NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed. Part 3

[Wosh]

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread.
Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the report button, please and thank you.

If you feel upset or need to talk you can call either Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14 at any time.

- Crisis support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 13YARN (13 92 76) 13YARN - Call 13 92 76 | 24 /7

This is a serious topic, please treat it as such.

Videos, statements etc in the OP here:

NO TROLLS - Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread. Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the...

www.bigfooty.com

Link to Hawthorn Statement. - Link to ABC Sports article. - Leaked Report

Process Plan - https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...erms-of-Reference-and-Process-Plan-FINAL-.pdf

AFL Ends Investigation - 'Imperfect resolution' as Hawks probe ends, no one charged

DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[r_boy]

It wasn't a fact find exercise it was a truth telling exercise designed to understand some facts.

Or something

 

[Osho]

All you blokes and sheilas are way off the mark. It's almost like the thread is being artificially boosted

Clearly, a more relevant question is, is it an exercise, or an activity, or an event?

 

[sr36]

Read that last sentence again.

Anyone with any semblance of understanding of why this thing even kicked off will know that this was never about finding facts or kicking heads, it was about smoothing it over with the Riolis.

Job done!

 

[Elixuh]

Read that last sentence again.

Anyone with any semblance of understanding of why this thing even kicked off will know that this was never about finding facts or kicking heads, it was about smoothing it over with the Riolis.

You have gulped down the kool-aid if you think Hawthorn commissioned this thing to 'smooth it over' with the Riolis. The well publicised concerns raised by the Riolis was the foundation, but it wasn't to 'smooth it over' with them lol. It was the worst attempt at a check box exercise I have ever seen with the sole purpose being so that Hawthorn could say to the world look what we did. The whole thing has severely damaged pathways for people to come forward and tell their stories.

You do seem to love to downplay it all though!

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You have gulped down the kool-aid if you think Hawthorn commissioned this thing to 'smooth it over' with the Riolis. The well publicised concerns raised by the Riolis was the foundation, but it wasn't to 'smooth it over' with them lol. It was the worst attempt at a check box exercise I have ever seen with the sole purpose being so that Hawthorn could say to the world look what we did. The whole thing has severely damaged pathways for people to come forward and tell their stories.

You do seem to love to downplay it all though!

Your conspiracy theory completely downplays the concern that the club had with being estranged with arguably the most loved player the club has had in the last 50 years.

The weak throwaway line of “you’re just drinking the Koolaid” ignores the very fact that this all started on the back of the articles in the AGE, the suggestions that Hawthorn needed to go away and find out if the Riolis’ issues were isolated, the immediate groundswell of members and fans asking the club just what the **** had gone on over this time and whether they really did tell Cyril to just concentrate on footy, with an added expectation that they sort it out quick smart and get Cyril back into the fold as soon as possible.

It’s quite literally one of the reasons we also have a new president, such was the concern with having a player like Cyril want nothing to do with the club and Kennett, it subsequently became a pillar that Gowers campaigned on to reconnect with ex-players and reconnect with disgruntled members.

That we’ve got to a point in here where people have created their own version of events and theories for this whole cluster**** while bathing in ignorance is actually pretty damn sad.

 

[sr36]

Your conspiracy theory completely downplays the concern that the club had with being estranged with arguably the most loved player the club has had in the last 50 years.

The weak throwaway line of “you’re just drinking the Koolaid” ignores the very fact that this all started on the back of the articles in the AGE, the suggestions that Hawthorn needed to go away and find out if the Riolis’ issues were isolated, the immediate groundswell of members and fans asking the club just what the * had gone on over this time and whether they really did tell Cyril to just concentrate on footy, with an added expectation that they sort it out quick smart and get Cyril back into the fold as soon as possible.

It’s quite literally one of the reasons we also have a new president, such was the concern with having a player like Cyril want nothing to do with the club and Kennett, it subsequently became a pillar that Gowers campaigned on to reconnect with ex-players and reconnect with disgruntled members.

That we’ve got to a point in here where people have created their own version of events and theories for this whole cluster* while bathing in ignorance is actually pretty damn sad.

I'm curious how this was going to smooth things over with the Riolis?

Hawks were either going to get thumbs up from the other past players, in which case they'd undermined their complaints by making them the only ones and thus their issue.

Or they got the thumbs down from other players, in which case they're guilty of not owning the issues brought up by the Riolis.

What scenario where you or Hawthorn envisaging that would have led to the smoothing of this relationship through this action?

 

[matthew_s]

I'm curious how this was going to smooth things over with the Riolis?

