The AFL is a farce: How can it investigate Hawthorn for "bringing the game into disrepute" when its own racism investigation made no findings of any sort.?

12 hours ago, redandbluemakepurple said:

If I may have a attempt Old55, the AFL should have wrapped this up more rapidly.

First up, their investigations officer should have interviewed all parties individually asap with or without their lawyer as they choose.

When it came apparent that their stories were incompatible and one side didn't want to meet the other side, the AFL should quickly have said that the basic facts could not be agreed and no further action was possible. 

The appointment of a panel of lawyers had no prospect of success. Gill's statement that "this is what they asked for" ducks responsibility. 

So no further action unless someone sues.  Then the jury will be able to look into their faces and work out who was gutted and who is defensive/ashamed.  I suspect that there won't be cases.  The interview with the  former Hawthorn football club welfare manager Jason Burt suggests that they should keep their heads down.

So Gill that is another big fail after Lamumba, Goodes, Rioli(?), etc.  The system to support indigenous and/or immature and/or isolated players is broken and you do not seem to care.  Sling me or many others some of your salary and we would tell you how to fix it.

Thanks for at least making an attempt to describe an alternative path the AFL could have taken, rather than just saying they should have taken some nebulous "action".

The problem with your suggestion is that the AFL couldn't compel all parties to participate.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-does-deal-with-families-to-end-hawthorn-investigation-20230530-p5dclq.html

"The Hawks review was sparked by an interview in The Age in April last year with Hawks champion Cyril Rioli and his wife, Shannyn Ah Sam-Rioli, in which they said they were poorly treated during Cyril’s playing career, and in which Shannyn said she was “belittled and humiliated”.

The couple did not feature in the ABC report but later joined the players and partners known by pseudonyms Ian, Liam and Jacqui in making submissions to the AFL inquiry.

The complainants, known by the pseudonyms Zac and Kylie, opted out of the AFL process, their legal representative questioning its independence."

And AFAIK - Clarkson, Fagan and Burt would not appear before the AFL investigation or mediate until they received documentation from HFC, which ultimately amounted to 37,000 documents.  The complainants did not agree to the release of this documentation because they believed it contained private and confidential information.

I'm persuaded by conversations elsewhere on the topic that the best course of action for the AFL would have been to acknowledge the seriousness of the allegations and recommend to the complainants that they take the matter to the Australian Human Rights Commission - the most appropriate body to address the matter.

I recognise that this would have been out of character for the AFL who always try to control the narrative and would have opened them up to erroneous criticisms that they "shirked responsibility" and more strident calls that they "threw Clarkson, Fagan and Burt under the bus". But it was the right thing to do.

 

16 hours ago, beelzebub said:

You cant find what essentially isnt there.

If the accusers weren't prepared to go on record,  test their case in court,  then there IS nothing.

People can hypothesise to their hearts desire .

For something adverse to have been found, something would at least have to been  substantiated. Accusations alone are not substantive.

I don't really want to go too much into this as it's another issue altogether but this is why I was disappointed that Heritier Lumumba didn't take part in the Do Better report. I'm not going to attack him for it as I'm sure there were reasons why but I just can't see how these things can be resolved if you're not willing to tell your side of the story. 

It's a disappointing end to it all.

Said from day naught that the leaking of the review would ultimately undermine the whole process. Low and behold, we have gotten to the point where we are none the wiser and everyone (accused, complainants, AFL, footyclubs) has suffered as a result. 

https://about.abc.net.au/statements/abc-statement-on-russell-jacksons-reporting/

7 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

https://about.abc.net.au/statements/abc-statement-on-russell-jacksons-reporting/

I dont think Russell Jackson (The reporter ) was the main issue - it was the individuals within the footy club (presumably) that leaked the details that are to blame here. Russell was just doing his job as a journo. One could question his ethics though as he would have presumably been made aware that the alleged had not been afforded the opportunity to provide their responses to the allegations within the review process and not have that play out in the media as it is not a thorough and fair process.

 

 

Fundamentally the HFC have a problem.  

You can't receive an allegation and run an investigation over a number of months and then refer that investigation to a parent body for further action without giving the subjects of the allegation the 'right' to understand that a) they were the subject of the investigation and b) an opportunity to respond to the allegations.  That in any language is a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.  

