr by RigidMiddleDigit

1 hour ago, tiers said:

Over a long period of time I have noticed that reports and comments about the alleged mis-deeds of young footballers are increasingly tinged with elements of envy and resentment that the young players earn too much money for playing sport.

To me it is grossly unfair to hold them to a higher standard of behaviour just because they are perceived to be both overpaid and undeserving.

 

Similarly, I've long held that there is a significant double standard in the way society and the media treats sports people compared to other high profile celebrities, particularly in the area of substance abuse.  The minute a sports person gets caught or is rumoured to have an illicit drugs issue, they become the subject of intense media pressure and public scorn, where as it pretty much seems to be a prerequisite in other industries like the performing arts and music.

1 hour ago, RigidMiddleDigit said:

For someone in Patton's position there is no escaping scrutiny. That is the only difference.

That difference is the issue. Is it fair? Not to me.

ian stewart must be grateful there was no social media in the '60s

2 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Similarly, I've long held that there is a significant double standard in the way society and the media treats sports people compared to other high profile celebrities, particularly in the area of substance abuse.  The minute a sports person gets caught or is rumoured to have an illicit drugs issue, they become the subject of intense media pressure and public scorn, where as it pretty much seems to be a prerequisite in other industries like the performing arts and music.

As athletes they should be preparing their bodies to be in peak physical condition. I don't really think smoking the odd joint or doing a few lines of coke every once in a while is a massive issue but if you've got a Ben Cousins situation or a drug impacting game day performance (either positively or negatively) then you have a problem. It's not even in the same ballpark as musicians and artists.

1 hour ago, tiers said:

That difference is the issue. Is it fair? Not to me.

So what do you expect should happen? Of course as a public figure he will be open to more scrutiny. These aren't park footballers, they're celebrities like it or not.

2 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Similarly, I've long held that there is a significant double standard in the way society and the media treats sports people compared to other high profile celebrities, particularly in the area of substance abuse.  The minute a sports person gets caught or is rumoured to have an illicit drugs issue, they become the subject of intense media pressure and public scorn, where as it pretty much seems to be a prerequisite in other industries like the performing arts and music.

I agree with that in relation to recreational drugs, although worth noting that the better player you are, the often better chances of emerging from “murky waters” with your career in tact. Look no further than Hodge as an example.

Titus O’Reilly has written a book on the subject called A Sporting Chance, where he examines everyone from famous footballers to racing identities and how they have essentially gotten away with their misdeeds due in no small part to how talented they were on the sporting field. The number of examples he provides forms quite the body of evidence.

Put simply, I don’t think Patton will get shown the same sympathy as the Warnes and Careys of the world.

2 hours ago, tiers said:

That difference is the issue. Is it fair? Not to me.

So what are you suggesting? 

I don't believe that young men should be subject to greater scrutiny and held to a higher standard than mere mortals just because they have achieved a measure of fame from their playing ability and their earning capacity.

They, too, should be allowed to grow up at their own pace and, so long as they cause no harm other than to themselves, leave them alone.

Envy and resentment have no place in our footy world.

Two things here: they are being held to the same standard as anyone else (see above) not a higher standard, and a 27 year old is beyond the "young men" label. At 20, 21, 22 you might still be graded as a bit of a goose and immature. But 27? Come on, he is a mature adult.

Indeed, if anything, people in his position are privileged, and supported in ways ordinary mortals are not, so there is no reason to cut them some slack as you're suggesting that others don't receive.

15 hours ago, dworship said:

Sorry Dieter but that was a generalization too far. If you had of said politician instead of "cop"  I might have agreed with you. Now I will always question your posts  based on where you think your "station" is.

The cop station?

16 hours ago, dworship said:

Sorry Dieter but that was a generalization too far. If you had of said politician instead of "cop"  I might have agreed with you. Now I will always question your posts  based on where you think your "station" is.

I don't mean to offend coppers: some of my best friends are policemen and women. Surely, though, you've noticed how often when they're being interviewed some of them use 'big words' when a simple word would have hit the nail on the head. That's all. As for 'had I used 'politician' instead of cop, yes, that's a given. But politicians  just lie and obfuscate. Anyway, like I say, no offence meant to the Copper Species, I love the work they do for us.

16 hours ago, dworship said:

Sorry Dieter but that was a generalization too far. If you had of said politician instead of "cop"  I might have agreed with you. Now I will always question your posts  based on where you think your "station" is.

My station, just for the record, is the whaleway station, where they weigh whales.