News Hawthorn Racism Review - No player name speculation - opposition posters tread very carefully

[Strapping Young Lad]

Wrong. Hawks did what they had to do by the rules of the AFL.

Correct. For reference below, once the HFC had the report outlining serious allegations they were duty bound by the AFL’s protocol to hand over the report to the AFL integrity unit.

I will pin this post, as it seems to be a constant query.

 

[threesixpio]

People’s recollection is evidence by the way - particularly if given on oath. Cant stand this “where’s the evidence - it’s just someone’s word” stuff.

It’s a bit dumb.

I’ve run a few successful cases where someone’s recollection was a bit important and made out the case

Stop conflating “evidence” with “indisputable evidence/proof” is my tip otherwise reading this is like fingers on a Farkn blackboard

 

[Lawsy]

Clarkson thought certain players were in destructive relationships. Why did he think that? Was it true?

If that’s all this issue was, it wouldn’t even be worthy of comment. Now if Burt said he heard Clarko tell somebody to have an abortion, then you’d have something. But again, there is no evidence.

You should have a detailed look at your posting history and see the not so subtle bias that is evident.

38 posts in total.

9 posts are taking a shot at CJ, not constructive, just taking a shot. 2 at Chol before he even arrived at the club. 11 out of 38 and I could call it a pattern against people who aren't white. Then you've had 2 blunt comments about women commentators just for the diversity angle I'm sure

10+ are questioning others comments about the thread and defending the accused without adding anything constructive, just on the attack to defend Clarko and Co. despite what has been presented in the media and that it has gone as far as the HRC.

I'm sure you weren't aware of how you could be perceived by other posters though, although on the basis of probability that would be an interesting discussion.

 

[brad sue well]

You should have a detailed look at your posting history and see the not so subtle bias that is evident.

38 posts in total.

9 posts are taking a shot at CJ, not constructive, just taking a shot. 2 at Chol before he even arrived at the club. 11 out of 38 and I could call it a pattern against people who aren't white. Then you've had 2 blunt comments about women commentators just for the diversity angle I'm sure

10+ are questioning others comments about the thread and defending the accused without adding anything constructive, just on the attack to defend Clarko and Co. despite what has been presented in the media and that it has gone as far as the HRC.

I'm sure you weren't aware of how you could be perceived by other posters though, although on the basis of probability that would be an interesting discussion.

 

[hawkhamlet]

People’s recollection is evidence by the way - particularly if given on oath. Cant stand this “where’s the evidence - it’s just someone’s word” stuff.

It’s a bit dumb.

I’ve run a few successful cases where someone’s recollection was a bit important and made out the case

Stop conflating “evidence” with “indisputable evidence/proof” is my tip otherwise reading this is like fingers on a Farkn blackboard

It frustrates you because you don't have the evidence. If you did have evidence, it wouldn't bother you at all that somebody asked for it.

This is why I've always wanted it to go to federal court. Get all the claims out in the open in an adversarial environment. Then we will see what's true and what isn't.

 

[hawkhamlet]

You should have a detailed look at your posting history and see the not so subtle bias that is evident.

38 posts in total.

9 posts are taking a shot at CJ, not constructive, just taking a shot. 2 at Chol before he even arrived at the club. 11 out of 38 and I could call it a pattern against people who aren't white. Then you've had 2 blunt comments about women commentators just for the diversity angle I'm sure

10+ are questioning others comments about the thread and defending the accused without adding anything constructive, just on the attack to defend Clarko and Co. despite what has been presented in the media and that it has gone as far as the HRC.

I'm sure you weren't aware of how you could be perceived by other posters though, although on the basis of probability that would be an interesting discussion.

You cannot provide evidence so you have to make me the topic. Poor form.

My biggest peeve with footballers is inconsistency. Of course you will find me criticising those two, though Chol is much better than CJ.

But if you have an issue with a post, quote it and explain your position. Did I ever criticise them because of their race? Did I ever mention anything about them aside from their playing ability?

 

[Lawsy]

You cannot provide evidence so you have to make me the topic. Poor form.

My biggest peeve with footballers is inconsistency. Of course you will find me criticising those two, though Chol is much better than CJ.

But if you have an issue with a post, quote it and explain your position. Did I ever criticise them because of their race? Did I ever mention anything about them aside from their playing ability?

Maybe you haven't noticed but you haven't criticised a single other player, but you've praised other equally inconsistent players though.

 

[Bugs1977]

It frustrates you because you don't have the evidence. If you did have evidence, it wouldn't bother you at all that somebody asked for it.