It wouldn't surprise me if Clarkson, Fagan and Burt sued the HFC for substantial damages. 

5 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I dont think Russell Jackson (The reporter ) was the main issue - it was the individuals within the footy club (presumably) that leaked the details that are to blame here. Russell was just doing his job as a journo. One could question his ethics though as he would have presumably been made aware that the alleged had not been afforded the opportunity to provide their responses to the allegations within the review process and not have that play out in the media as it is not a thorough and fair process.

 

 

Very pertinent point. Hard to see how he comes back from that.

14 minutes ago, grazman said:

It wouldn't surprise me if Clarkson, Fagan and Burt sued the HFC for substantial damages. 

Hawthorn may might not have the money.

Probably better to sue the wealthy AFL.

5 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I dont think Russell Jackson (The reporter ) was the main issue - it was the individuals within the footy club (presumably) that leaked the details that are to blame here. Russell was just doing his job as a journo. One could question his ethics though as he would have presumably been made aware that the alleged had not been afforded the opportunity to provide their responses to the allegations within the review process and not have that play out in the media as it is not a thorough and fair process.

 

 

absolutely

egan sold the report and everything else after it is a result of that

hawthorn set this up, hawthorn failed their former and current people, and hawthorn washed their hands of it when it got 'hard'

they're the family club if the family club was the corleone family

"i know it was you fredo; you broke my heart"

12 minutes ago, deefender said:

Hawthorn may might not have the money.

Probably better to sue the wealthy AFL.

Why not both .....

43 minutes ago, deefender said:

Hawthorn may might not have the money.

Probably better to sue the wealthy AFL.

Except the AFL have played a straight bat.  They gave all three parties the opportunity to respond to the allegations and at the conclusion had no adverse findings to deliver... hard to sue them in that regards.  No the real issue is how the HFC have managed this from the outset. 

44 minutes ago, grazman said:

Except the AFL have played a straight bat.  They gave all three parties the opportunity to respond to the allegations and at the conclusion had no adverse findings to deliver... hard to sue them in that regards.  No the real issue is how the HFC have managed this from the outset. 

except it's not so simple. the 3 accused no longer worked for the hfc so they had no hold over them. the 3 accused would have no obligation to give their side of the story to a private club review. i can well imagine what a lawyer would advise them.

it's understandable given the serious accusations that hfc did not have the expertise to handle them and handballed to the afl who have a special integrity department on which the clubs rely. the afl was stupid enough to take it on board directly when they should have advised the accusations should be taken to the hrc or worksafe or somewhere else more applicable to a legal process.

15 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

except it's not so simple. the 3 accused no longer worked for the hfc so they had no hold over them. the 3 accused would have no obligation to give their side of the story to a private club review. i can well imagine what a lawyer would advise them.

it's understandable given the serious accusations that hfc did not have the expertise to handle them and handballed to the afl who have a special integrity department on which the clubs rely. the afl was stupid enough to take it on board directly when they should have advised the accusations should be taken to the hrc or worksafe or somewhere else more applicable to a legal process.

And now Dill has suggested that Hawthorn could be given a wack !!!!!

FMD !!! What a beautiful system!

16 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

And now Dill has suggested that Hawthorn could be given a wack !!!!!

FMD !!! What a beautiful system!

i think dill's problem with the dorks is he is mad that they took on a process without predicting the outcome, hence tarnishing the afl, which is something he'd never do. it's the old "never ask a question if you don't know the answer" or can't keep it in-house.

15 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i think dill's problem with the dorks is he is mad that they took on a process without predicting the outcome, hence tarnishing the afl, which is something he'd never do. it's the old "never ask a question if you don't know the answer" or can't keep it in-house.

I know you're beyond cliches dc .....but .... 

"You couldn't script this stuff "

53 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

And now Dill has suggested that Hawthorn could be given a wack !!!!!

FMD !!! What a beautiful system!

HFC deserve a full whack. They screwed up all the way through.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

except it's not so simple. the 3 accused no longer worked for the hfc so they had no hold over them. the 3 accused would have no obligation to give their side of the story to a private club review. i can well imagine what a lawyer would advise them.

it's understandable given the serious accusations that hfc did not have the expertise to handle them and handballed to the afl who have a special integrity department on which the clubs rely. the afl was stupid enough to take it on board directly when they should have advised the accusations should be taken to the hrc or worksafe or somewhere else more applicable to a legal process.

