Dr. Gonzo

Let the games begin

I think that really depends on how things go next year/next two years. Goodwin must review/change his methodology if he wants continued success, I think the over-structured gameplan can burn players out if its not refreshed every year or two.

Yeah, nah.

OK, so extrapolating from that we have to exclude any indigenous person because of a perceived bias or conflict of interest we will also have to exclude anyone of anglo-celtic heritage because of a perceived bias or conflict of interest.

Does he mean he had no access to that email account at the time? Or that he no longer has access to that email account?

Geelong sells the active lifestyle of the surf coast. I'm not as familiar with the Peninsula but it seems more suited to retirees.

By "aboriginal members" do you mean anyone of aboriginal descent?

Exactly right. The HFC initiated this investigation. The players did not seek this out, the HFC contacted them to ask them for their statements. What incentive do they have to fabricate this story? And not just one past player but at least 3 and their partners, and if it is to be believed at least one former assistant and a player manager who can corroborate at least part of their stories? They did not seek the HFC or media out, the HFC asked them for their accounts of their time at the HFC. They have provided statements which should be enough for the AFL's investigation to work off. The investigators may go back to them to clarify points but I can't see why they would be required to begin the process anew. I'm not labelling Clarkson, Fagan, Burt or HFC guilty at this stage but I am extremely interested in the pending investigation because as things stand it does not look good for the accused. The allegations are quite specific, the multiple accounts appear to corroborate each other and there appears to be a former assistant and former players manager who will at least partly corroborate the allegations Based on what has transpired already I would be stunned if the accused outright denied the allegations, rather I expect they have a different perspective if events which will be interesting in itself.

Who do you consider would be unbiased? Or more to the point, who should be excluded due to perceived bias?

I didn't say a majority of posters assume the players/families are fabricating their stories, I said "the majority of assumptions being made are that the former players and their partners/families are fabricating their stories."

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.

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?

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.

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

A witness is someone who gives evidence or provides testimony. In this instance it would be someone providing evidence/testimony to the investigation.

I read the posts/thread. In a thread about an article by Russell Jackson you make comments about journos being unaccountable keyboard warriors. The person you responded to was implying that journos are unaccountable throwing out false allegations and the real victims are the accused perpetrators. In this case Clarkson, Fagan and Burt.

How do you think this should play out? In any situation there will be a period between allegations and findings, it is impossible to ensure the anonymity of the accused. Considering the severity of the allegations and the current positions Clarkson, Fagan and Burt hold it is completely natural for them to be stood down while these allegations are investigated.

You seriously believe three independent players/families completely fabricated these stories? Their perception of events may differ but I find it hard to believe they just made them up out of thin air. At the very least there should be corroborating evidence of the partner who contacted the police to try and speak with the player who the club had isolated and cut off communication with. Caroline Wilsons article yesterday indicates there will be some witnesses coming forward to corroborate at least some of the allegations; https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/we-were-watching-those-blokes-break-the-hawthorn-women-who-would-not-stay-silent-20220919-p5bj8u.html "While the review undertaken by Egan focused upon a group of Indigenous players and their families it has now emerged that 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."

Just to clarify, are you calling Russell Jackson a keyboard warrior, a "personality" rather than a journo? https://www.abc.net.au/news/russell-jackson/12422852

Why would you want to? Doing the community a service keeping that bile behind a paywall.

You doubt what will happen? I provided a link to a story which details the changes implemented by Collingwood since the Do Better report was published. Lumumba was unhappy with the extent of it (I believe he wanted to be involved in the governance of any truth-telling process which the club pushed against) but changes have been implemented.

This is what you're referring to https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-employee-jason-mifsud-revealed-as-source-of-racism-allegations-directed-at-demons-coach-mark-neeld/news-story/06b85b6b49cdeb04f094f8d7e589f965 Judging by that article alone it seems the rumour was false and that Davey quashed the rumours. I still would like to see MFC commission it's own report into the welfare of past players and specifically indigenous players if only to absolve the club of any wrongdoing if nothing else.

https://www.zerohanger.com/one-year-on-from-the-do-better-report-have-the-pies-changed-their-ways-117099/

This is cult like behaviour. The AFL needs to undertake an independent review of each and every club, probably down to and including the feeder systems for junior players, to determine whether there are any other organisations with similar issues relating separately to both the welfare of indigenous players and all players as a whole. I am disgusted that this type of thing could be going on at our footy clubs. Edit: oh the review should include head office too, particularly considering the issues at AFL house a couple of years back.