Jump to content

Hawks racism allegations (merged thread)

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

11 minutes ago, rjay said:

Who could blame them.

I don't trust the AFL either, history shows they have never got it right...despite all the chances they've had.

The more serious concern in terms of trying to get a resolution is that the indigenous families don't wish to testify or for the issues to go into the legal system (according to John Ralph).

Without them telling their stories to a representative body Clarkson, Burt and Fagan will forever stay accused and don't get the opportunity to put their case.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     

    For any panel to be both credible and independent it should eschew the appointment of any person who might be seen as having, to use the legal term, an "apprehension of bias" by the public and the football community.

    This principle would exclude any club officials, discrimination officers, aboriginal members and coaches representatives and also any attempt to introduce a gender balance.

    A truly independent and credible panel should be comprised of independent outsiders who have an open mind, no preconceived notions and the ability to frame their investigations and questions to all participants with a view to establishing the facts.

    Once the facts are established, all those who might otherwise have seemed worthy of a place on the panel, ie. those who might be seen as biased, should be available to provide background and interpretation for the benefit of the panel.

    If, as reported, the complainants no longer want to proceed with a further investigation, the investigation by the panel must still go ahead if only to protect the coaches' interests.

    Gil and the AFL board have to make it work.

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    6 minutes ago, BDA said:

    Adelaide conducted a review of the infamous preseason camp. The conclusion was nothing to see here. No wonder these families have reservations 

    It is understandable the indigenous families feel the Adelaide camp is a good example of the 'system' having failed them.  Not only did the AFL Integrity Unit find nothing to see, Work Safe SA also gave the all clear.

    As I mentioned it is hard to see how the AFL will even get to first base to set up a panel.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
     
    2 minutes ago, tiers said:

    For any panel to be both credible and independent it should eschew the appointment of any person who might be seen as having, to use the legal term, an "apprehension of bias" by the public and the football community.

    This principle would exclude any club officials, discrimination officers, aboriginal members and coaches representatives and also any attempt to introduce a gender balance.

    A truly independent and credible panel should be comprised of independent outsiders who have an open mind, no preconceived notions and the ability to frame their investigations and questions to all participants with a view to establishing the facts.

    Once the facts are established, all those who might otherwise have seemed worthy of a place on the panel, ie. those who might be seen as biased, should be available to provide background and interpretation for the benefit of the panel.

    If, as reported, the complainants no longer want to proceed with a further investigation, the investigation by the panel must still go ahead if only to protect the coaches' interests.

    Gil and the AFL board have to make it work.

    Serious question:  who would qualify for the panel with those criteria?

  • Quote
    • Thanks 1
    15 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

    The more serious concern in terms of trying to get a resolution is that the indigenous families don't wish to testify or for the issues to go into the legal system (according to John Ralph).

    Without them telling their stories to a representative body Clarkson, Burt and Fagan will forever stay accused and don't get the opportunity to put their case.

    They might just say bad luck...you sort it out AFL, you weren't there when needed you. Never have been for all your tokenism.

    Backed Eddie M & others before him.

    Who helped Goodes when he was left out on a limb?

    Who helped Eddie B?

    I can totally understand their reticence.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Love 2

    6 minutes ago, rjay said:

    They might just say bad luck...you sort it out AFL, you weren't there when needed you. Never have been for all your tokenism.

    Backed Eddie M & others before him.

    Who helped Goodes when he was left out on a limb?

    Who helped Eddie B?

    I can totally understand their reticence.

    If It wasn't clear I 100% understand their reticence and share their doubts about the AFL it having failed them many many times but you are missing my point about a way to get to a resolution. 

    Anyway, I've posted the information that has come up today.  People can interpret it how they wish but just note the last thing I'm doing is defending the AFL and the quoted post makes it look like I do.  I don't.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    37 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

    Serious question:  who would qualify for the panel with those criteria?

    Not many. Although I expect that there would be any number of experienced senior people with a judicial, administrative or management background that are not connected to footy who would qualify.

    I don't believe that the AFL would be looking in this direction as they seem to be looking elsewhere. Pity.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     

    It's the problem with the AFL's short term management of the various issues that have popped up. It's all very well and good to make an issue go away by managing the issue in the short term (Goodes, Adelaide camp, Lumumba, etc) or by providing platitudes that don't require follow though (indigenous round, Dreamtime, etc), but when you need something from those whose issues you have been managing away, that lack of trust means that there's no genuine relationship. 

    The families have every right, now, to say to the AFL that "We've told our stories but we don't trust you to act in our best interests, so #$%^ off". 

    This is not their issue anymore, it's the AFL's. It's up to the AFL to repair the relationship with the indigenous community through genuine actions in the best interests of the indigenous community, which would only make an impact (slowly) over the longer term. There will, however, still be many whose bridges the AFL cannot unburn. 

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    • Thanks 1
    • Love 1
    3 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

    ....

    The families have every right, now, to say to the AFL that "We've told our stories but we don't trust you to act in our best interests, so #$%^ off". 

    ...

    The difficulty is greater than that I fear.  My first thought when the AFL said it would investigate was "Will these people really want to go through this all again in a more public way, especially if some smooth-talking lawyer gets to cross-examine them".   Now maybe the AFL review won't go that way, but if it does I suspect this will not end well for anyone.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    48 minutes ago, tiers said:

    This principle would exclude any club officials, discrimination officers, aboriginal members and coaches representatives and also any attempt to introduce a gender balance.