I think you misunderstood, it’s not about whether they were still working at Hawthorn that is relevant, or whether they chose to participate or not in the investigation by the HFC - which is their right.
 

It’s that Hawthorn investigated their past actions and made recommendations based on the findings without ever telling them they were being investigated in the first place or gave them the opportunity to give their side of the story. That’s not a convention or a courtesy, it’s a legal right. This is a clear breach of procedural fairness and natural justice.

Edited June 1, 20232 yr by grazman

43 minutes ago, grazman said:

I think you misunderstood, it’s not about whether they were still working at Hawthorn that is relevant, or whether they chose to participate or not in the investigation by the HFC - which is their right.
 

It’s that Hawthorn investigated their past actions and made recommendations based on the findings without ever telling them they were being investigated in the first place or gave them the opportunity to give their side of the story. That’s not a convention or a courtesy, it’s a legal right. This is a clear breach of procedural fairness and natural justice.

of course, if they didn't inform them of the accusations i would agree it's not procedural fairness.  however, they might claim they just flicked those procedures (wrt the accused) to the afl integrity unit when they realised they were out of their depth and competence. 

but what are these "recommendations based on the findings" you talk about? also what are these "findings" you claim the hfc reached. I understood they made no findings (other than they had a problem)

Edited June 1, 20232 yr by daisycutter

Dr Sonja Hood claims to have seen the report

Anyone know how she got it?

Edited June 1, 20232 yr by layzie

32 minutes ago, grazman said:

I think you misunderstood, it’s not about whether they were still working at Hawthorn that is relevant, or whether they chose to participate or not in the investigation by the HFC - which is their right.
 

It’s that Hawthorn investigated their past actions and made recommendations based on the findings without ever telling them they were being investigated in the first place or gave them the opportunity to give their side of the story. That’s not a convention or a courtesy, it’s a legal right. This is a clear breach of procedural fairness and natural justice.

I shall prequalify my comments by agreeing with all and sundry that we dont KNOW whar actually transpired...or didn't that may or otherwise precipitated the actions of the alleged disenfranchised. 

It irks me somewhat that accusations  are made in something akin to a mudslinging attack.  I'm sure anyone with grievance has better avenues.  Is that just me.

Stories were told. No one knows the actual validity but then the media was given the downlow.  All the whiles the supposed transgressors are none the wiser, and later not made aware of the 'details' despite actions taken for a full disclosure. 

Anyone else see this as ...well... bizarre.

I have no idea whether Fagan, Clarko or Burr are good bad or otherwise.  In a sense at ths juncture i dont really care.   I am acutely aware this could be seen as a character hit job.  Someone says something.... .  Thats about all we seem to have. 

The accusations must be tested.  Nobody seems to want to do this. Especially the accusers. There might be valid reasons for coyness but i dont think thats how it can work.

If the concerns are as described then in tuth the notion the AFL..even thevClub are the arbiters is a nonsense.  Such things are covered by any number of statutes and come under the auspices of legal bodies.

As with the drug fiasco it seriously annoys me that the AFL thinks it is the judge. No, they're just the workplace,  might as well be Woollies, Bunnings or Maccas.  Do they have their own arenas of contrivance ?  No.  Nor should Gil or Dilltown.

Let the due processes of Legal dilligence and adjudication prevail.

Put up....or....

maybe we should all come back in 2 years' time and compare notes - lol

On 6/1/2023 at 10:36 AM, old55 said:

I'm persuaded by conversations elsewhere on the topic that the best course of action for the AFL would have been to acknowledge the seriousness of the allegations and recommend to the complainants that they take the matter to the Australian Human Rights Commission - the most appropriate body to address the matter.

Yes  👍

And so it continues'

 

 

On 6/1/2023 at 12:06 PM, Gawndy the Great said:

Said from day naught that the leaking of the review would ultimately undermine the whole process. Low and behold, we have gotten to the point where we are none the wiser and everyone (accused, complainants, AFL, footyclubs) has suffered as a result. 

Let me introduce you to Brittany Higgins....