36 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

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

 

Says who?

Why are the players obligated to do anything? 

There is no court case or legal action - yet. Just an AFL investigation. 

The Hawks, and Pagan and Clarkson will respond to the AFL investigation,  people can hear what they have to say and decide for themselves if they believe them.  

If Pagan and Clarkson want to pursue legal action to clear their name they can sue the ABC for defamation. 

And if the players sue the hawks, then they'll get their chance their to put their side of the story and the player's side of things will be 'fully tested'. 

 

Edited September 27, 20222 yr by binman

28 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

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

Otherwise, I wouldn't be here.

 

If there was only one account being heard, you may have a point, but there are 3 different accounts. 
And now i read up to 5 different accounts. 
The Smoke is getting thicker 

Edited September 27, 20222 yr by Sir Why You Little

40 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

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.

If ‘their story’ is only half true, it’s still a horrible situation. 
 

I’m sure Clarkson and Fagan have access to very, very good lawyers who could create any narrative they like around the indigenous families. It won’t be fair

Edited September 27, 20222 yr by BW511

15 minutes ago, binman said:

Says who?

Why are the players obligated to do anything? 

There is no court case or legal action - yet. Just an AFL investigation. 

The Hawks, and Pagan and Clarkson will respond to the AFL investigation,  people can hear what they have to say and decide for themselves if they believe them.  

If Pagan and Clarkson want to pursue legal action to clear their name they can sue the ABC for defamation. 

And if the players sue the hawks, then they'll get their chance their to put their side of the story and the player's side of things will be 'fully tested'. 

 

Coaches have been forced to stand down due to their serious accusations. 

Livelihoods and (more importantly) reputations have been impugned and potentially ruined.

If they won't participate in an AFL investigation then that investigation has next to no credibility.

39 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

If there was only one account being heard, you may have a point, but there are 3 different accounts. 
And now i read up to 5 different accounts. 
The Smoke is getting thicker 

I don't care about ''smoke''.

I don't care about 3 different accounts, because they haven't been tested.

There could be 10 different "their stories" and I wouldn't make any judgement without treating every single one of them on their individual respective merits.

39 minutes ago, BW511 said:

If ‘their story’ is only half true, it’s still a horrible situation. 
 

I’m sure Clarkson and Fagan have access to very, very good lawyers who could create any narrative they like around the indigenous families. It won’t be fair

I have no interest in ''half truths''.  I have interest in ''the truth'' if it's supported by evidence.

3 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

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). 

Judges don't have to understand perspective. Royal Commissioners don't have to have perspective. They are selected because of their particular skills to find justice and or solutions. That they could be ignorant of the issues does not mean that they would be ignorant of the correct, fair process of investigation and understanding.

This panel is not, on the face, as serous or important but in the context of footy in the community they might be even more important. As I stated, those that have perspective should be available to provide their knowledge and understanding to the panel members who can then apply the correct weight to their opinions.

My great fear is that a panel consisting of those who "have perspective" might not be able to reach an adverse report due to their perspective. That would not be fair to either the complainants (who might not accept the report) or to the coaches (who might not be able to rely on the report).

A totally independent panel's report will carry much more weight and will more likely to be accepted in the community.

 

1 hour ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

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.

Exactly. People are forgetting how important context is in regards to the allegations. This context, thus far hasn’t been provided to the public.

There is certain context that I don’t wish to speculate on, that would shift certain allegations away from being racist, and also provide some much needed explanation for people who are shocked by the current one-sided account of things. 

Without doubt this country (and the AFL) has a problem with racism that needs to be addressed. But this point alone doesn’t mean we throw people in the bin, without a fair process of investigation. 

 

52 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Coaches have been forced to stand down due to their serious accusations. at least 3 separate accounts of horrible actions, which are now being investigated.

Livelihoods and (more importantly) reputations Lives have been impugned and potentially ruined, hence why there's now an investigation.

If they won't participate in an AFL investigation then that investigation has next to no credibility. the statements they've already made will be tested such as they are.

Fixed it for you.

Edited September 27, 20222 yr by Lord Nev

54 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

I don't care about ''smoke''.

I don't care about 3 different accounts, because they haven't been tested.

There could be 10 different "their stories" and I wouldn't make any judgement without treating every single one of them on their individual respective merits.

Of course every case should be fully investigated on its own merits. But having 3-5 cases is a lot more evidence than just one. I think this will become too big to be just an AFL Investigation. 

21 minutes ago, 1964_2 said:

 

Without doubt this country (and the AFL) has a problem with racism that needs to be addressed. But this point alone doesn’t mean we throw people in the bin, without a fair process of investigation. 

 

Which will happen….

52 minutes ago, tiers said:

My great fear is that a panel consisting of those who "have perspective" might not be able to reach an adverse report due to their perspective. That would not be fair to either the complainants (who might not accept the report) or to the coaches (who might not be able to rely on the report).

I think there is difference between what we are thinking a panel could look like. I'm not suggesting it is made up entirely, or even a significant number, of those experts. Just that there be a member be present. 