    How is the panel supposed to understand the issues and the perspectives if there are no indigenous people or football people on the panel? And how would either side accept the outcome if there's nobody on the panel that can understand their perspective?

    Independent doesn't have to be synonymous with ignorant (ie, the panel, not you). 

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
    53 minutes ago, sue said:

    The difficulty is greater than that I fear.  My first thought when the AFL said it would investigate was "Will these people really want to go through this all again in a more public way, especially if some smooth-talking lawyer gets to cross-examine them".   Now maybe the AFL review won't go that way, but if it does I suspect this will not end well for anyone.

    well, in the interests of justice for everyone i can't see how cross examination (of both accused and accuser) can be avoided, given very specific and serious accusations have been made. Unfortunately accusations can't just be left hanging in the air so to speak, they have to be tested rigorously in a fair legal process, uncomfortable or not.

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

    If It wasn't clear I 100% understand their reticence and share their doubts about the AFL it having failed them many many times but you are missing my point about a way to get to a resolution. 

    Anyway, I've posted the information that has come up today.  People can interpret it how they wish but just note the last thing I'm doing is defending the AFL and the quoted post makes it look like I do.  I don't.

    No, I get your point (and understand it's Ralphy's article) it's just that I don't think they believe there will be a fair resolution so why put yourself through it.

    I appreciate you posting the information..

  • Quote
    • Thanks 1

    3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

    Unfortunately accusations can't just be left hanging in the air so to speak, they have to be tested rigorously in a fair legal process, uncomfortable or not.

    They can be left hanging and don't have to be tested unless someone wants to take the issue through the courts.

    The AFL have no jurisdiction over the families involved.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

    well, in the interests of justice for everyone i can't see how cross examination (of both accused and accuser) can be avoided, given very specific and serious accusations have been made. Unfortunately accusations can't just be left hanging in the air so to speak, they have to be tested rigorously in a fair legal process, uncomfortable or not.

    True. What I meant by 'may not end well for anyone' was that the complainants may refuse to enter into such a process and so there may be no resolution.

  • Quote
    4 minutes ago, sue said:

    True. What I meant by 'may not end well for anyone' was that the complainants may refuse to enter into such a process and so there may be no resolution.

    yes i agree that's a real possibility

    and no resolution could lead to all sorts of problems i don't want to speculate on

  • Quote
    2 hours ago, BDA said:

    Adelaide conducted a review of the infamous preseason camp. The conclusion was nothing to see here. No wonder these families have reservations 

    Was thinking exactly the same thing.

    I'd add that the AFL were happy to leave it there, even though from the get go there was talk of cultural insensitivities.

    Which opened the door for the ****knuckles running the camp to take the age to court for their reporting on the camp.

    And the Age folded, only for eddy to reveal more of what went on and basically backing up Sam McClure's initial reporting.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    2 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

    It's the problem with the AFL's short term management of the various issues that have popped up. It's all very well and good to make an issue go away by managing the issue in the short term (Goodes, Adelaide camp, Lumumba, etc) or by providing platitudes that don't require follow though (indigenous round, Dreamtime, etc), but when you need something from those whose issues you have been managing away, that lack of trust means that there's no genuine relationship. 

    The families have every right, now, to say to the AFL that "We've told our stories but we don't trust you to act in our best interests, so #$%^ off". 

    This is not their issue anymore, it's the AFL's. It's up to the AFL to repair the relationship with the indigenous community through genuine actions in the best interests of the indigenous community, which would only make an impact (slowly) over the longer term. There will, however, still be many whose bridges the AFL cannot unburn. 

    Totally agree with all of the above.

    I'd add that it won't be long before some tool in the media will says clarkson and pagan are the real victims.

    Edited by binman

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    If the AFL manage to sweep this under a rug, I’ll be furious. I can understand completely if the families involved don’t want to go into the courts as they will not win, regardless of the outcome.

    I do believe there is a genuine chance for the AFL to make a statement and influence a huge audience for future generations. Like it or not, we all need to be better with how we treat people and culturally we could improve immensely as a population.

    This should not happen to anyone, from any background, yet the fact it may have been happening, in a very formal manner, just a few years ago, is truly horrifying.

     

     

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    2 hours ago, Roost it far said:

    Does anyone else find it odd that the AFL is in charge of investigating the AFL?

     

    No surprise the Essendon players were found not guilty.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    The indigenous players' version of events, or ''their story'' as I keep reading on here, need to be fully tested.

    There seems to be a presumption that their accounts are beyond scrutiny and are to be accepted as fact.  This doesn't sit well with me.

    I look forward to seeing how these accusations play out with both parties having a fully transparent and fair hearing.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
     
    4 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

    There seems to be a presumption that their accounts are beyond scrutiny and are to be accepted as fact.

    No there isn't.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Thanks 4
    1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

    No there isn't.

    It's most definitely an undercurrent throughout many of the posts across these 26 pages.

    Otherwise, I wouldn't be here.

     

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 2

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

      It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 224 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Collingwood

      It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
      The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
      Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

        • Thanks
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

        • Thanks
      • 216 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

        • Thanks
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

        • Thanks
      • 4 replies
      Demonland
    View All