News Geelong being sued by former player alleging sexual assault.

[Strange Cat]

Dare say this is more of an "initiation" thing rather than a sexual thing.

Reminds me of what used to happen to apprentices when they first started working where they would be on the end of some sick pranks.

Why is the fact the man is indigenous even required to be printed. All this does is make most think this is a cash grab and make it easier for the person to be identified. The article should have left it at a man in his 50s.

Really that’s the first thought you have when reading that it was an indigenous player?

 

[Footy Smarts]

Re this Geel issue - i think if this happened those 3 should be named - they deserve no protection - so name them

And the problem without naming them - then that casts aspersion over anyone who was living their at the time

Naming them makes it personal and will give the allegations far more oxygen. A victim not wanting to face their abusers is completely understandable. It's quite plausible they feel Geelong failed in their duty of care, want an apology, some compensation and to ensure it doesn't happen again but have no interest in confronting their abusers head on. They should have the right to tackle the issue that way.

And I hope we're mature enough not to start accusing everyone at the club at the time. We can accept that horrible things such as this likely happened while acknowledging that the vast majority of the people involved at the club were decent people who had nothing to do with these types of things.

 

[Partridge]

Naming them makes it personal and will give the allegations far more oxygen. A victim not wanting to face their abusers is completely understandable. It's quite plausible they feel Geelong failed in their duty of care, want an apology, some compensation and to ensure it doesn't happen again but have no interest in confronting their abusers head on. They should have the right to tackle the issue that way.

And I hope we're mature enough not to start accusing everyone at the club at the time. We can accept that horrible things such as this likely happened while acknowledging that the vast majority of the people involved at the club were decent people who had nothing to do with these types of things.

They absolutely do. But the club also has the right to say it needs to be proven first.

 

[Turbocat]

Dare say this is more of an "initiation" thing rather than a sexual thing.

Reminds me of what used to happen to apprentices when they first started working where they would be on the end of some sick pranks.

Why is the fact the man is indigenous even required to be printed. All this does is make most think this is a cash grab and make it easier for the person to be identified. The article should have left it at a man in his 50s.

It's a tough read. And I've heard too many stories about what happened at our club in the 80s and 90s to think there wouldn't be some horrific tales in our past. We weren't unique in that but some of the stories around the treatment of young players (hazing rituals, etc) and racism I've heard were very, very ugly.

On the bright side the club clearly has a far more inclusive culture and takes its duty of care much more seriously now. Hopefully we're mature enough as a club to recognise and own the mistakes of the past, ensure we continue to do better in the future and hopefully assist those we let down previously get some form of closure.

Without knowing details ... who knows. Certainly back when I was a first year apprentice in a smallish firm... It had been common practice to use marking blue to paint a particular body part of the fresh faced new kid. Who knows how that would be portrayed these days. i was lucky. Pressure to change such things was just occurring and did not have that happen... but there was still plenty that some these days would call bullying and victimisation etc. and. some of the things I heard that had been done in previous year... fire cracker in toilets, being boxed and ready to be shipped ... who knows what was initiation inside a footy club back then. I could imagine it would be god awful if you were on the wrong end of it.

 

[Strange Cat]

They absolutely do. But the club also has the right to say it needs to be proven first.

Of course

 

[Footy Smarts]

They absolutely do. But the club also has the right to say it needs to be proven first.

Yes but "it" can refer to many things and choosing to be overly combative to a potential victim would be an extremely bad look for the organisation.

It should be relatively clear whether the allegations are plausible and fairly easy to discern whether this person suffered a significant, life changing trauma while under Geelong's care. That should be all that's needed here.

I would hate for us to respond with something like "prove you were raped by these 3 and then we'll talk".

 

[Strange Cat]

Yes but "it" can refer to many things and choosing to be overly combative to a potential victim would be an extremely bad look for the organisation.

It should be relatively clear whether the allegations are plausible and fairly easy to discern whether this person suffered a significant, life changing trauma while under Geelong's care. That should be all that's needed here.

I would hate for us to respond with something like "prove you were raped by these 3 and then we'll talk".

Lol you’re talking about lawyers and the legal system here

But I agree on all points but sadly it rarely works like this towards survivors…sadly there’s a strong perception already that some view this as a cash grab

 

[Todman]

What employees?
Was football a profession back then?

Everyone got paid. Well almost A very few footballers were listed as amateur because they had hopes of representing their country at the Olympics or Empire Games. These guys were usually young and very good athletics. They also had 9 to 5 jobs as training was twice a week after work.