Hawks were either going to get thumbs up from the other past players, in which case they'd undermined their complaints by making them the only ones and thus their issue.

Or they got the thumbs down from other players, in which case they're guilty of not owning the issues brought up by the Riolis.

What scenario where you or Hawthorn envisaging that would have led to the smoothing of this relationship through this action?

uh....they could get the thumbs down as you put it, apologise, deal with any remaining staff who did wrong and commit to doing better.

you cant change the past but surely apologising and demonstrating a commitment to better cater to first nations players would go some way to "smoothing the relationship"

 

[Elixuh]

Your conspiracy theory completely downplays the concern that the club had with being estranged with arguably the most loved player the club has had in the last 50 years.

The weak throwaway line of “you’re just drinking the Koolaid” ignores the very fact that this all started on the back of the articles in the AGE, the suggestions that Hawthorn needed to go away and find out if the Riolis’ issues were isolated, the immediate groundswell of members and fans asking the club just what the * had gone on over this time and whether they really did tell Cyril to just concentrate on footy, with an added expectation that they sort it out quick smart and get Cyril back into the fold as soon as possible.

It’s quite literally one of the reasons we also have a new president, such was the concern with having a player like Cyril want nothing to do with the club and Kennett, it subsequently became a pillar that Gowers campaigned on to reconnect with ex-players and reconnect with disgruntled members.

That we’ve got to a point in here where people have created their own version of events and theories for this whole cluster* while bathing in ignorance is actually pretty damn sad.

Yeah it’s all just one big conspiracy against the Hawks!

 

[peetoo]

Breaking? Garbage journalism

 

[Osho]

Breaking? Garbage journalism

The moon not expected to explode this evening.

 

[perplexed]

If they want all clubs to have an open look at their past they cant smash the 2nd club to do it.

Anyone with any semblance of understanding of why this thing even kicked off will know that this was never about finding facts or kicking heads, it was about smoothing it over with the Riolis.

I think I've got it.

The AFL shouldn't punish Hawthorn because it would discourage other teams from doing the type of review that Hawthorn didn't do.

 

[HairyO]

I think I've got it.

The AFL shouldn't punish Hawthorn because it would discourage other teams from doing the type of review that Hawthorn didn't do.

The AFL found nothing wrong was done.

Also, if Hawthorn lost draft picks what do you think the other 16 clubs will do ?

Look up the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission.

Or for the AFL, look up the salary cap amnesty from the 1990s.

Or the gun amnesty after Port Arthur.

 

[sr36]

uh....they could get the thumbs down as you put it, apologise, deal with any remaining staff who did wrong and commit to doing better.

you cant change the past but surely apologising and demonstrating a commitment to better cater to first nations players would go some way to "smoothing the relationship"

Do a survey to find out if other people thought you did anything wrong so that you can apologise and fix a relationship?

 

[perplexed]

The AFL found nothing wrong was done.

Also, if Hawthorn lost draft picks what do you think the other 16 clubs will do ?

Look up the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission.

Or for the AFL, look up the salary cap amnesty from the 1990s.

Or the gun amnesty after Port Arthur.

I was pointing out that you guys are all over the shop in your reasons for why Hawthorn shouldn't be punished. Now you are off talking about gun amnesties.

Hawthorn shouldn't be punished at the moment as the claims haven't been properly investigated by anyone yet. Whether they are punished in the future will depend on the results of those investigations, these other arguments are nonsense.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I'm curious how this was going to smooth things over with the Riolis?

Hawks were either going to get thumbs up from the other past players, in which case they'd undermined their complaints by making them the only ones and thus their issue.

Or they got the thumbs down from other players, in which case they're guilty of not owning the issues brought up by the Riolis.

What scenario where you or Hawthorn envisaging that would have led to the smoothing of this relationship through this action?

It was an attempt to listen. To show the Riolis that the club would indeed ask questions of itself and other past players.

As I have written in here quite a few times, the club had the games longest serving First Nations player on the list during this period, who was a leader amongst all Indigenous players in the comp. If they were going to listen to anyone about possible issues, it’s going to be him.
The club rightly or wrongly had confidence in goinh away and asking ex-players of their experiences when Burgoyne was there the entire time and had not reported or communicated any serious concerns in his time at the club.

The Club and the Rioli’s were never going to reconcile if the Club just released a statement stating all current players felt safe and heard when the AGE article dropped, they had to do more, and asking others of their experiences was the first step.

