NO TROLLS Rankine handed a 4 match suspension by the AFL integrity unit for a homophobic slur against opponent

[Soggy2112]

I think the opposite regarding the media and Rankine. I thought it was very noticeable and significant that the media didn't target his character over the slur itself. To me, a lot of Adelaide supporters read the media discussing the broader issue as being about Rankine. When someone said there's no place for slurs in the game - a lot of Adelaide fans viewed that as an attack on Rankine. When someone said the penalty for slurs should be 6 weeks - that was viewed as being Rankine specific when it wasn't - when someone criticised the AFL for dropping the suspension down to 4 that was viewed as being about Rankine when it wasn't.

The media told the Rankine part of the story as a star being suspended for finals and then the defence arguments and trip overseas. I can't remember a media example of Rankine's character being targetted for the slur itself. This wasn't treated like the Tex saga.

I definitely agree that a lot of Adelaide supporters invented an anti Crows bias narrative that was not accurate.

However, I do think there were also sections of the AFL media and administration that unfairly scapegoated Izak.

Those examples to me are:

• the way his every move was hyper analysed in the aftermath. The reality is that he immediately apologised, he addressed both the men’s and women’s playing groups, he delivered what I think was a pretty strong statement, and has since engaged with the rainbow crows and worked out steps forward. I think his actions in the aftermath, at least publicly, have been very good. I think the choice to focus on things such as the timing of his public and private statements, or where he chose to spend his suspension, was unfair.
• This was supposed to be a private investigation. We saw with Jack Graham, that his indiscretion and subsequent suspension was not made public until a week or so after. To this day, we don’t know the details of that investigation. What we do know is that they received the same suspension. My question is why was so much of Izak’s investigation, public knowledge, when the club was under the impression it was confidential. I wonder if there was information shared, that if Izak and the club knew would be made public, they perhaps would have reconsidered whether they present it. I don’t know the motives of the people who chose to leak information, and maybe it was right to do so, but I think it was unfair to Izak that he had everything aired publicly, when other players have not.

Much of this I’ve discussed in this thread already, the only reason I bring this up is that linking Petracca’s decision, which is pretty consistent with most in his position historically, to Izak, is unfair in my opinion, hence why I pushed back on it.

 

[sr36]

• This was supposed to be a private investigation. We saw with Jack Graham, that his indiscretion and subsequent suspension was not made public until a week or so after. To this day, we don’t know the details of that investigation. What we do know is that they received the same suspension. My question is why was so much of Izak’s investigation, public knowledge, when the club was under the impression it was confidential. I wonder if there was information shared, that if Izak and the club knew would be made public, they perhaps would have reconsidered whether they present it. I don’t know the motives of the people who chose to leak information, and maybe it was right to do so, but I think it was unfair to Izak that he had everything aired publicly, when other players have not.

The leaking is an exaggeration. I don't expect you to believe me, but I'm very confident that it was Adelaide who leaked the Houston defence both from what I've been told and frankly why would the AFL leak that. I'm guessing the AFL leaked the 5 weeks that Eddie reported on. The medical grounds wasn't leaked it was part of the AFL statement. It being mental health is an assumed deduction rather than a leak.