 

[Strange Cat]

Everyone got paid. Well almost A very few footballers were listed as amateur because they had hopes of representing their country at the Olympics or Empire Games. These guys were usually young and very good athletics. They also had 9 to 5 jobs as training was twice a week after work.

Even volunteers are classified as employees, the company/organisation still has a duty of care for all those that uses their facilities and such

 

[Cataholic]

This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one. The judges in criminal and civil courts have different powers. Criminal Court judges can punish you for breaking the law by sending you to jail. Civil Court judges can order you to pay money or a fine or make decisions about your family or home.

In a criminal court, crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt," whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof, such as "the preponderance of the evidence." The term "the preponderance of evidence" refers to how it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way.

I repeat this is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one.

Understand, but the complainant is still obliged to present some evidence to support the claim.

Simply saying something doesn't mean it's true.

 

[caitsith01]

I'd suggest it's actually the same thing said when there's been allegations against other clubs, including the players, coaches, board members etc

Doesn't matter the issue or where the allegations have been laid - discuss the issue in a respectful manner, but be careful of not crossing a line of presumed guilt when that hasn't been established

These allegations aren't good, but there's a lot to play out

A big problem with these discussions is that people don't understand the difference between the legal presumption of innocence in relation to criminal charges in an actual court proceeding, and the question in reality of whether a thing happened or not. See also, e.g., the Brittany Higgins/Bruce Lehrman situation. Once an allegation like this is made, the competing propositions are basically that it happened more or less as alleged, or that this person is completely delusional and/or prepared to lie about something very serious.

A discussion forum isn't a court, so there's no 'presumption of innocence' in a discussion about this issue. Also, as posted above, this is about a civil claim. IMHO the appropriate balance is not being too quick to rush to any conclusions, but accepting that it's fairly unlikely that something like this would be the subject of court proceedings if it was completely fabricated.

I find it interesting how if someone alleged, say, that they slipped over and did an ACL on club property people wouldn't be in here going "alLegeDlY dID an AcL!" but as soon as it's an assault allegation a certain type of person for some reason sees it as their duty to start feverishly reminding everyone that they might be a liar.

Also, solicitors and barristers have fairly stringent obligations not to file documents in court unless they believe on the basis of their instructions that there is a proper basis for allegations made in those documents, especially serious allegations like sexual assault. It's not like stuff like this gets thrown into court without a fairly significant filtering process before it gets that far.

 

[caitsith01]

Understand, but the complainant is still obliged to present some evidence to support the claim.

Simply saying something doesn't mean it's true.

"Simply saying something" under oath in a witness box can be enough to prove an allegation if your evidence is accepted, however.

 

[Cataholic]

"Simply saying something" under oath in a witness box can be enough to prove an allegation if your evidence is accepted, however.

Correct......if both a) evidence is presented, and b) it's accepted.

 

[caitsith01]

Its interesting - posters have said - that in Australia - you are presumed innocent until proven guilty

Legally and in connection with proceedings. There is no general rule that the public has to presume you to be innocent.

Also our legal system is largely derived directly from the English one. And Vaughan was going through a private process under the EWCB, not a public legal process. So his whinging is the equivalent of complaining about the AFL tribunal not applying the standards of a criminal court and he would have been in no better position in Australia...

 

[caitsith01]

Correct......if both a) evidence is presented, and b) it's accepted.

Yes, and my point is that oral evidence is still evidence and can and often does constitute proof in court.

 

[Strange Cat]

Understand, but the complainant is still obliged to present some evidence to support the claim.

Simply saying something doesn't mean it's true.

I doubt the lawyer representing the player is lodging the claim to proceed for shits and giggles

 

[Cataholic]

A big problem with these discussions is that people don't understand the difference between the legal presumption of innocence in relation to criminal charges in an actual court proceeding, and the question in reality of whether a thing happened or not. See also, e.g., the Brittany Higgins/Bruce Lehrman situation. Once an allegation like this is made, the competing propositions are basically that it happened more or less as alleged, or that this person is completely delusional and/or prepared to lie about something very serious.

A discussion forum isn't a court, so there's no 'presumption of innocence' in a discussion about this issue. Also, as posted above, this is about a civil claim. IMHO the appropriate balance is not being too quick to rush to any conclusions, but accepting that it's fairly unlikely that something like this would be the subject of court proceedings if it was completely fabricated.

I find it interesting how if someone alleged, say, that they slipped over and did an ACL on club property people wouldn't be in here going "alLegeDlY dID an AcL!" but as soon as it's an assault allegation a certain type of person for some reason sees it as their duty to start feverishly reminding everyone that they might be a liar.