 

[HairyO]

I was pointing out that you guys are all over the shop in your reasons for why Hawthorn shouldn't be punished. Now you are off talking about gun amnesties.

Hawthorn shouldn't be punished at the moment as the claims haven't been properly investigated by anyone yet. Whether they are punished in the future will depend on the results of those investigations, these other arguments are nonsense.

If Hawthorn lost pick 3 do you think the Roos would risk pick 2 by setting up an inquiry in to their historical treatment of Aboriginal players ?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I think I've got it.

The AFL shouldn't punish Hawthorn because it would discourage other teams from doing the type of review that Hawthorn didn't do.

I never mentioned a thing about Hawthorn not being punished, you’re just reading what you want to read.

 

[perplexed]

If Hawthorn lost pick 3 do you think the Roos would risk pick 2 by setting up an inquiry in to their historical treatment of Aboriginal players ?

As far as I know the HRC haven't even confirmed they will hold an inquiry yet. If they do, it could take years. You don't need to panic about punishments yet.

I don't think there should be any further inquiries by the clubs, they are conflicted and don't have the capabilities to do them properly. There should be a properly resourced league wide inquiry. But, there won't be.

 

[sr36]

It was an attempt to listen. To show the Riolis that the club would indeed ask questions of itself and other past players.

As I have written in here quite a few times, the club had the games longest serving First Nations player on the list during this period, who was a leader amongst all Indigenous players in the comp. If they were going to listen to anyone about possible issues, it’s going to be him.
The club rightly or wrongly had confidence in goinh away and asking ex-players of their experiences when Burgoyne was there the entire time and had not reported or communicated any serious concerns in his time at the club.

The Club and the Rioli’s were never going to reconcile if the Club just released a statement stating all current players felt safe and heard when the AGE article dropped, they had to do more, and asking others of their experiences was the first step.

You got there on the last sentence. The Age article dropped. There was media pressure. If the primary goal was smoothing things with the Riolis they would have reviewed the Rioli claims. They didn't. They checked whether others felt similarly to the Riolis, expecting to find nothing because of what you've written about Burgoyne. That wasn't going to smooth things with the Riolis. That was going to sideline their complaints

 

[Chief]

If the primary goal was smoothing things with the Riolis they would have reviewed the Rioli claims. They didn't.

I thought they had accepted the Rioli claims by that point. Why the need for a review?

 

[M Malice]

I guess the argument would be that the club reaped the benefits of what they did (four flags), so they should cop the whack for what they did as well.

I’m on the fence with it to be honest as how to handle it is proven they did do the wrong thing.

Playing devils advocate if it is proven to of been blatant racism what about that reaped them benefits?

 

[sr36]

I thought they had accepted the Rioli claims by that point. Why the need for a review?

Accepting how someone feels is a long way away from acknowledging your own behaviour that has led to those feelings. No one at Hawthorn had gone there.

 

[Chief]

Accepting how someone feels is a long way away from acknowledging your own behaviour that has led to those feelings. No one at Hawthorn had gone there.

I really don't know what they said in private. I can't even recall the timeline to be honest.

Did nobody make any statement about the clubs issues regarding Kennett's garbage? I'm sure they did.

 

[sr36]

I really don't know what they said in private. I can't even recall the timeline to be honest.

Did nobody make any statement about the clubs issues regarding Kennett's garbage? I'm sure they did.

There was a general public apology - after the Riolis had gone public with their complaints, due to feeling like they'd been gaslighted and had been portrayed as blowing things way out of proportion.

Cyril Rioli goes public with racism claims at Hawthorn

Jeff Kennett is under pressure to step down as president of AFL club Hawthorn after allegations his treatment of Cyril Rioli led to the four-time premiership player’s premature retirement

www.theguardian.com

The review was announced not long after. Personally, I don't see how the nature of the review was intended to do anything other than protect Hawthorn from further criticism, by furthering the portrayal of the Riolis as making a mountain out of a molehill, as I believe they thought they wouldn't get significant negative feedback from the survey.

 

[sr36]

I don't think there should be any further inquiries by the clubs, they are conflicted and don't have the capabilities to do them properly. There should be a properly resourced league wide inquiry. But, there won't be.

From the two reviews, I think we've learnt what clubs can and can't review successfully. Clubs can look at the way they've responded to issues involving racism and get recommendations for more inclusive practice. But neither clubs nor the AFL have the powers to investigate what non-public knowledge racist stuff has occurred.

Clubs can move forward to be more inclusive, but it's going to be really hard to acknowledge a lot of the shitty experiences that many indigenous players feel they've endured.