This is why I've always wanted it to go to federal court. Get all the claims out in the open in an adversarial environment. Then we will see what's true and what isn't.

Are you really simple enough to think that the federal court system will sort all this mess out? One would think that wether the allegations are true or not (I'm not taking sides here) that there's a reason why the players have taken the route they have and one would have to assume it's because they feel that any findings were going to be gaslit like others in the past.

It's important to remember that the majority of this stuff will come down to a he said she said thing so no matter how you want to sugar coat the situation there's a good chance that a federal court might not be able to prove anything BUT it doesn't mean that the accused are not guilty of doing what was alleged.

Like what has been said from the very start this thing is that no matter the outcome the Hawthorn Football Club will be the losers. This is why it going to the HRC has better chance of the right outcome than a federal court. All should talk it out and be prepared to put their hands up and accept blame / negligence if it's warranted. The HFC loses no matter what but the light at the end of the tunnel is strive towards what the Collingwood Football Club did in pushing towards putting things in place so it never happens again.

 

[hawkhamlet]

Maybe you haven't noticed but you haven't criticised a single other player, but you've praised other equally inconsistent players though.

Of course I've had issues with white players. Worpel was genuine garbage for an awfully long time. You cannot assume something just because I don't post every opinion I have to this forum.

Again, though, did I ever say anything about Chol and CJ aside from their playing ability?

These comments from you are nothing more than an attempt to change the topic because you don't have the evidence, and you know it.

 

[hawkhamlet]

Are you really simple enough to think that the federal court system will sort all this mess out? One would think that wether the allegations are true or not (I'm not taking sides here) that there's a reason why the players have taken the route they have and one would have to assume it's because they feel that any findings were going to be gaslit like others in the past.

It's important to remember that the majority of this stuff will come down to a he said she said thing so no matter how you want to sugar coat the situation there's a good chance that a federal court might not be able to prove anything BUT it doesn't mean that the accused are not guilty of doing what was alleged.

Like what has been said from the very start this thing is that no matter the outcome the Hawthorn Football Club will be the losers. This is why it going to the HRC has better chance of the right outcome than a federal court. All should talk it out and be prepared to put their hands up and accept blame / negligence if it's warranted. The HFC loses no matter what but the light at the end of the tunnel is strive towards what the Collingwood Football Club did in pushing towards putting things in place so it never happens again.

Going to a real court is absolutely the best way of finding out what happened. A goofy mediation followed by a fat payout and a generic apology for "hurt" would be despicable. Hawthorn should not pay to make this go away.

 

[Bugs1977]

Going to a real court is absolutely the best way of finding out what happened. A goofy mediation followed by a fat payout and a generic apology for "hurt" would be despicable. Hawthorn should not pay to make this go away.

Hope you're doing well Jeff. FWIW you ain't no Hamlet

 

[kazzooka]

Could it be that the HFC will be compensating the players and the AFL will be compensating the coaches for leaking the report? If not and it’s the HFC is compensating both parties then members + the fans need transparency on why this is so. If we didn’t leak the report then there needs to be answers.

I just don't see how you can offer an apology and settlement to the accusers. AND make settlement to the accused.

Either those employees are guilty of gross misconduct or they are victims of false allegations.

Either the accusers are victims of racism or have made false allegations.

Now obviously it could be that allegations are true but cannot be proved, or false and cannot be proved false. Yet HFC can not be responsible for allegations made by past players.

It's important to note also that these Allegations were made DIRECTLY to ABC and published prior to any release of parts of the Hawthorn FC report. Allegations made to Egan were passed on to AFL prior to any media reports of allegations. It was only after ABC published the allegations based on their own journalism and interviews that parts of Egans report was leaked, likely by AFL to AFL Media.

 

[Lawsy]

Of course I've had issues with white players. Worpel was genuine garbage for an awfully long time. You cannot assume something just because I don't post every opinion I have to this forum.

Again, though, did I ever say anything about Chol and CJ aside from their playing ability?

These comments from you are nothing more than an attempt to change the topic because you don't have the evidence, and you know it.

So you're saying you do criticise other players but just don't criticise them here on Big Footy?

You're big on evidence...

There is not one post from you that criticises any player except CJ and Chol which surely you can understand comes across as contrary to what you're trying say.

We've played inconsistent football since you joined yet you haven't found reason to criticise anyone except the two mentioned players.

I'll leave it there, you can see for yourself your posting history

 

[brad sue well]

Feel terrible for Clarko. Australians are indoctrinated to get their self-worth from being the great defenders of Aborigines. Whenever a situation like this happens, Australians fall over themselves to see who can be the most vicious to the alleged racist. Due process, evidence, reason—none of it matters to these great defenders.