Also, solicitors and barristers have fairly stringent obligations not to file documents in court unless they believe on the basis of their instructions that there is a proper basis for allegations made in those documents, especially serious allegations like sexual assault. It's not like stuff like this gets thrown into court without a fairly significant filtering process before it gets that far.

True, but the club has the right, and duty, to ask for evidence that strongly suggests the allegation is true, and to defend itself if that is not forthcoming.

 

[Cataholic]

Yes, and my point is that oral evidence is still evidence and can and often does constitute proof in court.

Flimsy.

Anyone can say anything.

But if, ie, supporting witnesses come forward then it's a different ballgame.

 

[caitsith01]

True, but the club has the right, and duty, to ask for evidence that strongly suggests the allegation is true, and to defend itself if that is not forthcoming.

It's going to be very difficult. The club can probably confirm the timing and living arrangements, but it's quite likely to be unable to establish much more than that at the moment. In due course presumably the plaintiff might be able to produce evidence of contemporaneous complaints and the like. But even if they can't, that doesn't mean it didn't happen (and vice versa, before you start).

The club will also be acutely aware of the reputational angle here. It is not a good look to be too technical and officious in relation to allegations like this.

 

[Cataholic]

I doubt the lawyer representing the player is lodging the claim to proceed for shits and giggles

Not suggesting that.

 

[Strange Cat]

True, but the club has the right, and duty, to ask for evidence that strongly suggests the allegation is true, and to defend itself if that is not forthcoming.

And what makes you think that’s not going to happen? Do you realise that the lawyers involved would be reviewing all the evidence and the strength of the case before even taking on the case

Again they wouldn’t be doing this for shits and giggles

 

[Cataholic]

It's going to be very difficult. The club can probably confirm the timing and living arrangements, but it's quite likely to be unable to establish much more than that at the moment. In due course presumably the plaintiff might be able to produce evidence of contemporaneous complaints and the like. But even if they can't, that doesn't mean it didn't happen (and vice versa, before you start).

The club will also be acutely aware of the reputational angle here. It is not a good look to be too technical and officious in relation to allegations like this.

Not 'starting' on anything, but I agree it's going to be very difficult for both parties.

 

[Cataholic]

And what makes you think that’s not going to happen? Do you realise that the lawyers involved would be reviewing all the evidence and the strength of the case before even taking on the case

Again they wouldn’t be doing this for shits and giggles

I've never once suggested it's not going to happen.

I've simply suggested we all wait for it to play out some more before agreeing 'it must've happened' on someone's say so.

 

[western royboy]

Flimsy.

Anyone can say anything.

But if, ie, supporting witnesses come forward then it's a different ballgame.

Usually, in sexual assault cases - there are no witnesses. In this case there is a complainant and allegedly 3 perpetrators for an incident that occurred approximately 40 years ago.

Just process that.

For the complainant it was a one off. Who knows if there were others.

Bottom line, the evidence that you keep calling for will not exist and I sincerely doubt the alleged perpetrators are going to fess up, just a hunch.

This is a total s**t show and unfortunately Geelong is in a largely No win situation. Take the hard legal approach and they’ll look like the Catholic Church - a lower entity I have not come across. This will take some navigating and regardless of the outcome there will be no winners - only the lawyers

 

[Partridge]

A discussion forum isn't a court, so there's no 'presumption of innocence' in a discussion about this issue. Also, as posted above, this is about a civil claim. IMHO the appropriate balance is not being too quick to rush to any conclusions, but accepting that it's fairly unlikely that something like this would be the subject of court proceedings if it was completely fabricated.

I find it interesting how if someone alleged, say, that they slipped over and did an ACL on club property people wouldn't be in here going "alLegeDlY dID an AcL!" but as soon as it's an assault allegation a certain type of person for some reason sees it as their duty to start feverishly reminding everyone that they might be a liar.

Also, solicitors and barristers have fairly stringent obligations not to file documents in court unless they believe on the basis of their instructions that there is a proper basis for allegations made in those documents, especially serious allegations like sexual assault. It's not like stuff like this gets thrown into court without a fairly significant filtering process before it gets that far.

If it happened 40 years ago and there was no witnesses and no one named I'd be the first one saying it. Followed by two words - prove and it.

Just saying something doesn't make it true. Believe it or not, people do make stuff up. And they do lie. For all sorts of reasons. Automatically believing any claimant just because is absolutely insane and unbelievably naive, as well as being completely ignorant of basic human nature.