I think it's important that there be a (minor) presence to give those affected faith in it. I think the example of a judge that you used might be a good one when considering potential misgivings the indigenous community might have.

As each day goes by it looks more likely that this will end badly - for all concerned.

1 hour ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Coaches have been forced to stand down due to their serious accusations. 

Livelihoods and (more importantly) reputations have been impugned and potentially ruined.

If they won't participate in an AFL investigation then that investigation has next to no credibility.

Sure, it has no credibility.

And?

That's not the players problem. 

5 hours 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.

Tiers my concern with such an approach is that while such an approach may seemingly provide a more 'independent panel' it may introduce different bias such as viewing the actions from the perspective of random people and not the demands of a high performance sporting environment tested against the league's duty of care to player wellbeing.  I'd rather have a panel of experienced operators with the mix of perspectives relevant to the investigation.

In my view the AFLPA call for a former coach or footy boss to be part of the panel is necessary to provide a balanced context context between the cultural sensitivities, player well being, and the demands of a high performance program. The panel should also include a senior indigenous figure and a senior figure with a focus on player welfare. I believe that assembling a panel of random people will result in bias because none of them will understand the cultural, player wellbeing and high performance context of what took place.

1 hour ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

I have no interest in ''half truths''.  I have interest in ''the truth'' if it's supported by evidence.

And are we to infer the testimony of the players and their families are not sufficient evidence? 

Whose testimony will be sufficient? Or do these alleged heinous acts need to be recorded, or written down?

 

There will be two versions of the “truth” that will never get near each other…and god I hope we can get near a clear awareness of what happened but I just don’t see how it could…

Absolute mess. 

And whatever you think about these allegations, for that club to let this get this far with so many former players is a [censored] indictment on that club and those involved - even if the specific heinous acts can be explained away.

27 minutes ago, rpfc said:

And are we to infer the testimony of the players and their families are not sufficient evidence? 

Whose testimony will be sufficient? Or do these alleged heinous acts need to be recorded, or written down?

No, the testimony of players and their families may not be sufficient evidence.

You are assuming guilt without any due process.  Without the testimony of potential witnesses.  Without cross examination.  Without the testimony of those being accused.  Without the potential to prove lies.

In your world accusations are enough.  They're not and should never be.

Edited September 27, 20222 yr by Hannibal Inc.

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

How many days late are the HS...poor Robbo, beaten to the punch by the ABC.

7 hours 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

 

When you say "aboriginal members" do you mean anyone of aboriginal descent?

5 hours 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.

Through a normal complaints investigation process the complainant provides their statement which is then investigated. Allegations are put to the accused who provide their own statement, witnesses are provided to give their own statements/testimony and the investigative team pieces it together to provide their report and recommendations.

I don't think it is commonplace for complainants in internal investigations to be cross-examined by lawyers. This isn't a criminal or civil investigation it's an investigation of an employer/organisation.

Are people saying here that testimonies count for nothing?

5 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Through a normal complaints investigation process the complainant provides their statement which is then investigated. Allegations are put to the accused who provide their own statement, witnesses are provided to give their own statements/testimony and the investigative team pieces it together to provide their report and recommendations.

I don't think it is commonplace for complainants in internal investigations to be cross-examined by lawyers. This isn't a criminal or civil investigation it's an investigation of an employer/organisation.

well i believe at least some of the families have already hired lawyers too

so expect lawyers on both sides

and yes this will not be like a normal employee/organisation investigation, the stakes have risen

but as said before, let us wait and see

1 hour ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

No, the testimony of players and their families may not be sufficient evidence.

You are assuming guilt without any due process.  Without the testimony of potential witnesses.  Without cross examination.  Without the testimony of those being accused.  Without the potential to prove lies.

In your world accusations are enough.  They're not and should never be.

I don't think anyone here is assuming guilt, or at least not the overwhelming majority of posters. What they are saying though is that with what has come out it is not looking good for those involved. Three independent stories that appear to corroborate each other as to the behaviour of the senior officials at the club, comments in The Age over the weekend indicating "at least one former assistant coach has corroborated some of the claims. At least one former player manager involved at the time has indicated his willingness to back up some elements of the review"; it seems like at least some of what is being alleged will be proven correct.

Remember the players in question did not initiate these complaints for their own benefit, the club initiated this investigation off their own bat (following comments earlier in the year by Rioli and his partner) to speak to past and present indigenous players as a fact finding mission to determine what actions, if any, the club should take to improve their processes and governance.

Rather than assuming guilt it seems the majority of assumptions being made are that the former players and their partners/families are fabricating their stories. Why?

Edited September 27, 20222 yr by Dr. Gonzo

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

well i believe at least some of the families have already hired lawyers too

so expect lawyers on both sides

and yes this will not be like a normal employee/organisation investigation, the stakes have risen

but as said before, let us wait and see

It makes sense both sides will have lawyers giving them advice on their statements/responses but I would be staggered if lawyers for the opposing parties were allowed to cross-examine. Perhaps they will be and I am just ignorant of the process but I would be shocked if that were the case.