Why saying ‘Aborigine’ isn’t OK: 8 facts about Indigenous people in Australia

Is it OK to call someone an “Aboriginal person”? And why are so many Indigenous kids in Australia – some as young as 10 – being locked up? Here is your chance to find out.

www.amnesty.org

 

[Yardie]

Going to a real court is absolutely the best way of finding out what happened. A goofy mediation followed by a fat payout and a generic apology for "hurt" would be despicable. Hawthorn should not pay to make this go away.

You may want to look into the Lehrmann case and see how that one panned out. Very grey and nuanced with a decision.

 

[threesixpio]

It frustrates you because you don't have the evidence. If you did have evidence, it wouldn't bother you at all that somebody asked for it.

This is why I've always wanted it to go to federal court. Get all the claims out in the open in an adversarial environment. Then we will see what's true and what isn't.

??

This and the next post completely ignore what I have said. Why would a random poster have evidence to give to you?

What we know about is the media’s reporting of people’s recollections which, if given on oath would be evidence…are you being deliberately obtuse ?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

are you being deliberately obtuse ?

Yes - it's the only thing that suits his prejudices and agenda.

 

[threesixpio]

Also - it is possible that people do not want to go to court because they want to work this out as amicably as they can. This is NOT a bad thing AT ALL

I am including Clarko in this. Courts are farked and a good way to end relationships for good

 

[brad sue well]

Also - it is possible that people do not want to go to court because they want to work this out as amicably as they can. This is NOT a bad thing AT ALL

I am including Clarko in this. Courts are farked and a good way to end relationships for good

It is revisiting trauma for the families and at the end of the day it isn’t good for anyone’s health.

The list of industry changes put forward by the families are entirely reasonable and putting it together shows a determination to bring lasting systemic change. I hope these are part of the non financial HRC outcomes. I guess the AFL weren’t in the room so unlikely?

What would be phenomenal is the coaches being the face of those changes. Clarkson is a capable industry shaper when motivated.

I think it is fair to say relationships are beyond repair here.

 

[hawkhamlet]

So you're saying you do criticise other players but just don't criticise them here on Big Footy?

You're big on evidence...

There is not one post from you that criticises any player except CJ and Chol which surely you can understand comes across as contrary to what you're trying say.

We've played inconsistent football since you joined yet you haven't found reason to criticise anyone except the two mentioned players.

I'll leave it there, you can see for yourself your posting history

Next time somebody asks for evidence and you don't have any, that's what you say. Say you don't have any. It's very easy to be honest. Don't engage in personal attacks.

 

[hawkhamlet]

??

This and the next post completely ignore what I have said. Why would a random poster have evidence to give to you?

What we know about is the media’s reporting of people’s recollections which, if given on oath would be evidence…are you being deliberately obtuse ?

This whole exchange began with my questioning brad sue well's vile attacks on a definitely-guilty Clarko. It sounds like you agree with me that there isn't actually any available evidence to justify that kind of stridency.

And no, a claim by the aggrieved doesn't prove anything. People lie under oath constantly. If you have any real evidence, please show it to us.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Next time somebody asks for evidence and you don't have any, that's what you say. Say you don't have any. It's very easy to be honest. Don't engage in personal attacks.

What evidence (by your definition) do you have that the events didn’t happen? Oh, that’s right, none. If accusations don’t count for you, then neither do denials. However it’s pretty clear whose side you’re on here.

 

[hawkhamlet]

I never said the accused were telling the truth. Your position is so weak you have to make this stuff up. I don't know what's true and what isn't. That's why I want it to go to court and not covered up in a settlement. I really want to know if Clarko told somebody to have an abortion.

 

[Brishawk]

Next time somebody asks for evidence and you don't have any, that's what you say. Say you don't have any. It's very easy to be honest. Don't engage in personal attacks.

If you ignore all the evidence then if course there is no evidence

Now, what do you think of golliwogs?

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

Why would they just make this up?

Apart from Rioli! The rest are not even average AFL players, looking for a pay day to set up there future! Didn’t like that they weren’t good enough to make it!

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

I never said the accused were telling the truth. Your position is so weak you have to make this stuff up. I don't know what's true and what isn't. That's why I want it to go to court and not covered up in a settlement. I really want to know if Clarko told somebody to have an abortion.

Not sure how abortion = racism! A shameful act to make that decision for another! ( regardless if it is true or not in this case )