sue

Interesting that the ABC says they were offered more time to respond to the allegations but didn’t really.

I'm taking out futures on pop-corn.

Listen to the other coaches post-season reviews and your head will probably feel just as bad.

Appropriate.

Of course an investigation has to consider all sides and try to establish the truth as far as possible. But repeatedly saying that in order to refute assumptions by other posters that there is likely to be a serious case to answer, smells slightly to me. If 3 or 5 people said that they saw me breaking into your house, I think most people would think there is likely to be something in the charge and await proceedings.

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.

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.

That makes sense

It would be interesting following the court cases of those crying foul, arguing they felt sick (COVID??) and had to leave.

True, but surely it can add to a case if a witness (who might be disbelieved for some reason) is able to say, " I told X about it at the time' and X is called as a witness to confirm that happened. It's evidence that the accusation wasn't concoted yesterday. (Leaving long planned conspiracies or lying aside).

Yep, unfortunately that's what anyone accused of a crime effectively suffers. I can't see how it can be any different here unless everything is kept secret which would mean that many would never trust the result (or non-result). I've detailed my position in a post at 7:49am yesterday, page 21 so won't repeat it all again.

Some say the coaches are getting no natural justice because they havent been given a chance to respond to the allegations. Does the same not apply to someone accused of a crime? They are named in public. They get a chance to tell their side of things during a trial. The coaches will get their chance in the investigation the AFL is organizing. It is sad but true that in both examples, if the allegations prove unsubstantiated, the person's reputation may take a hit but that's just the way things are. Better than having everything done in secret and the public losing all confidence in the process.

And with a few minutes to go, BT says Gil must be happy with the half time entertainment without a hint of irony.

Geelong seem to be able to get handballs away when tackled. Have they done something new and special or is Sydney hopeless at tacking all of a sudden?

Always happy to help....

Bad news, I have been on a jury for a case of 'felonious slaying'. Guilty as charged.

I've followed the discussion about the the fairness of the publication of the allegations etc and overnight I came to the following conclusions which satisfy me, if no one else. 1. It was perfectly reasonable for the Hawthorn review to only question those making allegations. That review was not charged with establishing the truth of the allegations by interviewing the alleged offenders. That should be done by a seperate investigation by the club or the AFL. A bit like the Crown prosecution service may decide there is a case to answer which then goes to trial where everyone gets to present their case. 2. So the next question then is, should the review (or its effective contents) have been made public. Surely it could not be kept secret until the 'trial' of the matter was concluded. We don't do that for criminal trials. Keeping such things secret undermines public confidence that justice is being done. It's what you expect to happen in totalitarian countries. 3. So the next question is, could have it been made public without naming names? That is, the AFL announces an enquiry into these allegations without naming the senior coach, other coaches or club. But that wouldn't wash. First for those who are concerned about Malthouse etc being besmirched, if it wasn't clear who was being accused, every coach at every club would be under an unfair cloud. Anyway, it would soon become clear which club it was, so they just as well have been named at the start. 4. To me that leaves only the question of should the coaches have been given more time to respond. I really can't see what would be achieved by that. Very unlikley that they would 'confess' or say there is some truth in some of the less obnoxious allegations and offer to assist any investigation. Very much more likely, they'd either dodge responding to a journo or just deny the allegations and offer to support any investigation the AFL makes. And that is what they did. Whether they had 24 hours or a week, I can't see them doing anything else.

Sorry OldDee I can’t stay quiet any longer. Hearsay is one word.

Do you think that if they had more than 24 hours they'd say anything beyond the complete denial they have made anyway?

You could say that every person accused of a crime and named in the media as being arrested and charged is being denied natural justice and their name besmirched because they haven't yet defended themselves in public. But generally we leave that to the trial. The AFL review will effectively be the trial in this case.

Well perhaps he has taken leave so he can have time to be interrogated.

Gil said he had it a week Edit: about a week. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/sep/21/afl-investigates-claims-hawthorn-separated-first-nations-players-from-families-and-called-for-pregnancy-termination AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan said the governing body had received the report “about a week ago”.

Not quite - Gil has publically said he got it a week ago. Hawthorn said they got it 2 weeks ago and contacted the AFL without specifying when. Hard to imagine they'd sit on it for too .long.

Interesting if Brisbane had to put their coach on ice before the prelim (or maybe even before playing us, depending on exact dates). I think that may explain why the AFL sat on it till now at least.

I think I heard on the radio that is was overseas (NY?) and just referred to a Hawthorn press release when asked about the issue.